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
