|Originator||Minnesota Land Management Information Center (LMIC), now MnGeo|
|Title||Reports of Estimates and Appraisals of the Timber Commissioners Board, 1895-1905: Vector Format|
|Abstract||This data set was created from surveys of state-owned timber conducted by the Minnesota Board of Timber Commissioners between 1895-1905. The surveys were conducted for a number of public land survey sections scattered throughout the forested northern half of Minnesota, mostly comprising school, indemnity school and swamp lands.
The paper records consist of approximately 2,500 pages, with plat maps and assessments indicating the extent, value and condition of timber resources for each section. Each page has a map of one PLS section accompanied by text answers to 13 standard questions about timber species, product volumes, access and susceptibility to fire. The surveyors were instructed to trace swamps, roads and lakes on the section map; occasionally, they also made supplemental text notes directly on the maps. In addition to information about tree species and volume, the surveyors often noted the location of cultural features such as sawmills. Some sections were resurveyed several times as different tree species became commercially important or as surveyors needed to assess damage from natural or human causes. The amount of detail and completeness varies from survey to survey since they were conducted by a number of people over a period of time. In addition, the resurveys often noted only what had changed and thus did not include a map or complete answers to the 13 questions.
The information on the paper records has been captured in several digital formats: 1. non-georeferenced scans; 2. geo-referenced scans; 3. vector files of the polygons, lines and points on the maps; and 4. a database of the text information accompanying the maps. This metadata record applies to the vector format.
|Purpose||Purpose of the Original Surveys:
The original paper surveys were undertaken to provide the Board of Timber Commissioners with information it needed to manage timber on state lands. The Board was created by the Minnesota state legislature in 1895 and was composed of the governor, the state auditor and state treasurer. Its overall charge was the care, conservation and sale of state timber. Most of this timber was situated on school, indemnity school and swamp lands. It accomplished these functions by issuing permits to cut timber on state lands, receiving settlements for other types of authorized timber cutting, determining and penalizing instances of illegal cutting (timber trespass), and coordinating with the Surveyor General of Logs and Lumber to appraise the logs actually harvested. The law required a current (within three years) estimate and appraisal of timber prior to the issuance of a cutting permit and specified the information that was to be recorded. Timber estimators were to personally enter their reports of these examinations into a book kept by the land commissioner, to be known as the record of appraisals and to constitute 'the original record of such examinations, estimates and appraisals.'
These paper records reflect the difficulties government faced in the oversight of disparate and scattered parcels of land, as well as the haphazard nature of 19th century record keeping. Within that context, the Reports of Estimates and Appraisals of the Timber Commissioners Board represent the most coherent, accurate and broadest data set available. As such, they can serve as a benchmark against which to measure other collections. Ideally, as other data sets are identified and digitized, they can together establish a critical mass of information that will allow the comparative analysis of the environment in Minnesota across time, from the 1850s to the present.
Purpose of the Digital Data
The digital data sets were created in several formats in order to make the paper information accessible to a wide range of applications. The original non-georeferenced scans are available as records of exactly what the surveyor recorded and for use as illustration. The georeferenced scans can also be used as illustration or as a backdrop to other georeferenced data. The vector and database information can be used in geographic information systems, and the database information can also be analyzed with database or spreadsheet software.
Historical timber information can be used to build an understanding of presettlement vegetation. The volumes of forest products, i.e., board feet, logs, post and ties, can provide valuable quantitative information. When this data is used with other sources, such as bearing trees, a picture of the landscape can emerge. In addition, this data provides information on infrastructure features such as houses, saw mills and roads.
|Time Period of Content Date||1900|
|Currentness Reference||1895 - 1905|
|Maintenance and Update Frequency||Corrections made as needed. Revised files will be posted for free download at: ftp://ftp.lmic.state.mn.us/pub/data/phys_biol/landuse/mhs_timber/|
|Spatial Extent of Data||The NE forested area of MN. Counties containing at least one surveyed section: Aitkin, Becker, Beltrami, Carlton, Cass, Clearwater, Cook, Crow Wing, Hubbard, Itasca, Kanabec, Koochiching, Lake, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Pine, St. Louis, Todd and Wadena.|
|Place Keywords||Minnesota, Aitkin, Becker, Beltrami, Carlton, Cass, Clearwater, Cook, Crow Wing, Hubbard, Itasca, Kanabec, Koochiching, Lake, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Pine, St. Louis, Todd, Wadena.|
|Theme Keywords||biota, Timber, Timberland, Lumber, Logs, Forest, Trees, Presettlement Vegetation, Historical Vegetation, Land Cover|
|Theme Keyword Thesaurus||ISO 19115 Topic Category|
|Use Constraints||Redistribution Conditions: In obtaining this data, it is understood that you and/or your organization have the right to use it for any purpose. If you modify it, you are encouraged to apply responsible best practices by documenting those changes in a metadata record. If you transmit or provide the data to another user, it is your responsibility to provide appropriate content, limitation, warranty and liability information as you see fit.|
|Contact Person Information||Norman Anderson,
Sr. Analyst - GIS Project Services|
Minnesota Geospatial Information Office
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
|Browse Graphic||Click to view a data sample|
|Associated Data Sets||1. The original scanned images of the timber records: www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/metadata/tmbr_img.html and a database of the information from the timber record: www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/metadata/tmbr_db.html
2. The original paper records of the timber surveys are held at the State Archives Department, Minnesota Historical Society.
Minnesota Board of Timber Commissioners. Reports of Estimates and Appraisals, 1895-1905. Minnesota Historical Society. State Archives Microfilm 271.
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd. W
St. Paul, MN 55102
3. Control Point Generated PLS: The Dept. of Natural Resources' 1:24,000-scale public land survey layer detailed to the quarter-quarter PLS section and government lot level. See deli.dnr.state.mn.us/metadata/pls_fortypy3.html
4. Bearing Trees: a point database showing bearing trees used as references or landmarks during the original Minnesota Public Land Survey. See deli.dnr.state.mn.us/metadata/pveg_btreept3.html
5. Presettlement Vegetation of Minnesota: a data set based on Marschner's original analysis of Public Land Survey notes and landscape patterns. See deli.dnr.state.mn.us/metadata/pveg_mrschpy1.html
|Section 2||Data Quality|
|Attribute Accuracy||All vector files were printed with the DNR Control Point PLS and the georeferenced clipped image to catch coding errors. Corrections were made on the original inch version which was then reprojected to fit the DNR PLS data. Another checkplot was created and reviewed to make sure the changes had been done correctly.
Features were coded by a menu system to ensure consistency. A free text field was used to cover any feature that could not be accounted for in the coding scheme.
- The surveyors did not use symbology consistently to identify features. A single surveyor might even have changed his symbology through time. This caused many problems in the coding process.
- There was difficulty in identifying the difference between 'Upland' and 'Undefined'. In many cases, the surveyor reviewed only the quarter-quarter section that he was required to survey. In other cases, it was clear that the surveyor reviewed the entire section by identifying lowland, lakes and rivers. A significant number of the maps were somewhere in between and the surveyor's intent was not clear.
- LMIC staff made a determined effort to be consistent in identifying features. Given the number of people working on the project and the difficulty in determining the intent of the surveyor, the desired level of consistency was lower than initially desired. See the above problems.
Note: The CD set should contain the tools necessary to help anyone make their own comparisons and definitions. The vector data can be compared to the scanned images and database.
|Logical Consistency||Data have been topologically structured and verified.
Information was digitized outside the section in the inch version of the data. The original purpose of this was to ensure that the information could be clipped to the DNR PLS. This was done to all polygons where it was possible. It soon became apparent that line data should not be clipped to PLS since features such as roads which run along section boundaries could be lost, especially along meandered boundaries such as lakes.
|Completeness||About half the images did not contain point, line or polygon data. Usually these were resurveys done when property conditions changed, for example, due to fire or logging; some sections were surveyed up to five times in the time period of the report. Re-surveys generally only noted what had changed and typically contained text information written in the map area, such as timber product volumes or land ownership, as well as varying amounts of text information from questions 1 - 13 on the report form.|
|Horizontal Positional Accuracy||1. The check print used to proof the vector data [caught positional errors with comparison to the DNR Control Point PLS data printed in the background?]
2. A 1% [5%?] random sample of georeferenced files, which included some of the vector data, were checked to verify that the clipped image fit within the DNR Control Point PLS data. [on-screen or paper checkplot?] [Does this apply to the vector files? I don't think so...]
Some positional error may have been introduced during the onscreen registration and rectification process (see Lineage). Due to PLS surveying irregularities, such as extended lot lines, it was sometimes difficult to determine which reference point to use in the process of rectification. In addition, the task was repetitive and thus the accuracy of clicking on the control points likely varied. Checks #1 and #2 above caught [some? most?] of this error.
|Vertical Positional Accuracy||Not applicable|
|Lineage||The Timberland Survey Records data set was developed at the Land Management Information Center (LMIC) (now the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office or MnGeo) for the Minnesota Historical Society. Funding was provided by the Minnesota Future Resources Fund as recommended by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources.
LMIC used the following procedure:
1. Scanned the original pages at 800 pixels per inch (ppi). The scanning was done by Perfect Image of Kirkland, WA. See the image metadata for the detailed steps: www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/metadata/tmbr_img.html Approximately half of the pages had maps that contained polygons, lines and/or points; the majority of the remaining pages had only text written in the map area. The few remaining pages had nothing in the map area. The pages without polygons, lines or points were generally resurveys of sections that had previously been mapped.
2. Digitized and coded the features of the section map with the original scanned image in the background, i.e., 'heads up' digitizing. The tolerance and coding were controlled by ESRI's Arc Macro Language (AML) and Menus. Arcs were snapped within .01 inches and nodes snapped within .05 inches. All tolerances are in fractions of an inch because the original images are 12 inches x 18 inches with the lower left being 0,0.
3. The inch version of the point, line and polygon coverages then was plotted to the screen with the image in the background for a quick on-screen check. This completed the inch version of the data.
4. The Arc/Info coverages based on the scanned image were then projected to match the DNR PLS data using the command TRANSFORM. Section corner tics were added and snapped to the DNR PLS to assist in this process.
5. The transformed coverages were then printed out along with the DNR PLS and georeferenced section image. Any positional or coding errors found were then corrected in the inch coverage and re-processed.
|Section 3||Spatial Data Organization (not used in this metadata)|
|Section 4||Coordinate System|
|Horizontal Coordinate Scheme||Universal Transverse Mercator|
|UTM Zone Number||15E|
|Overview||1. CODE - a four digit number composed of three parts:
GENE (G) - first digit - general cover
SPEC (S) - middle two digits - specific cover type
COND (C) - last digit - conditional statement
See below for full description.
2. TYPE - the text name of the specific code, e.g., 'Aspen'; if the surveyor did not use a specific code, then TYPE is the text name of the general code, e.g., 'Lowland.'
3. DESC - free form text populated with any text on map relating to this field. It also was used when a feature was unique and did not have a matching specific code.
General Code (G):
1 - Lowland
2 - Upland
3 - Infrastructure
4 - Hydrography
5 - Political
9 - Undefined
Specific Code (S):
01 - Aspen
02 - Balsam
03 - Bog
04 - Bottom Land
05 - Brushy Openings
06 - Burned
07 - Clean Cut
08 - Good Farmland
09 - Hardwood
10 - Lowland
11 - Marsh
12 - Meadow
13 - Not Burned
14 - Popple
15 - Spruce
16 - Swamp
17 - Tamarac
18 - Timber
19 - Tree Cut Line
20 - Tree Grove / Forest
21 - Upland
22 - Willow
23 - Windfall
24 - Mixed Pine
25 - Mixed Pine / Brush
26 - Alder
27 - Black Ash
40 - Brook
41 - Lake
42 - Pond
43 - River
50 - Camp
51 - Dam
52 - House
53 - Indian Farm
54 - Mine
55 - Powder House
56 - R.R. Station
57 - Railroad
58 - Road
59 - Sawmill
60 - School House
61 - Test Pit
62 - Townsite
63 - Trail
64 - Log Road
70 - Correction Line
71 - Guild Line
72 - Meridian Line
73 - Not State
74 - Political Boundary
99 - Undefined
Conditional Code (C):
1 - Burned
2 - Cut
3 - Dead
4 - Dry
5 - Old
6 - Ridge
7 - Wet
|Publisher||Minnesota Historical Society|
|Contact Person Information||Charles Rodgers,
Government Records Specialist|
Minnesota Historical Society
St. Paul, MN 55102-1906
|Distributor's Data Set Identifier||tmbr_vec - Timber Inventory - Vector Data|
|Distribution Liability||MnGeo's Distribution Liability Statement is online: www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/disclaimer.html|
|Ordering Instructions||1. Files are free online for download from the Minnesota Historical Society's website by clicking below on the 'I AGREE' link in the Online Linkage field.
2. A three CD set is available at no charge. Contact distributor.
For errors discovered after the CDs were made, corrected files will be posted for free download at: ftp.lmic.state.mn.us/pub/data/phys_biol/landuse/mhs_timber/
|Online Linkage||I AGREE to the notice in "Distribution Liability" above. Clicking to agree will either begin the download process or link to download information. See "Ordering Instructions" above for details.|
|Section 7||Metadata Reference|
|Contact Person Information||Nancy Rader,
GIS Data Coordinator|
Minnesota Geospatial Information Office
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
|Metadata Standard Name||Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines|
|Metadata Standard Version||1.2|
|Metadata Standard Online Linkage||http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/mgmg/metadata.htm|