|
CARTOGRAPHIC USERS ADVISORY
COUNCIL (CUAC) 2003 MEETING MINUTES
May 1 & 2, 2003
U.S. Government Printing Office
CUAC
Representatives
Paige Andrew, Pennsylvania State University SLA
David Decklebaum, University of California, Los Angeles WAML
Mike Furlough, University of Virginia ALA/MAGERT
Donna Koepp, Harvard University ALA/GODORT
Mary McInroy, University of Iowa ALA/GODORT
Clara P. McLeod, Washington University, St. Louis GIS
Daniel T. Seldin, Indiana University NACIS
Wangyal Shawa, Princeton University ALA/MAGERT
Christopher J. J. Thiry, Colorado School of Mines WAML
Linda Zellmer, Indiana University GIS
Agency Presenters
Gil Baldwin, Director, Library Programs Service, Government Printing Office
John Hebert, Chief, Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress
Connie Beard, U.S. Bureau of the Census
Jim Lusby, Disclosure and Release Division, National Imagery & Mapping
Agency
Carol Brandt, GIS Program Manager, Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Doug Vandegraft, Chief Cartographer, Division of Realty, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Frank Beck, U.S. Geological Survey/Federal Geographic Data Committee
William Effland, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Attendees
Betty Jones Government Printing Office
Jim Flatness Library of Congress
Jennifer Davis Government Printing Office
Vi Moorhouse Government Printing Office
Patricia DuPlantis Government Printing Office
Robert Morris Library of Congress
Nick Ellis Government Printing Office
Lawrence Woodward Government Printing Office
May 1, 2003
CUAC Co-chairs Dan Seldin and Mike Furlough called the meeting to order and
welcomed the attendees.
Government
Printing Office
Gil Baldwin, Director, Library Programs Service
Mr. Baldwin welcomed CUAC to GPO and assured us that
he had a terrific staff that would be available for our two days of
meetings to help make our meeting comfortable and productive.
In December 2002, the Bush Administration appointed a
new Public Printer, who was confirmed by the Senate. He is Bruce James;
originally from Nevada,
Mr. James has an industry background. He brings an entrepreneurial spirit
and a business approach. His staff is working on a two-year cycle of
change. There are three phases to this and to some extent all three phases
are ongoing, but in most aspects they are in the fact-finding phase with
lots of pilot projects, discussions with different communities and
exploring various products and services. The next phase is developing
consensus on what the future will look like and getting input from all
communities on a strategic plan. The final phase will be implementation.
Judith Russell has been appointed Superintendent of
Documents. Judith spent several years at GPO before her years at NCLIS and
has now returned as the first woman Superintendent of Documents.
Mr. James is very business oriented and is focused on
the future and is externally directed. It is clear that the future is not
going to be printing. The future is information dissemination. In the
beginning, GPO Access was very much driven by paper products that were
available digitally. They are now focused on born digital information and
have become an information dissemination agency.
Mr. James has appointed William H. Turri Deputy
Public Printer and Chief Operating Officer who is in charge of Innovations
and Partnerships. This is a broader program than the traditional
partnership initiative that LPS has had on going for several years.
GPO currently employs about 3,100 people. Library
Program Service has a staff of 108. Most of these are librarians, many are
catalogers, but there are also librarians who are managers and program
analyzers. There are many more professionals than there used to be with
only about 35 blue-collar workers in LPS.
They are in the process of selecting an integrated
library system, and have been in the evaluation phase for the past 6
months. This phase is being directed by professional consultants who have
been extremely helpful. They are currently in the contract development
phase, working with Ex Libris and PTFS in partnership. They have not yet
awarded a contract, but they hope to do so by the end of May.
The new Recommended Specifications for Public Access
Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries have been developed based on
what LPS sees coming out from federal publishers. It represents
middle-of-the-road technology rather than bleeding edge. He is asking CUAC
for input on these recommendations. Cindy Etkin, who is responsible for the
development of the specifications, will come to the meeting later.
Bonnie Trivizas, Chief of the Library Division has
retired and Sheila McGarr is returning from the Department of Education
Library to fill Ms. Trivizas's position.
The transition from paper and fiche to electronic has
been progressing for many years. Today, two-thirds of the distribution is
online electronic format. One-fourth of the remaining tangible products are
maps.
OMB issued a directive to executive agencies allowing
them to solicit bids from commercial printers rather than printing
documents through GPO. This has reduced GPO's sources of information, even
though Congress opposed the directive. This was one of Mr. James first
orders of business when he started. When he first took over, he spoke with
Mitch Daniels of OMB about the issue. The public who loses when printing
does not come through GPO, because then information does not get sent out
to libraries. Fully 85% of the printing done through GPO is done by outside
contractors.
Cataloging staff has been increased by six. They are
trying to determine what data and information products will be coming
through the program so they will know whether staffing is appropriate.
There is a lot of training going on now, both for the new electronic medium
and for the new integrated library system.
Two new formats that came through the program in the
past year: the audio E book and the mini CD-ROM. This may not be any
indication of a trend, but they were something different that required
cataloging.
Several new communication channels are now available
for communicating with GPO. There is the GPO FDLP-L. To sign on, go to the
GPO homepage. Click on list serve. Click on list serve archive. Register at
this point. Instructions are also in Administrative Notes. Also available
are AskLPS, AskLPS@GPO.gov, and lostdocs@gpo.gov. All of these sources of
assistance from GPO are available to all of us and we are encouraged to use
them. LPS is also in the process of acquiring help desk software. It will
be available in the next few months.
The Interagency Depository Seminar will be held later
this month at GPO. This is especially geared towards new government documents
librarians. In October the Federal Depository conference will be held in
D.C. There will be informational and instructional programs as well as a
continuation of the discussion on the future direction of the FDLP.
There is a new program at NARA that assures Access to Archival
Databases (AAD). This program will assure the digital archiving of all
congressional and regulatory publications.
GPO’s digital archive harvests digital-only
data. This is done through their open archives server, as well as through
partnerships, the digital archiving project with OCLC and they are
investigating the possibility of including digital management on their ILS
contract.
A couple of their partnerships are one with
Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technology Information for
permanent public access for all fiche and online data, and one with the University of Illinois at Chicago for the Foreign Affairs Network
of the Department of State.
In response to a question about archiving of
publications that are sent out electronically directly from an agency and
not through the FDLP, Mr. Baldwin asked that we let LPS know about these
cases so that the information can be captured and access can be provided
through FDLP.
It was pointed out that CD-ROM products were being
cataloged from the cover information instead of from the metadata contained
on the CD-ROM. This was noted by the GPO catalogers in attendance.
A question was asked about how broken links on the
Web are dealt with. Mr. Baldwin explained the PURL system. Broken links are
discovered by an automated system, but the investigation that needs to be
done to repair the link has to be done by a person. Broken links should be
reported to askLPS@GPO.gov.
Council had several cataloging questions. The backlog
will be resolved with the increase in the number of catalogers, and the
assignment of an assistant to help Vi Morehouse with map cataloging. It has
been about 18 months since they lost 4 catalogers, and it has taken this
long to bring everyone up to speed. There was some discussion about Antarctica maps and how they should be classified,
but that was also resolved and should be completed shortly. It was agreed
that subject headings could be added for the counties for the Forest
Service topos.
In response to questions about CRADAs (Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement), Mr. Baldwin explained that when GPO
finds out an agency has established a CRADA with a company, GPO contacts
the agency and either makes a competing offer or merely explains that the
agency is still responsible for getting data to the public. Agencies now
are under much pressure to get their information out and still remain
solvent. (Minutes submitted by Donna Koepp)
Library
of Congress
John Hebert, Chief, Geography and Map Division
John Hebert began with a brief update of recent
activities in the Division. The Library has entered into its final year of
its agreement with the German Prince Johannes Waldburg-Wolfegg regarding
the Waldseemüller Map. The map is a one-of-a-kind from 1507; it is the
first published map to use the word “America.” The Library of
Congress has given $6.5 million of the $10 million owed to the Prince. The
Library is in negotiation with the Discovery Channel for the remaining $3.5
million. The Channel is also considering making a 30-hour program using
many of the maps from the Division.
G&M added 3 new catalogers; 2 filled vacant
positions. Two new cartographers will be hired soon; their job will be to
use GIS to create maps for Congress. These maps will not be available to
the public because they are specifically produced for Congress. The
Division has put out notices for participants for their Summer Program. It
is unknown how many people will attend. Last summer, 2 people from Native
American colleges worked in the Division. Also, a Chinese professor helped
analyze the division’s pre-1900 Chinese maps. Currently, G&M is
working with a group from Japan
who is interested in scanning a set of older Japanese maps. 160 of the maps
in this set are found nowhere in the world other than the Division.
The Division’s website has recently added
images of maps from WWII and the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The Library
will soon be opening an exhibit on the latter topic; a third of the items
in the exhibit will be maps. On September 18, 2003, LC will host a conference on Lewis
and Clark.
The Phillip Lee Phillips Society recently met in Texas.
There are several large scanning projects going on or
planned within the Division. The Chief noted that when items are scanned by
the Division, the items are also cataloged. The first project will scan the
Vietnam
and India
1:50,000 maps. Second, the Division has entered into a contract with Readex
where they will scan older maps in the Serial Set; Readex will use Donna
Koepp’s index as a reference when selecting the materials. The scans
will be made available on LC’s website and will be in the public
domain. Readex will sell access to the scanned accompanying materials in
the Serial Set.
The move to LC’s new Integrated Library System
(ILS) has caused problems with the scanned image display software. Owing to
changes in the MrSID licensing structure that may cost LC more money, LC is
considering translating its files to JPEG2000 format.
The project to scan the Division’s collection
of Sanborn maps has fallen apart because Sanborn (who were to pay to have
the maps scanned) wanted to re-copyright the maps, even if they were in the
public domain. Because of this G&M is examining some other ways to scan
their 250,000 Sanborn sheets that are in the public domain.
The Chief informed CUAC that items from the former Soviet Union and Soviet Bloc which were thought to be
in the public domain, might not be.
G&M continues to talk with NIMA about co-operative
cataloging. G&M catalogs more items, but NIMA catalogs to sheet level
of sets.
The Division is going to buy some new scanners; they
will be able to scan items 2 feet by 5 feet. They are attempting to
purchase top-mounted scanner, which would be used for atlases. G&M
wants to hire a scanning technician —someone who is responsible for
the scanners, but not the cataloging. Congress has given LC $5.5 million to
work with NARA
on digital preservation. (Minutes submitted by Christopher J. J. Thiry)
U.S. Bureau of the
Census
Connie Beard, Cartographic Operations Branch
Connie Beard of the Census provided an update on recent map products and
the progress of the MAF/TIGER modernization activities at the U.S. Census
Bureau.
The
recent Census products include maps, data and LandView.
Maps
Products:
The map products include digital maps on the web, DVD/CD-ROM, printed
report maps, and printed wall maps.
Digital
Maps:
All the large-format digital maps of Census 2000 are available on the web,
and some of them are available on DVD/CD-ROM, as listed below:
* Census Tract Outline Maps (Census 2000)…1 DVD – Available Now
* Entity Based Census 2000 Block Maps…6 DVDs – 1 Available Now,
5 Coming Soon
* American Indian/Alaska Native/Hawaiian Home Lands (Block Maps, Tract Maps
& AIANA Wall Map)…1 DVD – Coming Soon
* Recreated 1990 Block and Census Track/BNA outline maps to fit with 2000
Block and Census Track/BNA boundaries. These maps were created using the
same software as Census 2000 mapping software. The outline maps were saved
as PDF files. They are available on the Internet now and later will be made
available on DVD.
Printed Report Maps:
The printed report includes the Summary Population and Housing
Characteristic Reports (PHC-1 and PHC-2). All the printed report maps are
accessible on the Internet http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/index.html.
These printed report maps consist of maps such as state and county outline
maps, county subdivision maps, and tribal subdivision maps. The PHC-3
report will be coming out late in the summer and it will include
state-based Metropolitan Area maps, showing the 1999 OMB definition of
Metropolitan Areas that were in effect for Census 2000 and state-based
urban areas maps that shows the location and name of the urbanized area and
urban clusters for that state. The large-format maps of urbanized areas and
urban cluster outline maps are available on the Internet in PDF file
format. The Census is planning to put these maps on DVD later.
The
Census Bureau is currently making the 1% sample or Super-PUMA maps
available on their web page and later on DVD/CD-ROM. The end of the summer
5% sample data maps will be made available on the web. The Census has also
made individual state profile maps and information available on their web
page.
Printed
Wall Maps
The following printed wall maps are available on the Census web page: * The
American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States delineated for
Census 2000. * The 108th Congressional District maps.
* Census
is in the process of making wall maps of individual Congressional Districts
and State-based Congressional Districts outline maps.
Cartographic
Boundary Files:
The generalized boundary files of all levels of Census Geography from Block
Groups and above are available on the Census web page (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/index.html).
These files have been recently re-generated so that they will integrate
vertically in a GIS. The boundary files are available in the following file
formats: * ArcView Shapefile * Arc/Info Coverage Export (.e00) * Arc/Info
Ungenerate (ASCII)
What’s
New (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/index.html) is a good place to
check these products that are available on the web.
LandView:
The Census is developing LandView version 5, which integrates EPA, Census
data, and USGS Geographic Names Information System. This version of
Landview will be a depository item. For more information on the LandView 5
product contact 301-763-4636.
The
MAF/TIGER modernization:
The main goals of MAF (Master Address File)/TIGER modernization activities
are to replace the old TIGER database system with an open commercial
database system such as Oracle, and implement a more flexible,
object-oriented development environment. Another objective is to merge the
exiting separate databases such as MAF, TIGER, and GEOCAT into a single
integrated database system so that it will improve the functionality of the
MAF/TIGER system. In addition, the Census is working on improving address
and map accuracy by enhancing coordinate systems.
This
MAF/TIGER modernization program will improve the effectiveness and lower
the cost of 2010 Census, ACS, and many other Census products.(Minutes
submitted by Wangyal Shawa)
National
Imagery & Mapping Agency
Jim Lusby, Disclosure and Release Division
Jim
Lusby began by reporting that policies regarding public release of NIMA
products had not changed in the past year. In the wake of the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq,
and ongoing security fears, there are still questions and concerns in the
federal government about the types of data that can be released to the
public. However, Mr. Lusby noted that NIMA has not withdrawn anything from
circulation, except during an initial review period following September 11, 2001.
As an
organization, NIMA is in a period of uncertainty, especially with regard to
its role since the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. As a
matter of federal law, the Defense Department cannot operate inside the United States,
but NIMA assists other agencies that take the lead in protecting the United States.
Many of these agencies that have cartographic products and needs have been
absorbed into Homeland Security. Mr. Lusby acknowledged a name change for
the agency is in the works: the National Imagery and Mapping Agency will
become the National Geographic-Intelligence Agency, or NGA.
Although
Mr. Lusby announced last year that he was no longer responsible for
customer operations, it has taken some time to find another person in NIMA
who can serve as a liaison to the map user community. Mary Ford will take
on the role that Mr. Lusby previously held prior to September 11, including
interaction with GPO. Ford was unable to attend this year’s CUAC
meeting owing to prior commitments, but she will attend future meetings.
Mr. Lusby promised to train her in the needs of the map user community.
Mr.
Lusby commented on some upcoming releases, including some international
series of maps, notably covering Peru, Central
America, and parts of Africa.
The recent release of maps covering Iraq prior to the war was an
effort by NIMA to get a common base of information distributed to the
media, the public, and internal customers before the war began. He also
referred to a series of posters re-printing historical maps from the 19th
and 20th centuries. Both these maps and the maps of Iraq are
available for public sale through the USGS websites. The NIMA homepage has
a list of large-scale products for sale (http://www.nima.mil).
Shuttle
Radar Topography Data (SRTM) is currently under release and will be
completely distributed soon. The US Public has access to DTED-1 and DTED-2
level data (3-arc second and 30-arc second), and can obtain the data
through the USGS
Earth Data
Center web sites.
Most of the United
States has been processed. Free
downloads up to a file size limit are available, with purchase options for
large quantities of data.
Mr.
Lusby clarified that public sale maps could be made available through the
FDLP program, but understood that participating libraries had not yet been
surveyed regarding which of these series they wished to collect. Mr. Lusby
suggested pursuing the matter with the GPO representatives to get the maps
into the distribution channels. (Minutes submitted by Mike Furlough)
Dan
Seldin adjourned the meeting until Friday morning, May 2, at 9:00 am
May 2, 2003
Dan Seldin brought the meeting to order.
Bureau
of Transportation Statistics
Carol Brandt, GIS Program Manager
Carol Brandt has been at BTS since 1995 and previously worked at Census
Bureau and Defense Mapping Agency.
Bureau
of Transportation Statistics is one of ten operating
“administrations” within the USDOT (Coast Guard and the
Transportation Security Administration were recently moved to the
Department of Homeland Security). The USDOT creates and maintains
transportation specific spatial data for: highways, railroads, transit
systems, airport facilities and air space, and intermodal facilities. USDOT
spatial applications take the form of Internet mapping applications,
transportation modeling, remote sensing and imagery, and various spatial
and cartographic products and data in both hard copy and digital formats.
Non-BTS
spatial data efforts of the other administrations within USDOT and
mentioned by Ms. Brandt were:
* FHWA – Federal Highway Administration maintains National Highway
Planning Network (NHPN), spatial data depicting the National Highway
System. The FHWA collects Highway Performance Monitoring System Information
from the States and uses spatial modeling to create representations of flow
of traffic over the highway system.
* NHTSA – National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
currently developing better means, including geocoding, for identifying
accident locations for the Fatal Accident and Reporting System (FARS).
* FAA – Federal Aviation Administration creates and maintains aeronautical
charts for navigation. FAA is moving to more digital information with
increased focus on 3-D modeling.
* FTA – Federal Transit Administration is beginning to use GIS
technology to model passenger flow through transit system(s) and encourage
greater use of transit. FTA recently completed a data collection effort to
acquire spatial data representing transit infrastructure.
* FRA – Federal Railroad Administration maintains rail network
spatial data to model commodity flow and is collecting geographic locations
using GPS to improve safety.
* Office of Pipeline Safety collects spatial data representing pipelines
and facilities. Data from the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) is
not available to the public post-September 11. The data will be made available
on a case-by-case basis if request is cleared by agency (Office needs
information on the requester and the planned use of the data). Data is
collected and sold by vendors (Pennwell and Tobin) and is accurate to
within plus or minus 500 feet.
* MARAD – Maritime Administration is using spatial data to model
commodity flow through ports and is responsible for developing plans to
improve security at ports throughout the US.
Ms. Brandt also drew attention to the “virtual” National
Transportation Library (http://ntl.bts.gov), which offers quick links to
spatial and other types of transportation data.
Bureau
of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
Within the USDOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS):
Fills gaps, creating spatial data where no data steward exists;
Distributes spatial data through the National Transportation Atlas Data
Program;
Provides cartographic and spatial analysis support for the Department;
Develops internet mapping applications to provide easier access to
transportation data;
Works to coordinate geographic efforts in the USDOT.
The
Geographic Information Program within BTS is the lead administration for
geographic information within USDOT. It represents USDOT in the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), hosts the NSDI clearinghouse node for
transportation data, and is coordinating standards development for the
transportation portion of the Geospatial One-Stop Initiative. BTS
distributes national level transportation-specific spatial data, such as
the national Transportation Atlas Databases (NTAD). NTAD contains the
majority of the databases owned and maintained by various USDOT modes and
includes transportation networks, transportation facilities and geographic
reference data. All NTAD databases are available for down load via the BTS
web site (http://www.bts.gov/gis/ntatlas/index.html), and a data CD-ROM is
released annually.
BTS
purchased a “vintage road network” from GDT (Geographic Data
Technologies, Inc. This data set is available via download (network area by
area) on their website. Contact Ms. Brandt to get the whole network at once
on a 4 CD set. Some examples of BTS filling in gaps in data sets include
the data on intermodal terminals, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)
boundaries, and working with the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) to
geo-locate bridges. The NBI without geocoding is currently available on
CD--contact Ms. Ann Shemaka / FHWA Office of Bridge Technology / HIBT-30
400 7th St. SW / Washington, D.C. 20590 /202-366-1575 /
ann.shemaka@fhwa.dot.gov
BTS also
produces some paper maps (“Annual Major Transportation
Facilities,” “Transportation in North
America,”) to support BTS publications and the Crisis
Management Center, and maps on request, as indicated on the BTS website.
Their Internet mapping applications include the National Highway System,
tracking Airline Market Share, Airport Congestion, and the North American
Transportation Atlas Databases (NORTAD). Via NORTAD, BTS distributes
tri-national transportation specific spatial data equivalent to the NTAD
for the U.S.,
Canada,
and Mexico.
There are plans for developing relationships to allow for regular release
of NORTAD.
Security
After September 11, all geospatial data was removed from the BTS website
for approximately two months, and there is continued focus in BTS on what
data be available. Most security concerns center on data showing
the geographic locations of possible transportation “choke
points,” e.g. tunnels and bridges. For example, the National Bridge
Inventory (NBI) is basically a tabular dataset that BTS is working to
geocode, but it is undecided at this point whether this data will be made
available to the public.
Geospatial
One-Stop
BTS is participating in Geospatial One-Stop, an OMB E-government initiative
to create a comprehensive web portal to provide easier—and
timelier—access to geospatial data. The lead agency for GeoSpatial
One-Stop is the Department of the Interior, USDOT is the lead agency for
the transportation area, and BTS is handling the core data content
standards development activities for USDOT. Successful implementation of
this initiative will require participation from all levels and types of
government (perhaps 2/3 of the participation from non-federal sources) plus
academic and private sectors. At the time of the CUAC meeting, draft
content standards existed for road and rails, standards for air and transit
were coming soon, and those for waterways would follow. Other geospatial
data themes and are scheduled to be available in September. The
comprehensive web portal is scheduled for preview in early June. Check the
BTS web site for Geospatial One-Stop at
http://www.bts.gov/gis/geospatial_onestop/index.html.(Minutes submitted by
Mary McInroy)
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Doug Vandegraft, Chief Cartographer, Division of Realty
Mr.
Vandegraft reported about collaboration between USGS and FWS to produce a
new map of the National Wildlife Refuge System for the National Atlas of
the United States.
The map is unique because it presents the refuge boundaries derived from an
entirely digital format. There are now 541 national wildlife refuges and
there will soon be 542. There are now more than 100 million acres in the
system. Mr. Vandegraft explained that as a result of the digitization
process, FWS was able to identify an additional 6 million square miles of
refuge area. The scale of the map is 1:7,500,000; both Hawaii and Alaska are depicted at this constant
scale. In the future look for all FWS maps to be produced in a new format.
The goal is to have all maps produced by the agency look alike. Digital
orthophotoquads will be used as the base map. There will not be a
consistent scale due to the relative sizes of the geography being
represented. New maps will begin to appear on the Division of Realty
website (http://realty.fws.gov/carto-resources.html). Not all regions will
set distributing maps on the web as a priority goal, and data availability
will vary by region. Digital land status maps are being produced. These
maps will show the lands already owned by the FWS as well as lands that the
service would like to acquire. Approved acquisition boundaries identify
lands that are viable for habitat, but not necessarily owned by the FWS.
Within the FWS both AutoDesk and an array of ESRI products are being
utilized. Mr. Vandegraft reported that he has not attended any Department
of Homeland Security meetings. The Service still has plans to connect its
Real Property Database with its digital boundary files. Presently the Real
Property Database is being converted into an Oracle Database. GIS layers
can be downloaded from the FWS website
(http://fwsgis.fws.gov/website/nwrbnd/run.htm). These are boundary files.
For the lower 48 states the scale is 1:24,000. For Alaska the scale varies from 1:250,000
to 1:63,360. The files for Alaska
do contain some attribute data not available for the other states. Mr.
Vandegraft responded to a question about including trails on maps that are
available to the public. He said that some maps do indicate where trails are,
but it is not a responsibility or priority for the agency. (Minutes
submitted by David Deckelbaum)
U.S. Geological
Survey
Frank Beck, National Mapping Division
Frank
Beck, USGS National Mapping Division, gave the USGS report, substituting
for Dan Cavanaugh, who had a conflict that prevented him from attending the
meeting. Mr. Beck reported on several projects, including the National Map,
which will revolutionize the National Mapping Discipline, the National
Atlas, and some discussion on the Global GIS Dataset, DDS-62, a concern of
CUAC.
The
National Map is a major redirection for the National Mapping Division. Most
people are familiar with the USGS’ basic product, the 7.5’
Quadrangle. The USGS completed once-over coverage at 1:24,000 in the late
1990s. To replicate that effort, it would cost $2,000,000,000 to
$3,000,000,000. There is a tremendous amount of information on the 1:24,000
topographic maps. However, USGS has realized in the past few years, based
on comments from users, that the maps are definitely out of date. Despite
our best efforts, and pleas for funding to keep them up to date, there is a
strong realization that USGS is fighting a losing battle trying to maintain
the maps on their own. Budgets have been decreasing, although everyone is
familiar with that problem. The revision program, which has existed for a
number of years in an attempt to keep the maps up to date, at best is able
to revise 1200 to 1500 maps a year.
The
National Map
The National Map was a study that was done a few years ago to address the
problem of salvaging the fundamental base-mapping program. The edict USGS
received from Barbara Ryan, the USGS’ Associate Director of
Geography, stated “I am committed to a dramatic improvement in our
revision program as one of the major components of a healthy and
scientifically sound geographic discipline.” The key characteristics
of the National Map are that it be current, continuously revised, seamless,
with no arbitrary edges, complete and consistently classified, built on the
best available data, have varying resolution to reflect geographic reality,
integrated within and between themes of data (positional and logical
consistency), geographic (no cartographic offsets), that it should be a
temporal record, which means that there will be versioning and
transactional updates, and that there will be metadata for the data set and
at the feature level. USGS has come to the realization that they cannot do
it ourselves, so the National Map will rely heavily on partnerships, with
federal agencies, state, regional and local governments, private industry,
universities and libraries, and the public. Everyone is aware of data in
various organizations that could help USGS maintain their maps. The
National Map will be a system of related databases that will be combined to
build and maintain a map that will cover the United States from coast to
coast, and border to border. The National Map will show the information
that USGS used to collect on their own to produce their topographic maps.
The USGS role in the National Map will be to organize the information, be
responsible for awareness, availability, and utility, serve as a catalyst
and collaborator for creating and stimulating data partnerships, partner in
standards development, integrate data from other participants and finally
produce and own data when no other source exists.
Most
recently, the big emphasis in the National Mapping Division, for better or
worse, are the 133 Urban Areas. A tremendous percentage of the population
dwells in the major metropolitan areas of our country. Those are the areas
that are extremely important for reasons of security and natural disaster
recovery. A good percentage of the USGS efforts this past year have been
placed on these 133 urban areas.
A sample
of the National Map Viewer for Mecklenburg
County, NC was
shown. It has undergone several changes, based on tests over the past year.
This does not show the ultimate appearance of the National Map, but it is
an example of the ultimate goal. At present there are no agreements between
USGS and Mecklenburg
County to maintain
these data sets, but it is an example of the direction for the National
Map. The National Map will offer a wide range of viewing options.
Hopefully, users will be able to drill down from a small-scale depiction,
such as the National Atlas, to a large-scale view, such as the Digital
Orthophotoquads. Users will be able to pick and choose the layers they want
and produce a graphic. Some information on the viewer may be owned and
maintained by other organizations, perhaps even served by local government
agencies. Users will be able to drill down to local data, such as
information about local hospitals (services, number of beds, etc.), which
will be maintained by local government agencies and/or organizations outside
of the USGS. Ideally, local government agencies will take responsibility
for maintaining their data, and provide access to USGS and, ultimately, the
public.
A
question was asked about who would take responsibility for archiving older
data, USGS or local agencies. USGS hopes that localities will archive their
data, in an appropriate, agreed-upon archival format and mechanism,
frequency, etc. The primary concern is that digital information, which will
not be printed regularly as has been done for the USGS topographic maps,
will not be available for future use in temporal studies. There isn’t
a clear understanding on what data needs to be archived, especially if only
a small fraction of the features have changed. Perhaps only the information
on the transaction will be archived.
Another
question was asked about the rural areas, which may not be using GIS. The
USGS will continue to be the data gatherer and provider for rural areas
that are not currently using GIS or producing digital spatial data. Several
approaches could be used. The National Map could simply show the existing
topographic map, in the form of a digital raster graphic (a scanned
topographic map). Another alternative would be to scan the map separates
(roads, contours, vegetation cover, etc.) and allow that information to be
accessed separately. That would represent the best available data for those
areas, but would take more time and effort. Both options have been
examined, but no decision has been made concerning how to show those rural
areas.
Congress
is enthusiastic about the National Map in some areas, such as the 133 urban
areas. NIMA is the driver behind this part of the project. Getting funding
for those areas, because of the Homeland Security needs, has been easy.
Getting funding work elsewhere is more difficult. Even getting data from
local partners, much less getting funding from those organizations to do
work is difficult. The biggest incentive for local agencies is that by
cooperating with the USGS, their data and that of their neighbors will be
much more likely to be seamless and user friendly. USGS is also working on
efforts to make local data more accessible. They are working on software
packages that will make the data more interchangeable.
The
latest fact sheet on the National Map is titled Hazards, Disasters and the
National Map. It is USGS Fact Sheet 027-03, available on the web at:
http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs02703.html. Several printed
byproducts of the National Map, mock-ups of topographic maps, were shown as
examples of future print output that can be produced quickly and cheaply.
With this type of product, it is difficult to determine what to put in the
collar. Especially given that the data came from multiple sources, and that
the date may not be very meaningful, as the data could change daily, and
the layers may have been updated at different times. In addition, the new
National Wildlife Map from the National Atlas was shown. Another North
American map is in process. There is a new area on the National Atlas site
on Printable maps, maps that can be printed at page-size for the common
users. The site for this is at: http://nationalatlas.gov/printable.html.
Other
Questions:
A question was asked about the source information on some of the maps from
the old printed National Atlas maps, which give brief bibliographic
information, with the statement “and other sources.” That
request will be forwarded to the National Map office. A question was asked
about funding for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping program. No
information on their funding was available.
The Middle East and Iraq maps produced by NIMA were
also mentioned. Three additional maps will be available soon. GPO is trying
to get copies for distribution to Depository Libraries.
Digital
Data Set 62:
Four parts of DDS-62 (Central & South America, Africa,
South Asia and South Pacific) were issued
through the Depository Library Program. After those first four were issued,
the Geologic Division ran into funding problems and could not issue the
remaining sets (North America, Europe and North Eurasia).
Somehow, a CRADA (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) was
established with the American Geological Institute. They are producing and
issuing the remaining parts of DDS-62, and copyrighting them. The CRADA was
announced in late September. What is copyrighted is the package that AGI
has put together and issued, such as the ESRI software. What is not
copyrighted is the raw data. That has not been a product provided by the
U.S. Geological Survey. If there is enough interest in the raw data for the
three remaining areas, GPO needs to be petitioned to ask for the data from
USGS. The Survey could then provide the data to GPO, who could then provide
it to Depository Libraries. GIS-literate librarians and library users would
find the data useful.
A
question was asked about whether we might be informed about potential
CRADAs before they are finalized so that we could comment on them. Mr. Beck
had no information on how to comment on them, but suggested two people who
might be contacted about commenting on future CRADAs. Other agencies (such
as the U.S. Department of Education) could and should have been contacted
about providing funding support. (Minutes submitted by Linda Zellmer)
Natural
Resources Conservation Service
William Effland, U.S. Department of Agriculture
William
(Bill) Effland’s presentation discussed the background, uses and
selected examples of various digital soil survey products produced by the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
He
stated that he would speak about (1) some digital soil survey information;
(2) several sources of digital soil information that are available or are
being developed; (3) advantages of that information; and (4) how the Agency
is working to deliver that information to customers. Additionally, he
mentioned future research and application directions of the Soil Survey
Division by discussing some landscape analysis projects that he has worked
on since transferring to the Division in January, 2003.
Dr.
Effland explained that the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) was formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service until about
1994. He noted that he works in the Soil Survey Division, with background
and training as a soil scientist. Dr. Effland remarked that he is currently
employed as a landscape analyst in the Agency’s 10,000 employees.
About 900 of those employed are in the Soil Survey Division, where 45-50%
of the workforce is expected to retire in the next five years. He stated
that digital soil resource information provided one of the foundation
layers for modern natural resource appraisal, analysis and interpretation.
National
Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS)
Dr. Effland stated that the National Cooperative Soil Survey is the key to
the soil survey programs that exist throughout the United States.
However, there are at least three components of cooperative soil surveys:
the state, the county, and the federal government. These partners should be
kept clearly in one’s mind when discussing soil survey information.
The NCSS has many partners (e.g., federal agencies, state agencies, county
agencies, land grant universities and private entities), with USDA/NRCS
designated by Congress as the lead federal agency for soil survey programs.
Some federal agency partners include the US Forest Service, the Bureau of
Land Management and the National Park Service, including work on mapping
soil resources for the national parks. There are also numerous NCSS
partners with State Agencies. Dr. Effland stated that funding for the soil
survey program varies from state to state. Each state has its own structure
with respect to funding soil survey and how specific information is
collected even though there is the broad umbrella of the NCSS, which
provides a standardized format. Funding for the soil survey program is
obtained through the various NCSS partners. In some states, historically
soil survey work was 1/3 funded by the federal government, 1/3 by the
states and 1/3 by the counties; in other states, it was primarily funded by
the county government, with smaller contributions from the federal and
state agencies. He continued his discussion of NCSS partners by stating
that the Land
Grant Universities
are also collaborators who conduct soil science research and participate in
field reviews. University cooperators help with the quality assurance of
soil survey information. These universities are also an important component
as far as research and development of technology for improving soil survey.
In some areas, they helped develop the various soil landscape models that
are applied as conceptual tools to identify and delineate different soils
in the real world.
Another
NCSS partner is groups such as the soil conservation and water conservation
districts, which are legislative bodies formed at the county level.
Typically, a single county will have a soil conservation district. These
distinct groups were formed to give local advice on how to help direct the
soil survey program. The last group he mentioned was various private
entities, noting that some industry groups also serve as partners.
Dr.
Effland concluded this section by reminding the group that the National
Cooperative Soil Survey is a long-standing collaborative partnership and
that “this collaborative working relationship directly influenced the
direction and development of soil survey throughout the United States.”
Digital Soil Survey Products
Dr.
Effland then discussed digital soil survey products in general, stating
that these data are inherently multi-scaled in nature. He said that the
data can be displayed and studied on a world basis (global scale) down to
something that is essentially within a field or sub-field level (e.g.,
county to field scale). He mentioned data from the World Soil Resources
group led by Dr. Hari Eswaran as an example of global scale soil
information. This group works collaboratively with the US State Department,
the US Agency for International Development and UN/FAO (Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) to produce and distribute
generalized natural resource information that is available on a global to
regional basis. He continued by citing the following two principle
databases as examples of information or data available on a national to regional
scale:
* The
National Resources Inventory (NRI) - a statistical-designed database of
over 800,000 sampling points across the U.S. with over 1.2 million
records for approximately 200 different attributes. These data were
collected every 5 years (1982-1997) and now there a sub-sample is collected
on a yearly basis (starting in 2000). The NRI is a multi-million dollar
effort. It includes spatial and temporal information and allows researchers
and policy-makers to look at the status, conditions and trends of natural
resources. The NRI does not inventory federal lands.
* State
Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO). This data was originally released on CD
in 1994 (available at 1:250,000 scale). It utilizes polygon/base mapping of
large areas for regional to national scales of analysis and interpretation.
The spatial data includes up to 21 different soil components for each
polygon, giving the percentage of those different components within the
polygon. Physical location for each individual soil component is not given
but there are approximately 20,000 polygons for the U.S. STATSGO data was
utilized in a GIS decision support system project completed under the North
American Free Trade Agreement with Canada. Here, STATSGO data was
joined across the U.S.
and Canadian borders with the Soil Landscapes of Canada data, which is at a
mapping scale of 1:1,000,000. In another project, STATSGO data was applied
in conjunction with the Soil Landscapes of Canada for estimating soil
carbon levels across North America.
Dr. Effland
concluded this section by discussing an example of data available on a
county to field scale:
* the
Soil Survey Geographic Database, (SSURGO). SSURGO data is county level data
that is publicly available via the Internet for application in geographic information
systems. The NRCS is also developing a Soil Data Viewer in ArcView 3.3,
which will be incorporated into the customer toolkit at USDA field offices
throughout the U.S. SSURGO data scales vary with typical values ranging
from 1:12,000 to 1:24,000.
He
stated that these digital soils data are soil reports with county level
soil data that have been used for years. He reminded the group of the
wealth of information available in these products saying that, “the
widely varying resource questions ranging from global to field level areas
resulted in five orders, or mapping levels, of detail for soil survey
data”. Traditionally, the county soil surveys were published in
hard-copy paper format and some users still tend to like this format.
Uses of
Digital Soil Products
His talk then focused on the uses of digital soil survey products. Areas
mentioned were GIS visualization of soil properties or characteristics;
soil interpretations; resource conservation planning; land use management;
environmental assessment; and computer simulation modeling. He stated that
the GIS visualization, analysis and interpretation of soil properties are a
valuable use of the data. In fact, a multi-million dollar yearly effort is
currently underway to update and digitize all modern soil surveys. He
emphasized that there is also a wealth of soil interpretations available
that allow us to look at potentials and limitations for using soils. For
example, soils interpretation data allows one to look at engineering
properties and limitations. He also stated that resource conservation
planning was still a primary focus for using soil survey information,
originating in the 1930’s with the early work of the Soil Erosion
Service. A current example in this area is nutrient management and environmental
quality with respect to air and water quality. Examples of land use
planning, environmental assessment and computer simulation modeling were
given. He talked about a program called BASINS that uses a model called
SWAT (Soil Water Assessment Tool) which is a GIS linked computer simulation
modeling tool that allows one to make estimates of the total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) of various watersheds. It is still in development. He also
mentioned a water erosion prediction project that uses a tool called
GeoWEPP. This model uses digital soil survey information in conjunction
with the water erosion prediction model, WEPP. Dr. Effland discussed the
advantages of using digital soil information. One advantage was that the
digital data can be accessed very quickly and provide data rapidly. Another
was that the digital soil data allows one to think about new relationships
and to develop new interpretations that were not considered in the past
because that data weren’t easily accessible. There is now and will be
increased data availability for integrated resource and management tools.
In fact, SSURGO data are becoming available as a part of a common computing
environment where data from different agencies are stored on a central
server and can be shared throughout the more than 2,000 USDA field offices
across the country. Access to this data by a county planner or conservation
planner technicians will be available through a GIS tool, the Soil Data
Viewer. The last advantage of using digital data that he discussed was its
ability to increase the capacity to develop some new soil information, e.g.
creating soil information on some of the National Parks or BLM lands, and
quickly updating and maintaining the soil information. Such updates would
include drawing new soil lines or looking within the soil polygons and
trying to understand the relationships of the soils to other factors or
environmental variables. He then showed several maps produced from digital
soil data to illustrate various uses. Most of these maps can be found on
the Internet at: http://soils.usda.gov/soil_survey/main.htm; accessed July 1, 2003.
In this
section, Dr. Effland also talked about a map for the National Soil
Characterization Database, which showed the location of more than 27,000
soil profiles sampled for the soil survey program. This database
“provides detailed morphological, chemical and physical property data
which can be linked for analysis and interpretation to spatial data such as
STATSGO or the NRI”. Another map showed the status of soil survey
digitizing work for the county-level soil surveys. He mentioned that
currently, more than 1,450 county soil surveys can be downloaded from the
Internet.
He
commented about the digitization of the SSURGO data, stating that it has a
total of 2,200 counties or area for soils throughout the US.
Currently, about 1,450 of these are archived SSURGO. Of the counties
remaining, some are just being started, some have map compilation
completed, and some are working on digitization. There are several
digitizing centers throughout the country and this work is being done in
cooperation with some universities.
In
discussing tools that are being used to display and query SSURGO data, he
named the Soil Data Viewer as the current GIS tool. The earlier Soil
Explorer did not allow one to do a “true” GIS analysis. The
current Soil Data Viewer uses ESRI’s ArcView GIS software and
provides rapid access to numerous soil characteristics and interpretations.
It thus allows one to rapidly create many interpretive thematic maps, e.g.,
on agriculture, building site development, sanitary facilities, and water
tables. Reports - tabular or cartographic - can also be generated using
this viewer. With SSURGO data, however, one may have up to three soil
components because of the detailed level of soil information. There is also
a web-based Soil Data Viewer that is being developed to view SSURGO data.
(http://www.itc.nrcs.usda.gov/soildataviewer; accessed July 1,2003).
Lastly
there was a discussion about a research tool currently under development at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison called the 3dMapper. It was originally
funded by NRCS as a tool for soil map visualization. He stated that it has
now been commercialized and can be used to update the soil maps. It will
allow draping digital orthophotographs over a DEM.
(http://www.TerrainAnalytics.com; accessed July 1, 2003).
At the
end of the discussion, the following questions were asked:
1. Have
you considered printing the soil surveys? For example, doing print on
demand, similar to what some small publishers are doing?
Dr. Effland stated that there has been some talk of print on demand with
some of the publications. He said that they previously had a small
publisher near Blacksburg,
VA that would print on demand
once there was enough interest in the publications. For example, they would
print a thousand copies of a specific publication such as “Keys to
Soil Taxonomy.” He stated that in many areas the soil resource survey
information is underutilized but that it is very valuable to some people in
other areas. Dr. Effland mentioned the program at the University of Maryland
where they are scanning their old surveys and are making them available
through a web site. This allows users to print only one map sheet, for
example. He stated that NRCS is exploring various printing options such as
the program at the University
of Maryland. It was
noted that Pennsylvania,
Oregon
and Missouri
are doing similar work.
2.
Terrain Analytics is the distributor for the 3dMapper and it’s for a
fee. Is it freeware?
Dr. Effland said that there is a free version that was developed a few
years back but that it is not enhanced with additional functionality and is
more of a visualization tool. He stated that the current 3dMapper is more
of a functional mapping tool and is fairly inexpensive.
3. One
of the examples you showed from STATSGO data was the distribution of soil
water tables and is it available for the public to use?
Dr. Effland stated that the data are available on the web but that the
particular graphic for water table distributions is not on the web. He said
that the data can be downloaded from STATSGO and are free through the
website at Fort Worth.
Dr. Effland was unsure if the BASINS data was still available to the
general public due to Homeland Security issues. One member stated that the
BASINS data are freely available by request through the EPA.
4. What
is the minimum scale which determines an arbitrary boundary? For example,
what is the minimum factor that you define when you try and determine an
arbitrary boundary between Soil A and Soil B? Is there a specific standard
or does the person viewing the boundary make the decision?
Dr. Effland stated that each of the soil surveys is mapped at one or two
levels or orders. For example, an Order 1 survey would be at a research
farm level with most county soil surveys at Order 2. He said that the
polygon boundary determinations are standardized based on the soil
landscape model and survey order but there is some subjectivity from the
individual soil mappers. Dr. Effland said that one reason they are moving
into using DEMs, DOQs and raster-based GIS is an effort to remove some of
that subjectivity. He stated that if you look in the National Soil Survey
Handbook or Soil Survey Manual, there is a table for each mapping scale
indicating the minimum size delineation.
5. You
talked about the sampling of soils at various locations, the Pedon
Database. Is this data accessible to the public?
Dr. Effland stated that the Pedon database is going into transition and it
will be one of the Internet map server type projects but that currently the
CD is available. He said that previously, you could buy the data for $50
but now it is in transition where it will be updated more frequently as
more soil pedon data becomes available. There are a lot of Land Grant
Universities cooperators with the soil pedon data. He also said that, in
some cases, the data may be incomplete so it was not used in the NCSS but
now they are trying to complete, update and expand the database. Dr.
Effland noted several places where they are working to do this, including
the University
of Arkansas, Pennsylvania State University
and a project at the USGS related to information on soil carbon
sequestration.
6. Will
the CD ROM version of the soil surveys be available for all areas of the U.S.? Will
including the shape files of raw data become the standard for CD
distribution?
Dr. Effland said that the CDROM data will be available on a state-by-state
basis. He said that some states have more resources as far as presenting
that kind of information but in the long run the hardcopy soil survey
report is transitioning into CD or Web-based server. Dr. Effland also noted
that some of the electronic versions of the soil survey reports are
technically equivalent to the hard copy report but also contain spatial
data such as shape files. (Minutes submitted by Clara McLeod)
Adjournment
Mike
Furlough thanked Betty Jones for her work in helping CUAC to hold its
annual meeting in the Government Printing Offices.
Dan
Seldin adjourned the meeting.
AGENCY
REPORTS SUBMITTED VIA PROXY
U.S. Board on Geographic Names Roger Payne, Executive Secretary (via email)
The
Secretary reported that the Board of Geographic Names (BGN) is in the
process of beta testing a new version of their Geographic Names Information
Service (GNIS) website. Two states are testing the changes—Delaware and Florida. After the
website’s redesign, among the new features will be a spatially
enabled component. In the next year, the Board will release and activate the
redesigned database, and release a new, enhanced user Internet webpage and
interface for GNIS. The Board’s new disc product includes GNIS' data
almost in its entirety, and can be displayed using LANDVIEW V (a product
produced by a Federal consortium) ; the disc is presently marketed by the
Bureau of the Census. It is $99, and is in DVD format.
Although
there was some mention of blocking certain categories names in GNIS due to
9/11, an analysis later determined that would not be necessary.
The
upgrading of the names in GNIS (Phase II) is complete or in progress for
all but four States--New York,
Kentucky, Alaska, and Michigan. Phase III will likely be
scrapped because it has been overtaken by events: namely support for the
local and State vertical data integration in support of The National Map
and homeland security. Phase II will be completed.
There
have been no major changes in procedure or policy regarding how the Board
decides on name changes. (Report taken and submitted by Christopher J.J.
Thiry)
U.S. Forest
Service Betsy Banas, Staff Cartographer, Geospatial Services Group
I. The
Forest Service recently held its second Geospatial Conference in Colorado
Springs, Co. There were over 250 attendees from the Federal Government,
State and County representatives, State Foresters, and many others. The
event was co-sponsored by Colorado
State University
and The University of Colorado at Colorado
Springs. The conference program and presentations
are available by contacting David George, the Forest Service Geospatial
Conference Program Chair, at dgeorge@fs.fed.us.
II. The
Forest Service continues to collaborate with the US Geological Survey
(USGS) in its National Map Initiative. We are pleased to report that the
Forest Service is participating in building the National Map, using Forest
Service data for two focus areas: Colorado Springs/San Isabel National
Forest and Albuquerque/Cibola National Forest.
III.
Last year the Forest Service reported on the focused effort Forest
Service has placed on our participation in the Federal Geographic Data
Committee (FGDC). We are continuing to be engaged in the varied, fast paced
efforts of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) through the FGDC, to
coordinate mapping and geospatial data collection and related activities
among Federal Agencies. There has been a lot of effort this year, by the
FGDC to engage participation among States, local governments, Tribes,
academia and other entities. OMB and FGDC are developing a means to measure
and monitor our adherence to standards in order to hold us accountable for
compliance.
IV. The
President’s Council on Excellence in Government has keyed in on
Electronic Government (e-Gov/ the Internet) as the way to improve
efficiency in doing business. 24 e-government initiatives were identified,
including Geospatial One-Stop. On December 17, 2002, the President signed the
E-Government Act. President Bush states that this legislation “builds
upon my Administration's expanding E-Government initiative by ensuring
strong leadership of the information technology activities of Federal
agencies, a comprehensive framework for information security standards and
programs, and uniform safeguards to protect the confidentiality of
information provided by the public for statistical purposes. The Act will
also assist in expanding the use of the Internet and computer resources in
order to deliver Government services, consistent with the reform principles
I outlined on July 10,
2002, for a citizen-centered, results-oriented, and
market-based Government.”
The
Forest Service has been very involved in Geospatial One-Stop, as we
continue our efforts to provide standard geospatial data, which is
documented with FGDC compliant metadata. We know have our Forest Service
Geodata Clearinghouse up and on-line. The Geodata Clearinghouse can be
viewed at http://fsgeodata.fs.fed.us/. It is currently being upgraded to
provide ESRI ArcIMS data with FGDC compliant metadata. The upgrade should
be complete by October 2003.
To learn
more about Electronic Government and Geospatial One Stop, see
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/ and http://www.geo-one-stop.gov/ .
The
Forest Service is also involved with Recreation One Stop another of the 24
Presidential e-Gov initiatives. The effort will provide the public with a
one stop ‘portal’ to recreational opportunities and will be
supported with Internet mapping services.
V. The Forest Service continues to collaborate with the USGS
in the sale of our Forest Visitor Maps and other specialty products through
| 
