RESPONDING TO USERS' NEEDS FOR
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION--
WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE AREA

J. Wright Horton, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey
Emery T. Cleaves, Maryland Geological Survey

This forum is one of several that have been sponsored by the National Cooperative Geological Mapping Program, and co-convened by one or more State Geological Surveys and the U.S. Geological Survey, to assess regional needs for geologic map information. It is the first such forum to produce an unfiltered assessment of geologic mapping needs from focus groups comprised entirely of users and stakeholders unaffiliated with either the USGS Geologic Division or State Geological Surveys who produce most of these maps. [Stakeholders within the State Geological Surveys and the USGS Geologic Division, including those from various programs that require and support activities of the geologic mapping teams, have other avenues for expressing their needs.]

The recommendations, by design, were based on needs rather than on practical considerations of implementation. Members of the focus groups were unencumbered by practical limitations on geologic mapping agencies such as current commitments, program directions, budgets, staffing, and organizational structures. Their recommendations provide ambitious goals and directions, although realistically, some recommendations will not be easily achieved or even achieved at all. Expectations should not be unrealistically high. That being said, we will do our best to address the recommendations within our purview to the extent that we can in cooperation with partners at all levels. This report will serve as a guide to the needs of the Washington-Baltimore urban corridor user community.

In reflecting on the input from the panels and focus groups, our attention was drawn to several major themes:

1. Digital Geologic Maps--The demand for digital geologic map information is strong, diverse, and far exceeds current production. This in no way diminishes the need for printed (paper) geologic maps. Both digital and printed geologic maps are needed throughout the region.
2. Map Scales--Geologic maps at all scales are useful, depending on the application. Most users want as much detail and precision as possible, especially at 1:24,000 scale.
3. Additional Information--Would increase the value of geologic maps and (or) supplementary layers, especially on (a) interpretations (at different levels of sophistication) and error limits, (b) brittle structures (fractures, joints, minor and major faults), (c) geotechnical data and site-specific information where available, (d) regolith thickness, and (e) water-related information.
4. Derivative Maps and Multiple Geology Layers--Are useful and should be user friendly.
5. Standardization--Is needed for (a) descriptive terminology and (2) formats (for folio series, for digital maps).
6. Rapid Availability--Is needed for all geologic maps, ranging from old (none should be "out of print!") to speedy release of new data, whether printed on paper, on CD-ROM's, or on the internet.

Meeting these needs for detailed geologic maps with additional layers of information throughout the region would require decades at current production rates. Unless there are substantial increases in funding and staffing, meeting the identified needs will require long-term State and Federal commitments to sustain coordinated geologic mapping activity and expertise on the regional geology in the Washington-Baltimore area and along the Mid-Atlantic urban corridor.

Previous | CONTENTS | Next

This page is URL https://pubs.usgs.gov/circular/c1148/responding.html
Last modified 15 April 1998
Maintained by John Watson and Kathie Watson