engutf8datasetdatasetState Data AdministratorBureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Engineering and Geographic SciencesState Data Administrator208-373-40001387 S. Vinnell WayBoiseID83709USblm_id_stateoffice@blm.govpointOfContact2022-05-05ISO 19139 Geographic Information - Metadata - Implementation Specification2007geometryOnlypoint6398826EPSG9.5.1(10.8.0)BLM Idaho Right of Way Point2022-05-05publication2010 ver. 2U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)originatorBureau of Land ManagementBoise, IDpublishermapDigitalThese are Rights-of-Ways (ROW) on Idaho BLM land (and some other Federal agency land) as shown on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Master Title Plats (MTP). Every GIS ROW feature has a "CASEFILE" value, also known as the serial number of the ROW. This corresponds to the LR2000 database, which is a national BLM database for federal lands information. This GIS ROW feature class can be joined or related to exported information from LR2000 using the "CASEFILE" (GIS) and "SERIAL_NR_FULL" (LR2000) fields. NOTE: the LR2000 information is only available to internal BLM users and is not available to the public as it contains sensitive information. This ROW data for any given area may not be complete due to new ROW activity or because of missed or coincident ROW features during the initial data creation. It is recommended that a thorough inventory of all ROWs in a specific project area be obtained (an LR2000 report can provide this) and the GIS ROW data be checked before using this data for projects needing utmost ROW accuracy. The ROW data that was digitized is what was present on the MTP at the time of the digitizing done for that township. The project was performed over several years. Therefore, the "early" townships digitized are more out of date regarding ROWs compared to the ones more recently digitized. Unfortunately, there is no attribute that indicates the digitizing sequence. Any updates to this ROW feature class should be sent to the BLM Idaho State Office GIS staff for incorporation into the statewide GIS ROW feature classes for improvement over time.
For more information contact us at blm_id_stateoffice@blm.gov.This ROW data should be used as a general guide only. Uses of this data include spatial analysis, planning, and cartographic products. This data will be made available at http://insideidaho.org as BLM public data. Please note that the official and most current information about a specific right-of-way on federal land is contained in the official BLM land records-- the Master Title Plats (MTPs), Historical Indices (HIs), Land and Mineral Legacy Rehost 2000 System (LR2000), and serialized case files which are located at BLM offices and online at ftp://ftp.blm.gov/pub/ID/mtp/ and http://www.blm.gov/lr2000/index.htm Roads crossing public lands may be used, unless closed by signs or notice by the land management agency. Public domain lands surrounded by private land may not be accessible. Permission is required from private landowners to cross private land, unless access is provided by a Federal, State, or County road or a BLM road with legal access. Please note that any distances or acreages calculated in the GIS dataset may not be the same as in the official BLM records.Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office.underDevelopmentRealty SpecialistBureau of Land Management (BLM), Idaho State OfficeRealty Specialist208-373-40001387 S. Vinnell WayBoiseID83709USblm_id_stateoffice@blm.govpointOfContactcontinualIdahoplaceBLM-STATEAuthorizationManagementWithdrawalthemeBLM-THEMEBLMfederalrealtyRight of wayright-of-wayrights of waysrights-of-wayROWthemeNONEThese data are provided by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) "as is" and might contain errors or omissions. The User assumes the entire risk associated with its use of these data and bears all responsibility in determining whether these data are fit for the User's intended use. The information contained in these data is dynamic and may change over time. The data are not better than the sources from which they were derived, and both scale and accuracy may vary across the data set. These data might not have the accuracy, resolution, completeness, timeliness, or other characteristics appropriate for applications that potential users of the data may contemplate. The User is encouraged to carefully consider the content of the metadata file associated with these data. These data are neither legal documents nor land surveys, and must not be used as such. Official records may be referenced at most BLM offices. Please report any errors in the data to the BLM office from which it was obtained. The BLM should be cited as the data source in any products derived from these data. Any Users wishing to modify the data should describe the types of modifications they have performed. The User should not misrepresent the data, nor imply that changes made were approved or endorsed by BLM. This data may be updated by the BLM without notification.The BLM assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data; nor shall the act of distribution to contractors, partners, or beyond, constitute any such warranty for individual or aggregate data use with other data. Although these data have been processed successfully on computers of BLM, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by BLM regarding the use of these data on any other system, or for general or scientific purposes, nor does the fact of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty. In no event shall the BLM have any liability whatsoever for payment of any consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, any loss of profits arising out of the use or reliance on the geographic data or arising out of the delivery, installation, operation, or support by BLM.otherRestrictionsNone, these data are considered public domain.vectorengutf8boundariesEsri ArcGIS 10.4.1.5686true-117.5307424128302-110.6563731453425641.8770539492503949.039065261386256publication date2017-07-05true-117.290227-110.72847241.96127748.396422Digitizing of the ROWs as found on the MTPs was completed between the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2010. This Rights-of-Ways feature class went through the Idaho BLM Data Validation (form 1967) process and was signed by the Data Steward (N. Cooper) on June 11, 2010. Note: Subsequent review since the Data Steward sign-off in June was performed in July 2010 to fix any CASEFILE values that don't match up to corresponding LR2000 serial number values. A new Data Validation (form 9167) process was not performed at this time.Enterprise Geodatabase Feature ClassGIS SpecialistBureau of Land Management (BLM), Idaho State OfficeGIS Specialist208-373-40001387 S. Vinnell WayBoiseID83709USblm_id_stateoffice@blm.govdistributorhttps://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/pages/idahodatasetThere is no automated procedure to check the attribute accuracy of this data. Values for CASEFILE were reviewed in summer 2010 to ensure that every record in this ROW data will join to records in the LR2000 database based on serial number of the ROW. Any records that do not join to LR2000 at this time are waiting for guidance from the Lands Records Information Systems (LRIS) staff. Known issues about the attributes of this data: Until all CASEFILE values are checked against the LR2000 database serial numbers, some ROW features will not join or relate to exported LR2000 tables. Some ROWs in the BLM LR2000 system and on the MTPs have suffixes beyond the base casefile number. These suffixes track subsequent activity on the entire ROW or specific portions of the ROW. The GIS ROW features may not specify suffixes where they should and may just have the base casefile/serial number attributed.Topology rules are not created nor enforced in ArcGIS for this data. "Check Geometry" and "Repair Geometry" tools were run on this data.This data covers primarily BLM lands statewide in Idaho. This ROW data for any given area may not be complete due to new ROW activity or because of missed, often coincident, ROW features during the initial data creation. It is recommended that a thorough inventory of all ROWs in a specific project area be obtained (an LR2000 report can provide this) and the GIS ROW data be checked before using this data for projects needing utmost ROW accuracy.All ROW features found on the MTP were digitized into the ROW feature classes by either: 1.) screen-digitizing from aerial photography when the ROW could be seen on the imagery and the GIS editor was confident that it was the correct feature to capture. This results in ROW features that are more spatially accurate, but do not match the MTP ROWgeometry. Issues associated with this method are that it is hard to compare the GIS ROW data with the MTP because some ROW features may be in a different place than what is shown on the MTP, and could be mistakenly thought that they are missing from the GIS data, or; 2.) screen-digitizing from the MTP itself. This results in ROW features that are less spatially accurate, but do match the MTPs. Issues associated with this method are that the offsets used to show overlapping ROW or ROW that follow township or section lines on the MTP will be duplicated in the GIS ROW data. Also, the older ROWs on the MTP may have generalized "cartoon" geometry. Other known issues about the geometry of this data: ROW features will show a "start and stop" pattern as they skip over non-federal lands. There are few long continuous ROW features. This is not an error. Geometry digitized from aerial photography may not be coincident with other common sources of 24,000-scale data regularly used in Idaho BLM (roads, powerlines, etc.) Geometry digitized from aerial photography may not line up with ROW features on georeferenced MTPs. Geometry digitized from MTPs may not line up with reality, and may have further inaccuracies due to the cartographic offsets used when creating the MTP. No standard screen scale was used while digitizing. Some ROW may be missing because of missing them during digitizing or coincidence with other ROW features. Some geometry digitized from MTP may show the ROW as the ROW application described, which may be different than the ROW as built. It is recommended that a thorough inventory of all ROWs in a specific project area be obtained (an LR2000 report can provide this) and the GIS ROW data be checked before using this data for projects needing utmost ROW accuracy.Fall 2006 through Spring 2010 In the summer of 2006, the BLM Idaho State Office was assigned an urgent mapping project which required BLM rights-of-way (ROW) data. At the time, Idaho BLM only had ROW data exported from the National Integrated Lands System (NILS), which produced ROWs, even linear ROWs, as numerous adjacent 40 acre polygons, somewhere within which the ROW was found. It was decided to hire contractors to digitize ROW features (as point, line, and polygons) statewide, using the BLM Idaho Master Title Plats as the reference source of which ROWs to be digitized. Gateway Mapping/JUB in Utah was hired to digitize ROW for the half-degree block areas of Arco, Craters of the Moon, Circular Butte, Blackfoot, Sun Valley, and Fairfield. An individual contractor was hired to work in-house at the BLM Idaho State Office to digitize the rest of Idaho. The ROW-digitizing project generally followed these steps. There were originally 13 feature classes into which the GIS ROWs were digitized. They had different names at various times, but generally they were: General_ROW_1183 (polygons) OTHER_ROW_1183 (lines) PIPELINE_ROW_1183 (lines) POWER_ROW_1183 (lines) RAILROADS_ROW_1183 (lines) RLTY_ROW__CommSite_Pub_100k_Point (points) RLTY_ROW__CommSites_Pub_100k_Line (lines) RLTY_ROW__WATER_Pub_100k_Poly (polygons) ROADS_ROW_1183 (lines) ROADSP_ROW_1183 (polygons) ROW_GENERAL_1183 (lines) Tel_TELEG_1183 (lines) WATER_ROW_1183 (lines) These feature class "categories" (General, Other, Pipeline, Power, Railroads, Communication Sites, Water, Roads, Telephone/Telegraph) were used because these were the feature class categories extracted from NILS when we first utilized the nominally-located polygon data in the summer of 2006. Each MTP, township by township, in Idaho was looked at. When a ROW was encountered on the MTP, the GIS editors looked for the serial number of that ROW (they are labeled on the MTP) in the reference NILS extraction shapefiles and noted what NILS shapefile (road, water, power, etc.) that had the ROW. The editor then digitized the ROW into the equivalent feature class of ROW in the GIS data by either: 1.) screen-digitizing from aerial photography when the ROW could be seen on the aerial photography and the GIS specialist was confident that it was the correct feature to capture, or 2.) screen-digitizing from the georeferenced MTP itself. This results in ROW features that are less spatially accurate but do match the MTPs. Issues associated with this method are the offsets used on the MTP to show overlapping ROW will be replicated in the ROW GIS data. Plus, the older ROWs may have generalized, "cartoon" geometry. For both of these methods, there was no screen-scale standard followed. The ROW data that was digitized in is what was present on the MTP at the time of the work done on that township. The project took several years. Therefore, the "early" townships digitized are more out of date regarding ROWs as compared to the ones more recently digitized. Attributes were populated by the GIS editors, notably information about which source was used for the geometry and the linear ROW width as noted on the MTP. Also, some attributes were populated by transferring LR2000 attributes from the NILS shapefiles. In November 2008, the Gateway Mapping/JUB data and the in-house data were aggregated together, but details of the method (append or merge) are not available. Then, the in-house digitizing continued on the aggregated data, until late April 2010 when the contractor digitized the last township.2010-04-29T00:00:00M PorterBureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Engineering and Geographic SciencesGIS Specialist208-373-40001387 S. Vinnell WayBoiseID83709USblm_id_stateoffice@blm.govprocessorMay, 2010 "Check Geometry" tool was run on the original 13 feature classes into which the GIS ROWs were digitized (see previous Process Step) and many geometry errors were discovered (including null geometries). "Repair Geometry" tool was run on these feature classes. Because handling 13 separate feature classes was complicated and there was no compelling reason to store the data this way (it was simply the way the data was queried out of NILS originally), the feature classes were consolidated into three feature classes based on feature type (point, line, and polygon). Before the feature class consolidation, the "category type", which of the original 13 feature classes the ROW feature was digitized in to (road, communication site, power, railroad, etc.) was noted in the attributes in the DIG_CATGRY field. This field may not have long-term use and isn't perfect, but this information may help understand the data. A ROW is classified in the BLM lands system as one case type (road, communication site, power, etc.) under one serial number. However, there may be different "physical things" out on the ground that are part of an overall ROW serial number. For example, a powerline ROW may be both the powerline AND a road leading to the powerline, under the same serial number and case type (powerline). In this GIS data, there may be linear features representing both the powerline corridor and the road, both with the same serial number. The DIG_CATGRY field will say "road" for the road and "power" for the powerline, but both features will have the same serial number and case type (power). After consolidating to three feature classes, the core attributes were identified and a schema was created. Some field names were changed and some fields added to mirror BLM National Data Standards (for examples, the CASEFILE field originally was SERIAL_NR_, and MODIFY_DT was originally DATEMODIFI). The NILS attributes were stripped out if they will be present when join/related to exported LR2000 data. Also, four fields used solely by JUB (NOT_IN_MTP, N_MTP_NAIP, BUFFDIST, and NO_ROW_WIDTH) were stripped out because they didn't have any lasting value and were populated inconsistently. The three feature classes were loaded into these schemas. Metadata written.2010-05-28T00:00:00M PorterBLM Idaho State Office, Engineering and Geographic SciencesGIS Specialist208-373-40001387 S. Vinnell WayBoiseID83709USblm_id_stateoffice@blm.govprocessorIDAHO BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FORM ID-9167 GEOSPATIAL DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE /QUALITY CONTROL AUTHORIZATION PAGE " GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE DATASET Full name of dataset: BLM Idaho Point Rights-of-Ways, 2010 ver. 1 This verification covers data edits up to and including the following date:__June 1, 2010___ Purpose for review: To provide a new cut of the ROW data to the users. Format: shapefile and SDE feature class Corporate Drive Final Destination: ROW_PUB_24K_POINT.shp
" GIS SPECIALIST AUTHORIZATION I have reviewed this dataset, following the Geospatial Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Form ID-9167 checklist. I have documented known issues about the dataset in the checklist and in the metadata. Name (hand-written only): ________________________________________________________ Signature: _____________________________________________________________________ Title: ___GIS Specialist_______________ Date:__6/4/2010__________________ " DATA STEWARD AUTHORIZATION Data Sensitivity Assessment--these data are: _X_ Public (in addition, choose one of the following): _X_ These data are acceptable for distribution via the Internet - BLM Category 2 (At the University of Idaho GIS Data Clearinghouse http://www.insideidaho.org) __ Do NOT distribute these data via the Internet - BLM Category 1 __ Non-Public or Confidential (in addition, choose one of the following) BLM Category 3: __ All BLM employees nationally may view and use these data __ Only allow access to the following BLM employees (hand-written only): ! The Data Steward should specify the authority that makes these data non-public/confidential. (BLM Manual 1278 External Access to BLM Information, American Antiquities Act, etc.): I have reviewed this dataset with the GIS Specialist and certify that this dataset is acceptable to be used in BLM projects and decisions. See QA/QC Check List and Metadata for any assumptions, limitations or qualifications regarding this data. Name (hand-written only): ________________________________________________________ Signature: _____________________________________________________________________ Title: ____Realty Specialist____________________________ Date:_____6/11/2010_______________ 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 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: NAIP and Master Title Plats 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? __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) _X_ No Errors __ Errors (document at the end of section 2) ___ 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) ___ Unknown 2.3.4 Line dangles (undershoots/overshoots) and nodes at all intersections __ No Errors __ Errors (document at the end of section 2___ 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) ___ 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): Topology rules were NOT created on these feature classes, not even temporarily. Topology is not set up and these issues are not a concern at this time. 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? __ No __ Yes (document at the end of section 3) _X_ 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) __ No _X_ 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 the Editor pulldown in the Editor toolbar. __ 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 __ 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): There are attribute errors in the CASEFILE field. Some serial numbers in the CASEFILE field are incorrect and are going to be fixed summer 2010. 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 confidential? 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 Confidential 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): OFFICE-SPECIFIC FILING INSTRUCTIONS ( THE LOCAL GIS COORDINATOR) 5.1 _X_ This digital ID-9167 form will be saved as an MS Word document (without signatures) in the following directory: ROW_POINT_ID956_9167_20100604.docx
Use the following naming convention "[datasetname]_[orgcode]_9167_[date].docx" (e.g. "sagehab_id956_9167_20080428.docx") 5.2 The hard copy of this form will be filed by the GIS Coordinator.2010-06-04T00:00:00M PorterBLM Idaho State Office, Engineering and Geographic SciencesGIS Specialist208-373-40001387 S. Vinnell WayBoiseID83709USblm_id_stateoffice@blm.govprocessorJuly 2010 All CASEFILE values in this feature class that did not join to a LR2000 Right-of-Way record were researched and edited so that they join to the SERIAL_NR_FULL values in LR2000. Any remaining CASEFILE values that do not join are noted in the comments field and await direction from the LRIS/LR2000 staff. Features that were determined to be closed ROW or something other than ROW (for example, acquisitions or easements) were removed from this feature class.2010-07-29T00:00:00M PorterBLM Idaho State OfficeGIS Specialist208-373-40001387 S. Vinnell WayBoiseID83709USblm_id_stateoffice@blm.govprocessorNo 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.unknownLast metadata review date: 20220505