Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Modernization of the Public [anti Survey System Committee on Integrated Land Data Mapping Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1982 ., !~`
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the Councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Insti- tute of Medicine. The members of the Committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to proce- dures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medi- cine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the au- thority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. Available from Committee on Integrated Land Data Mapping 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418
OCR for page R3
Committee on Integratec! Lanct Data Mapping Richard E. Dahlberg, Northern Illinois University, Chairman John C. Davis, Kansas Geological Survey/University of Kansas, Lawrence Angus Hamilton, University of New Brunswick, Canada Duane F. Marble, State University of New York at Buffalo Bernard J. Niemann, Jr., University of Wisconsin, Madison Alfred yang, State of South Carolina, Columbia Arthur Ziegler, State of Wisconsin, Madison Liaison Members Richard A. Berg, Defense Mapping Agency Terrence G. Cooper, Bureau of Reclamation Henry Drews, National Park Service John Gergen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Terry Gossard, Forest Service Rupert B. Southard, U.S. Geological Survey Hollis Vail, U.S. Department of the Interior Douglas J. Wilcox, Bureau of Land Management Gene Wunderlich, U.S. Department of Agriculture Staff Hyman Orlin, Executive Secretary Penelope Gibbs, Project Secretary ·.—
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources Herbert Friedman, National Academy of Sciences, Cochairman Robert M. White, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Cochairman Stanley I. Auerbach, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Elkan R. Blout, Harvard Medical School William Browder, Princeton University Bernard F. Burke, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Herman Chernoff, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Walter R. Eckelmann, Exxon Corporation, New York Joseph L. Fisher, Secretary of Human Resources, Office of the Governor, Richmond, Virginia James C. Fletcher, University of Pittsburgh William A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology Gerhart Friedlander, Brookhaven National Laboratory Edward A. Frieman, Science Applications, Inc., La Jolla, California Edward D. Goldberg, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Konrad B. Krauskopf, Stanford University Charles J. Mankin, Oklahoma Geological Survey Walter H. Munk, University of California, San Diego Norton Nelson, New York University Medical Center Daniel A. Okun, University of North Carolina George E. Pake, Xerox Research Center, Palo Alto, California David Pimentel, Cornell University Charles K. Reed, National Research Council Hatten S. Yoder, Jr., Carnegie Institution of Washington Raphael Kasper, Acting Executive Director .~ ,
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Preface The 1980 report of the Committee on Geodesy, Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre, raised many cogent questions and made numerous recommenda- tions of far-reaching consequence for the nation, for the federal government, and for state and local governments. Following that report, the Department of the Interior requested the National Academy of Sciences to provide further advice on actions to be taken by the federal government to support the devel- opment of a multipurpose cadastre. In particular, the Department of the Interior sought advice on actions needed to assure that the process of trans- forming the federal topographic, geodetic, and cadastral files from analog to digital form would result in a set of files that could be integrated readily and would be relatable spatially. Interest in the capability of spatially relating data files needed to administer federal lands and various resource programs focused attention on the present disparity in structure between the numerous families of cartographic or coordinate-based data files and the voluminous cadastral and related files that either lack a coordinate base or are based on a myriad of local reference systems. This widely recognized disparity frustrates present attempts to utilize the potential power of contemporary information technology to relate environmental, resource, and socioeconomic variables to ownership or management entities. This coordinate-noncoordinate dichot- omy of data structures was the subject of much concern in the 1980 report. It is a principal concern of this report. ·— V11 r . 1 :' I i
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 The Public Land Survey System 2.1 Early History 2.2 System of Rectangular Surveys 2.3 Recent Concerns 3 Considerations in the Development of a Digital Public Land Survey System Data Base 3.1 The National Role of the Public Land Survey System 3.2 Federal Government Activities 3.3 State, Local, and Private Activities 3.3.1 Nonfederal Government Sector 3.3.2 The Private Sector 3.4 Demand for a Digital Public Land Survey System Data Base 3.5 Accuracy Considerations 4 Technical and Economic Considerations 4.1 Acquisition of Coordinates from Data on File 4.1.1 Acquisition of Coordinates from the USGS 1:24,000 Maps 4.1.2 Compilation of Coordinates Directly from the Source Documents Used for Compiling 1:24,000 Mapping 9 11 15 19 22 22 23 25 25 26 28 28 30 33 33 34
OCR for page R10
X MODERNIZATION OF THE PUBLIC LAND SURVEY SYSTEM 4.1.3 Acquisition of Coordinates from Archival Survey Data in the Bureau of Land Management and Other Repositones 4.1.4 Summary and Critique of the Methods for Acquiring Coordinates from Data on File 4.2 Acquisition of Coordinates from Ongoing Surveys 4.2.1 Prerequisites: Primary Geodetic Control, Monumentation of Corners, and Clearing Line of Sight Mixed Technologies 4.2.3 New Technology 4.2.4 Summary and Critique 4.3 Companson of Costs and Accuracies 4.4 A Realistic Scenario and Recommendations 5 Institutional Considerations 5.1 National Data Bases 5.1.1 National Cartographic Data Base 5.1.2 Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 5.1.3 Geodetic Positions 5.2 State and Local Data Bases 5.2.1 State Attempts at Integration 5.2.2 Effects of the Modernization of the PLSS on Interface Lands and New Federal Lands 5.2.3 Wisconsin as a State Example 5.3 Private and Semipublic Data Bases 5.3.1 Private Data Bases 5.3.2 Semipublic Data Bases 5.4 Responsibility for Modernizing the Public Land Survey System 5.4.1 Federal Responsibility 5.4.2 State Responsibility 5.4.3 Local Responsibility 5.4.4 Private and Semipublic Responsibility 5.4.5 Cooperative Mechanisms 6 Conclusions Appendix A Multipurpose Cadastre and Land Information Activities Appendix B United States National Map Accuracy Standards References 34 38 38 39 39 41 42 42 43 45 46 46 47 51 52 52 56 57 60 60 61 62 62 63 63 63 63 65 68 70 71