BLM Natl MLRS Locatable Plans of Operations

<div style='text-align:Left; font-size:12pt;'><div><div><p><span>This dataset contains plans of operations for locatable mineral cases derived from Legal Land Descriptions (LLD) contained in the US Bureau of Land Management's, BLM, Mineral and Land Record System(MLRS) and geocoded (mapped) using the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) derived from the most accurate survey data available through BLM Cadastral Survey workforce. Geospatial representations might be missing for some cases that can not be geocoded using the MLRS algorithm. Locatable minerals include all minerals locatable under the 1872 General Mining Law. This data set contains cases for locatable minerals under plan level operations with the case disposition of 'Authorized' or 'Pending'.</span></p><p style='margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1.5rem; font-family:&quot;Avenir Next W01&quot;, &quot;Avenir Next W00&quot;, &quot;Avenir Next&quot;, Avenir, &quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;, sans-serif;'><span style='font-family:inherit;'>Each case is given a data quality score based on how well it mapped.  These can be lumped into seven groups to provide a simplified way to understand the scores.</span></p><p style='margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; font-family:&quot;Avenir Next W01&quot;, &quot;Avenir Next W00&quot;, &quot;Avenir Next&quot;, Avenir, &quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;, sans-serif;'></p><ul><li><span style='font-family:inherit; font-size:16px;'>Group 1: Direct PLSS Match. Scores “0”, “1”, “2”, “3” should all have a match to the PLSS data. There are slight differences, but the primary expectation is that these match the PLSS. </span></li><li><span style='font-family:inherit; font-size:16px;'>Group 2: Calculated PLSS Match. Scores “4”, “4.1”, “5”, “6”, “7” and “8” were generated through a process of creating the geometry that is not a direct capture from the PLSS. They represent a best guess based on the underlining PLSS </span></li><li><span style='font-family:inherit; font-size:16px;'>Group 3 – Mapped to Section. Score of “8.1”, “8.2”, “8.3”, “9” and “10” are mapped to the Section for various reasons (refer to log information in data quality field). </span></li><li><span style='font-family:inherit; font-size:16px;'>Group 4- Combination of mapped and unmapped areas. Score of 15 represents a case that has some portions that would map and others that do not. </span></li><li><span style='font-family:inherit; font-size:16px;'>Group 5 – No NLSDB Geometry, Only Attributes. Scores “11”, “12”, “20”, “21” and “22” do not have a match to the PLSS and no geometry is in the NLSDB, and only attributes exist in the data. </span></li><li><span style='font-family:inherit; font-size:16px;'>Group 6 – Mapped to County. Scores of “25” map to the County.</span></li><li><span style='font-family:inherit; font-size:16px;'>Group 7 – Improved Geometry. Scores of “100” are cases that have had their geometry edited by BLM staff using ArcGIS Pro or MLRS bulk upload tool.</span></li></ul></div></div></div>

Tags: alabama, alaska, arizona, arkansas, authorization, boundaries, california, colorado, connecticut, delaware, district-of-columbia, eastern-states, energy, florida, free-use, geology, georgia, geoscientificinformation, geospatial, idaho, illinois, indiana, iowa, kansas, kentucky, land-grid, louisiana, maine, management, maryland, massachusetts, michigan, mining, minnesota, mississippi, missouri, montana, nebraska, nevada, new-hampshire, new-jersey, new-mexico, new-york, north-carolina, north-dakota, ohio, oklahoma, oregon, pennsylvania, permit, planningcadastre, plss, public-land-survey-system, rhode-island, sales, section, south-carolina, south-dakota, tennessee, texas, township, utah, vermont, virginia, washington, west-virginia, wisconsin, wyoming
Organization: Department of the Interior