Internal feature number.

ESRI

Feature geometry.

ESRI

Who administers or manages the piece of land.

BLM Idaho State Office

Acres calculated in UTM 11 NAD 1983, calculated by using the Calculate Geometry tool in the attribute table.

Column Name and Format; BLM Idaho GIS Staff.

The GCDB Coverage Format is the BLM standard for GCDB GIS coverages.  The format was developed and is maintained by technical specialists representing the BLM Cadastral Program.

publication date

The Idaho Department of Lands provides us with their land status on GCDB bases. The townships from IDL are reprojected from IDTM into proper UTM zone and the missing features that define State land status are added to the BLM land status.

publication date

Digital Line Graphics (DLGs) are a USGS product from which some features are copied if land status follows a feature that is not part of the GCDB data.

publication date

Missing features that define ownership may be screen digitized from Digital Raster Graphics (DRGs) or Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads (DOQQs).

publication date

This is another source for missing features missing in the GCDB data.

publication date

Another source for features defining land status that are missing in GCDB data. Where the Idaho Resource Base Data has been completed, there may be land status that was digitized as part of the 'own' layer.

publication date

Protracted diagrams not yet in GCDB may exist as .dxf files in Cadastal Survey.  If they do they can be converted into coverages and used to fill gaps in the GCDB data.  Bearing and distance .dxf files for small surveyed parcels that are not yet part of GCDB, are used to add missing arcs that define land status.

publication date

COGO can be used to add arcs missing from the GCDB data that define land status.

publication date

Data received in the spring of 2008 to assist in identifying lands that are "owned" by BOR but are managed by BOR or another agency.

The Master Title Plat (MTP) staff are now performing all their MTP edits using Autocad. DWG files from the MTP process are sometimes used to define the geometry of a SMA parcel.

publication date

Summer 1999 through Fall 2007---

For the GCDB-based land ownership, the process begins by creating the GCDB coverages township by township. The townships are converted from the Idaho GCDB ASCII data into ARC/INFO coverages. The GCDB2ARC aml written originally by J.R. of the BLM in Denver, was altered to meet our needs and is the tool used to initially convert GCDB files to Arc coverages.

The townships are edgefit. Any reported error that is greater than .1 meters is checked and is taken to the GCDB staff. They examine the error and either fix it and advise the Geographic Sciences staff to run the township again or explain the correct spatial relationship to fix the features involved in the error.  Any edits to the GCDB data made by the Geographic Sciences staff (snapping one node to another node in ArcEdit) is done following directions of the GCDB staff.

Where GCDB features are not available, Idaho BLM "Resource Base Data", DLGs, or CFFs (in that order), are used to fill in existing gaps.  Lines that define changes in land status (i.e. sub-forty, patented mining claim boundary, or newer surveyed polygons that have not been captured in GCDB), are added.

1. Sub-forty acre ownership polygons:  If the polygon is regularly-shaped and can be derived by splitting down a 'forty' into halves or quarters or smaller, then this process is used to create the land status missing arc.
2.  Irregular - shaped ownership polygons:  There are several methods for adding these missing arcs.  There is a preferred order of sources to capture these lines.  (1) If the polygon is managed by a state agency or another federal agency and they have the arcs in a coverage, the arcs are copied from the managing agency's coverage.  (2) BLM Resource Base Data or DLGs are the second preferred source of missing arcs.  If the PLSS is missing from the GCDB data it can be added from BLM Resource Base Data or DLGs.  If the own layer exists in the BLM Resource Base Data for the area being worked on, arcs can be copied from this data.  BLM Resource Base Data or DLGs can be use to add missing land status arcs that follow a feature such as a stream, road, railroad, or other feature that may be on an existing digital layer.  (3) CFFs are a source of missing PLSS townships that do not exist in GCDB data, in BLM Resource Base Data, or as DLGs.   (4) DRGs and  DOQQs are sources that can be used as a backdrop to screen-digitize features that form land status boundaries.  (5) Protracted diagrams that are not yet in GCDB may be available from the BLM Cadastral Staff as .dxf files.  (6)) Metes and bounds .dxf files defining land status of surveys not yet included in the GCDB data can be generated, converted to ARC, and copied into the coverage.  (7) COGO the surveyed polygon into ARC/INFO from the survey bearings and distances using the ARC/INFO COGO module.

Once the missing arcs are added  the ownership is attributed.  This township data is assembled into 100k map areas and is served to the user digitally in clipped one-degree blocks.

The contact phone number can provide a contact for this data.

2006-2007---
The one-degree block coverages were appended together and loaded into a feature dataset into Informix SDE in the Idaho BLM Idaho State Office. Three products were created from the master GCDB-based PLSS and Land Status: the Land Status shapefile, the Township/Range shapefile, and the Section shapefile.

November-December 2007---
The master GCDB-based PLSS/Land Status data was exported from the Informix SDE into a file geodatabase. Topology errors of gaps and overlaps were fixed. Some known edits were made to the owner_type. It was determined by BLM ISO staff that several fields were not needed anymore and were removed. These fields are LAT, LONG, ACREAGE_LEGAL. One field called CREATE_DATE was made and the contents of the OWNER_DATE field were copied into it and OWNER_DATE field was deleted. A new dissolve was performed on the OWNER_TYPE field which resulted in this specific dataset.

February 1- April 16, 2008

The following edits were made to the master SMA data during this timeframe:
1. New Nevada BLM SMA was added to the data. A small gap existed between the Nevada data and the Idaho data, and the Nevada data was snapped to the Idaho data.

2. New Idaho Department of Lands data was recieved in January 2008. A basic analysis was performed against the latest Idaho BLM SMA STATE lands vs. the newly-received IDL state lands. Where there were new parcels of state lands the features were cut into the BLM SMA data and attributed with the appropriate state agency. Where there formerly was state lands and the IDL data does not have state any more, the state features were removed from the BLM SMA data and by default turned into PRIVATE, unless there was information available as to where the land went if another goverment agency. Where a state addition or "removal" involved BLM land, the situation was confirmed in BLM LR2000 before any edits were performed. The IDL website http://gis1.idl.idaho.gov/website/pdlr/ was used heavily as the state lands update was performed.

3. IR lands from the Kootenai Indian Reservation were added in northern Idaho. This data was recieved from the BLM Couer d'Alene Field Office.

4. In February, a shapefile containing Bureau of Reclamation lands was acquired by BLM Idaho State Office from the BLM Burley FO. This BOR data was compared to the BLM SMA data and the SMA was edited accordingly, using the "managing agency" attribute in the BOR data as the source for OWNER_TYPE. (There are a lot of BOR lands that are managed by another agency.) At the time of this April cut of data, ONLY THE UPPER SNAKE FIELD OFFICE in the Idaho Falls District was completed. Future cuts of the SMA will have more BOR edits in the rest of the state.

5. A variety of edits were made to the SMA as errors were reported to the BLM ISO by the BLM staff using the data. There were many changes in the Cottonwood Field Office, including land edits affecting IR. Also, many edits were made in the Upper Snake Field Office. Please see the master folder of edits in the BLM Idaho State Office Geographic Sciences for details.

6. Some very small "islands" of single polys, with an owner_type different from the surrounding owner_types, less than 0.03 acres were edited. These "corner-slivers" are in the data when arcs were pasted into the arc coverages and very tiny polygons are created that were not caught by the naked eye during editing and the owner_type is different from its surrounding polygons. Not all of these tiny corner-slivers have been edited out, it will be a long process over time.

7. Topology was run to find any overlap and gap errors, and check geometry was run on the master SMA feature class. Two null polys with no geometry were deleted, check geometry was run again and came back clean.

8. Attribute checks, including some frequency reports, was run everything seems clean.

9. The dissolve based on the "owner_type" field was run. A "gis_acres" field was added to the resulting feature class and acreage was calculated using the BLM Idaho standard.

M.P., 4/16/08

May - July 18, 2008

1. Edits were resumed to update the lands "owned" by the Bureau of Reclamation but is managed by them or another government agency. These edits were made in the eastern side of the state. See previous process step for the history.

2. A variety of edits were made to the SMA throughout the state. These were mistakes reported to us, and new cases that affected surface management agency.

MP
7/21/08

December 2008 - January 6, 2009

All edits made to the master SMA feature class were made in the SDE database. Edits performed during this period were:

1. New Idaho Department of Lands data was received on December 8, 2008. Basic analyses were performed between this newly-received IDL data and the previously-received IDL data to determine "new" State polygons, "no longer" State polygons, and State polygons that changed management between State agencies. The SMA master data was edited to reflect these State changes. There were many changes due to the recent "Boise Foothills/Northern Idaho Land Exchange" between State and Federal agencies.

2. Many new changes, and discovered errors, had been reported to the Idaho State Office by the BLM Field Office staff and these changes were made statewide.

3. At the direction of the BLM ISO Realty Specialists, efforts have begun to code BLM parcels that are LWCF Conservation Easements as Private. Not all of the Conservations Easements statewide have been coded to Private yet, but so far the CE parcels in the Idaho Falls District have been changed to Private for SMA purposes.

4. Topology validation was run to find any overlap and gap errors, and errors were fixed using the topology edit tools.

5. Attribute checks, including some frequency reports, was run everything seems clean.

6. The dissolve based on the "owner_type" field was run. A "gis_acres" field was added to the resulting feature class and acreage was calculated using the BLM Idaho standard.

Copies of Deeds, Acqusitions, emails, and other submitted visuals of all changes made in Dec. '08 and Jan. '09 are all filed in the BLM Idaho State Office GIS department.

May - August, 2009

All edits made to the master SMA feature class were made in a file geodatabase rather than SDE. Edits performed during this period were:

1. New Idaho Department of Lands data was received in May, 2009. However, not all of the State data was analysed against the SMA dataset this time around. So there may be changes in the State data that are not reflected in this cut of the SMA data.

2. Many new changes, and discovered errors, had been reported to the Idaho State Office by other BLM and county staff and these changes were made all over the state.

3. At the direction of the BLM ISO Realty Specialists, efforts have begun to strictly follow the Master Title Plats and LR2000 database when attributing the management agency attributes. Other federal agency GIS data will no longer be inserted into this SMA unless the MTPs reflect that land being that agency's land. Some areas in the data have been edited to reflect this new rule and will continue to be edited this way. Also, areas shown as water on the Master Title Plats will be given a new code "HSTRCWTR" to indicate surveyed water areas. These changes will continue to be edited into the SMA for the whole state, but it will take a long time. 

4. Topology validation was not run for this cut of the SMA data.

5. Attribute checks were performed to ensure that there are no blank or invalid mgmt_agency values.

6. The dissolve based on the "mgmt_agency" field was run. A "gis_acres_u11" field was added to the resulting feature class and acreage was calculated using the calculate geometry tool and a UTM 11 NAD 1983 data frame.

Copies of Deeds, emails, and other submitted visuals of changes made in are all filed in the BLM Idaho State Office GIS department.

August 20, 2009

IDAHO BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FORM ID-9167
GEOSPATIAL DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE /QUALITY CONTROL 
AUTHORIZATION PAGE 

DATA VALIDATION DETAILS
Because the ID-9167 form needs to stay digital and ultimately copied into metadata, the checklist selections should be made by typing an 'x' in the space provided to indicate selection (i.e. "_x_") and comments should be typed directly into the document.

1.	DATA STANDARD ASSESSMENT
Determine if the dataset should follow an existing current Data Standard. If there is one, then all the following checks must be done in the context of the Data Standard (e.g. fields, attributes, etc.).
For more information, discuss with the State Office GIS Data Standard lead, refer to Q:\pub\gis\miscsupport\Standards\Idaho_BLM\Current\Resourcedata (for Idaho BLM standards), or to http://web.blm.gov/data_mgt/standards/index.htm (for National BLM standards).
1.1.	 Is there a Data Standard
__ Yes - Specify which Data Standard it is (i.e. Idaho BLM, National BLM, Interagency, DOI, etc.):
__ The dataset conforms to the Data Standard
__ The dataset does NOT conform to the Data Standard (document this below)
 _X_ No, there is no Data Standard
__ Unknown
Remarks related to Section 1, Data Standard Assessment (type in here):
SPATIAL ACCURACY ASSESSMENT
1.2.	Coordinate System (projection, datum, units, etc.)
_X_ No Errors, the coordinate system is present and defined according to current standards
__ Errors (document at the end of section 2)
1.3.	Overlay and visually inspect the dataset with another reference dataset of known spatial accuracy (such as NAIP, DRG, GCDB, GPS data, etc.).
1.3.1.	Specify the reference dataset used here: GCDB
2.2.2	Are all expected features present (e.g. is the data set complete)? 
_X_Yes		 __No (document at the end of section 2) 	___Unknown
2.2.3 	Does the feature geometry match similar geometry in the reference dataset (e.g. no datum problems, not shifted or skewed)?
	_X_ Yes		__No (document at the end of section 2)  	___ Unknown
2.2.4	Do all features fall within the expected area of interest (e.g. no outliers way off  in another state, no 0, 0 coordinates, etc.)?
	_X_Yes		 __No (document at the end of section 2) 	___ Unknown
2.2.5 	Do slivers exist for polygon data? 
	_X_No		 __Yes (document at the end of section 2) 	___ Unknown
2.3	Check topological relationships. (All issues with topology should be documented in the Logical Consistency report part of the Metadata). 
For geodatabase feature classes or shapefiles:
2.3.1	Run the Check Geometry tool in ArcToolbox, fixing errors where possible. (Make a backup before using the Repair Geometry tool and verify changes occur as you would expect them in the target data. Check Geometry is not available for SDE)
__ No Errors	__ Errors (document at the end of section 2) __X_ Unknown
2.3.2	Explode multi-part features into single-part features unless there are reasons to maintain them (polygons are the usual concern).
	_X_Done	__Not Done (document at the end of section 2)	 ___Unknown 
For geodatabase feature classes, validate any Topology feature classes that are currently set up for the dataset. If no Topology feature classes exist, temporary ones should be created to check for the following conditions.
2.3.3	Polygon gaps or overlaps
__ No Errors	 __ Errors (document at the end of section 2) _X__ Unknown
2.3.4	Line dangles (undershoots/overshoots) and nodes at all intersections	
__ No Errors	__ Errors (document at the end of section 2_X__ Unknown
2.3.5	Coincident relationships are maintained within the feature dataset, if applicable (i.e. line feature class is coincident with boundaries of polygon feature class).

__ No Errors	__ Errors (document at the end of section 2) _X__ Unknown
For ARC/INFO Coverages:
2.3.6	Use the DESCRIBE, INTERSECTERR, NODEERRORS, and LABELERRORS commands to evaluate arc intersections and identify node and label errors.

__ No Errors	__ Errors (document at the end of section 2) ___ Unknown
2.3.7	Check for interior (doughnut) polygons and label as exceptions with a proper attribute phrase (i.e. OUT, N/A, etc.)

__ No Errors	__ Errors (document at the end of section 2) ___ Unknown
Remarks related to Section 2, Spatial Accuracy Assessment (type in here):
 
ATTRIBUTE ACCURACY ASSESSMENT
ATTRIBUTE VALUE CHECKS:  Use frequency tools on the attribute table, or sort fields as needed, to answer the following questions.
3.1	Are the field length and data type appropriate for the expected range of values?
 (see standards for modifications)

_X_Yes    __ No (document at the end of section 3)   	__Unknown 
3.2	Are there spelling errors?
_X_ No	__ Yes (document at the end of section 3) __ Unknown
3.3	Is there consistent and correct case usage (capitalization)?
_X_ Yes	__ No (document at the end of section 3) ___ Unknown
3.4		Are there any missing, incomplete, or invalid values ? 
(Verify that domains and subtypes are current and complete according to standards)
_X_ No	__ Yes (document in metadata) ___ Unknown
	If yes, populate these attributes with an appropriate and consistent value such as NULL, OUT, or N/A to confirm that these values weren't forgotten. Be sure to refer to any current Data Standard for the correct phrase to use.
3.5		If subtypes and domains exist, validate attribute values using the Validate Features Tool under Editing options.
__ No Errors	__ Errors (document in metadata) 	__Unknown
3.6		Are there any duplicate user-defined Unique IDs? 
__ No	__ Yes (document in metadata) ___ Unknown
3.7	Recalculate any fields that are affected by geometry edits or are dependent on other fields, such as acres, miles or other geometry dependant values (be sure to use Idaho BLM standards, if applicable).

	Done _X_	Not Done__

3.8	Recalculate any fields that should be updated based on relationships, dependencies, or concatenations with other fields.

__ Done	__ Not done (document this in metadata)
Remarks related to Section 3, Attribute Accuracy Assessment (type in here):
 
METADATA REQUIREMENTS
4.1	Ensure that metadata exists and is updated in ArcCatalog.
Done _X_	Not Done__ 
(Use the "Create/Update metadata" button for the dataset in ArcCatalog to ensure an FGDC-compliant structure and update the file associated with the dataset . 
4.2	Metadata has a current thumbnail snapshot of the data
Done _X_	Not Done__
4.3	Abstract:	A basic overview and summary of the dataset.
	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.4	Purpose:	The intended use of the dataset.
Done _X_	Not Done__
4.5	Supplemental Information: 	Use this area to identify: Data Steward endorsement, 	including the title of the Data Steward (i.e. Wildlife Biologist) and the date that ID-9167 	form was signed. (This is added to the Supplemental Information after the ID-9167 form 	is signed.)

Done _X_ 	Not Done__
Identify Major issues:	Information about the data that the user needs to know immediately. This can include but isn't limited to any restrictions, problems, assumptions, incompleteness, time sensitivity, etc.

	Done _X_	Not Done__ 
4.6	Access Constraints:	 Is this dataset public or sensitive? Include specific legal 	restrictions for accessing the data and proper disclaimers. Refer to the Data Sensitivity 	Assessment portion of the ID-9167 Authorization Page. (This is updated after the ID-	9167 form is signed.)

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.7	Use Constraints:	Include the recommended scale of use, the Idaho BLM standard 		disclaimer, and any additional restrictions of using the data once access is granted (refer 	to the Data Sensitivity Assessment portion of the ID-9167 Authorization Page). 	Recommended scale of use is equivalent to the worst (smallest) source scale. However, in 
        some cases the recommended scale of use could be smaller than the source scale. 

The following Idaho BLM standard disclaimer statement(s) is applied to BLM data, as appropriate, depending on the BLM Records Access Category and the data verification status for the data involved:

For Public records (external distribution) and those discretionary/enhanced records (electronic products available for online viewing and/or hardcopy output available to the public) the following disclaimer should be used: 

"No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management. The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data is not guaranteed." 

For Internal or Sensitive records, only accessible by internal staff or for review or display with no intended distribution, or containing unverified data use: 

"For internal use only. Review and/or display copy - not for distribution. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. [Date]"

	Done _X_	Not Done__ 
4.8	Contact Information:	Data Steward position /title, work address, and work phone 	number. Do NOT include the Data Steward's first or last name.

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.9	Citation Title. Write a title to describe the data, and refrain 	from using the filename, abbreviations, etc.  Include the relative scale if known and geographic extent of the data (e.g. "statewide", "Shoshone Field Office", "Boise District").

	Done _X_	Not Done__  
4.10	Linkage. If the data is going to be distributed to the public via the internet at Inside Idaho, 	type in http://www.insideidaho.org. Otherwise, type "None."

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.11	Time Period. Fill in Currentness Reference and Calendar Date.
	Done _X_	Not Done__ 
4.12	Status. Fill in Progress and Update Frequency.
	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.13	Logical Consistency Report:	Explain the basic topology rules that were enforced on this 	dataset in the Spatial Accuracy portion of this checklist, and any other methods used to 	determine the logical consistency.

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.14	Positional/Horizontal Accuracy Report:	Summarize the process used in the Spatial 	Accuracy portion of this checklist, or any other methods used to determine the horizontal 	accuracy. Please note that the accuracies in feet for GPS data from software that 	automatically provides these values (such as Pathfinder Office) should be at the two-	degree root mean square error (2DRMS), which is at the 95% confidence level.

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.15	Process Step:	There should be a process step added any time editing is done to the 	dataset. Be detailed and specific about the edits made. Be sure to indicate Process Contact 	information using position titles of the editors (not their names). Also include as a 	Process Step the digital text from this entire ID-9167 form.

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.16	Spatial Reference:	Confirm that the current coordinate system of the dataset is filled 	out here. This will self-populate after clicking the "Create/Update metadata" button.

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.17	Entity Attribute. Make sure that every field and coded value used in the attribute table is 	defined or attached in the metadata.

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.18	Distribution Liability. Reiterate any Use Constraints and sensitivity restrictions for this 	dataset.

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.19	Metadata Reference. Make sure that dates and contacts (using just position titles) are 	complete and current.

	Done _X_	Not Done__
4.20	Copy the entire digital text of this completed ID-9167 form and paste it into a new 	Process Step in the metadata.
	Done _X_	Not Done__
     4.21 Fill in any last details in the metadata, such as stating in the Supplemental Information 					the date on which the Data Steward approved this edition of the dataset and updating the 					Access and Use Constraints based on the Sensitivity Assessment deemed by the Data 					Steward.
	Done _X_	Not Done__
Remarks related to Section 4, Metadata Requirements (type in here):

Dataset moved.