developing digital standard geologic data. ... It is in this area [development of a
geologic data model] that the FGDC might make its most important contribution."

3) For material in Part I not already addressed by the above-mentioned working groups, reviewer

comments will be forwarded to the USGS Chief Geologist, for a decision on whether to
eventually revise it for re-release as a guidance document for cartographic preparation of
geologic maps. Does the geoscience community, or perhaps just the USGS, need a
standard or a guidelines document for the cartographic design of geologic maps,
independent of whether a map is prepared digitally or conventionally? If so, the following
issues should be addressed:

a) Must a geologic map be supported by a topographic base, cross-sections, and
stratigraphic columnar sections?
"Several of us who have made maps of relatively uneroded, undeformed terrain
have declined to show cross sections on our published maps because the sections
would be meaningless."
"Most maps of surficial geology don't have cross sections, therefore, by Table 1,
they are not geologic maps."

b) What is an appropriate guidance or standard to help describe a map's reliability? Can we
have a nationwide standard to define "reconnaissance map” or "preliminary map"
that is applicable at all scales and to all geologic terranes? In the reviews, the
section on reliability diagrams was contentious, and needs debate before it is
proposed as a standard or guideline.

c) Can we sufficiently distinguish between "mapping" and "compilation" so that a standard
is possible?
“In many cases "new" geology is based on reinterpretation and synthesis of the old.
Geologic maps are highly interpretive and as such the responsibility for authorship
has to fall to the geologist; it can not be legislated in a standard."

d) Can stratigraphic units be named on a geologic map? This question evoked several
conflicting comments.

Because Part I focuses on geologic mapping and cartography instead of digital data, the
proposed guidance document should not address digital issues:
"There is a heavy emphasis on geologic maps as opposed to digital geologic data
and discussion of both is mixed together throughout the standard. I think it would
be clearer and more useful to separate the cartographic from the digital standards.”

Parts I and II -- the collection of proposed standard symbols, colors, and patterns

This section contains a proposed collection of standard symbols, colors, and patterns, most of
which have been used by the USGS for decades. For each symbol, there is a cartographic
specification and a unique code based on the Digital Line Graph 3 (DLG-3) standard coding
scheme. The symbols are also available in 28 Encapsulated Postscript files as USGS Open-file
Report 95-526; however, as noted below, these files are not useable for digital cartography.


Appendix 1. List of reviewers. In parentheses, I note all reviewers I could identify from the
correspondence received. In some cases, the respondent noted that various unnamed persons had
teviewed the document. I thank all who took the time to provide comments.

Arizona Geological Survey (Stephen Richard)
Arkansas Geological Commission (John McFarland)
California Division of Mines and Geology (various staff members)
Florida Geological Survey (Jon Arthur, Jackie Lloyd)
Idaho Geological Survey (Loudoun Stanford)
Indiana Geological Survey (Todd Thompson)
Towa Geological Survey Bureau (Bernard Hoyer)
Kansas Geological Survey (John Davis)
Maryland Geological Survey (Lamere Hennessee)
Minnesota Geological Survey (G.B. Morey)
Missouri Division of Geology and Land Survey (Mark Middendorf)
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (Karen Porter)
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (various staff members)
New Jersey Geological Survey (various staff members)
North Carolina Geological Survey (Kathleen Farrell, Carl Merschat, Leonard Wiener)
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (Paul Staub)
Utah Geological Survey (Bill Lund)
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (Laurence Becker)
Virginia Division of Mineral Resources (Ian Duncan)
Wyoming Geological Survey (Gary Glass)
USGS
FGDC (Denise Perreca)
Geologic Division (Greg Green, Mike Machette, Dave Sherrod [with assistance from Ed
Wolfe, Richard Waitt, and Willie Scott], Ron Stanton [with assistance from Debbie
Carter, John SanFilipo, and Peter Warwick], Don Swanson)
Publications Groups (Craig Brunstein, Simon Cargill, Alex Donatich, Gene Ellis, Jim
Estabrook, Laurie Hodgen, Liz Koozman, Diane Lane, Kate Schindler, Randy
Schumann, Will Stettner, Sean Stone, Julia Thomas)

10


Although standard symbology is important for map display, utility of the geologic database and
map requires that we first specify standard definitions (a "content" standard) for the geologic
features that we would symbolize.
“[In section 2.0.1.0.4] the standard comes somewhat close to articulating what is required
for digital content standards by saying: "Feature points are Tepresented by a point having
attributes in a digital data base." It's the features and their attributes that need to be defined
and standardized. In doing so you are defining what information is important; the map is
just a means used to represent that information.”

Some reviewers questioned whether they had the resources needed to implement the coding
scheme. Although a standard need not specifically address issues of implementation, they must be
explicitly considered as the standard is being developed.
"It is not clear how the metadata and properties identification is expected to be
accomplished. If every item on every map we produce needs to be coded for attributes
with both major and minor codes, then we'll need to hire additional staff or expect maps to
take orders of magnitude longer to produce. The expectations of how this system is to be
applied needs to be realistic and needs to be defined more clearly.”

Because of the general lack of digital standards and the stature of organizations cited as

collaborators on this document, testing and implementation of the standard has already begun in

some agencies.
“Thave found in the past that ... attributing, as recommended in ... OFR 95-525, is
extremely cumbersome to use in a map database. It is designed (apparently) to be able to
lump any sort of data into a single database file, mostly aimed at storing cartographic
information, not necessarily geologic information. Given the variety of data that needs to
be included in a useful geologic database, it makes a lot more sense to me to put the data in
a number of coverages and files, following the Arc/Info logic of putting data in layers that
make sense. I'm including a rough draft of the data structure design we're presently using.
The attribute coding follows that laid out in OFR 95-525 to the extent that I thought that
worked. As much of the useless overhead as possible was removed to make data storage
more efficient and coding easier to figure out."

Implementation of the symbol standards in a digital environment, with output to plotters of various
tesolution and design, to film writers, and to display terminals, requires extensive forethought and
development costs. Unfortunately, the digital symbols in OFR 95-526 will not serve as the basis
for a digital implementation of the standard.
“[It] simply contains a series of Adobe Illustrator files, each one corresponding to a page in
Sec. 2.1. It is possible to ungroup an illustration, select a particular symbol, and enlarge it
to any desired size. However, you then discover that is consists only of strokes, identical
in nature to the line-drawn symbols in the old Bureau of Standards Hershey fonts or to
IGL symbols. Since the symbols are not drawn as outlines, their graphic representations
cannot be used to define PostScript or other scalable symbols, and the precision with which
they can be printed is dependent upon the original drawing and not on the resolution of the
output device. ... The specifications for symbols are adequate only for creating stroked
symbols, not scalable outlines, and so are not appropriate for use with modern high-
resolution graphics devices."


There was widespread agreement that Parts I and Ul, and especially the symbols themselves, will
be of great utility to the geoscience community. Reviewer comments on symbols, patterns, and
colors will be useful in developing the final standard sets for submission to the FGDC. However,
the attribute coding scheme for symbols is perhaps the most contentious issue in the document,
and must be addressed before submittal.
"The most significant problem with the proposed standard is expressed in this section
[section 2.0.1], where it specifies a "major-minor" code system that requires a minimum
of 7 digits to represent a feature, and may require as many as 28 digits. The coding
scheme really is an exhaustive, taxonomic-type classification of map symbols, and while
theoretically it may be unambiguous in all conceivable circumstances, it is unnecessarily
cumbersome and impractical for actual use. It ignores current practice and is incompatible
with coding schemes in the most widely used cartographic programs such as ARC/INFO
and AutoCAD, as well as the coding procedures in graphic languages such as IGL, HPGL,
and PostScript."

It should not be concluded that a coding scheme is unnecessary, only that significant discussion
needs to occur among technical experts who must, upon acceptance of such a standard, implement
it daily. Implementation is the important consideration -- are the symbols and the attendant coding
scheme appropriate to the task of preparing a digital database and map, appropriate to the breadth
of hardware and software used by the geoscience community, and appropriate to the standard data
model now under development?
"The need for an attribute code standard is without question. Data collected today needs to
be useable many years from now. Will software be made available to link these new codes
to the ARCDLG command in ARC/INFO? ... Is DLG the best choice, or should a
completely new, less cumbersome, format be developed by a consortium of software
developers, geologists, digital cartographers? We are going to have to live with this
exchange standard for a long time. Therefore, the development of a standard needs to be
thought out carefully and with ALL users in mind."

A coding scheme should be designed to most efficiently support database queries and analysis.
For example, numeric fields are generally more amenable to sorting, reselection, and query than
character fields. The proposed coding scheme does not adequately consider efficiency in the act of
encoding a symbol or in the query of a map database.
“Sorting operations appear tedious and time consuming. For example, under this coding
structure multiple reselection iterations are required in order to sort for all faults. (Our]
coding scheme uses an approach that is the reverse of the proposed USGS system. All
faults are tagged by a primary variable; sorting of specific fault types is then conducted by
reselection from the general fault population." ——

A further consideration is that some feature attribution, for example expressions of spatial
uncertainty, may be scale-dependent:
"Section 2.0.1 "Attribute Coding for Earth Science Features" has what I regard as a
fundamental flaw. This is, the 1:24,000 and 1:100,000 data are lumped together with the
same coding (as far as I can determine). That is, I can see no way of distinguishing data
with different uncertainty other than "definite, approximate, and inferred." However, what
is definite at 1:100,000 scale may be only inferred at 1:24,000 scale.”


Summary:

* Persons intending to use OFR 95-525 or 95-526 should read this report first. For some uses,
OFR 95-525 may still be appropriate. However, technical review identified significant
problems with that document which will be addressed by various Federal and State groups
composed of geologists and cartographers, as noted below.

* Contents of the document’s Part I (general discussion of geologic mapping procedures and
cartographic design) will not be revised for submittal to FGDC.

* Many of the issues discussed in Part I have begun to be resolved by standards working groups
formed in August, 1996 under guidance of the USGS National Geologic Map Database
project and the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) Digital Geologic
Mapping Committee. Those working groups are the appropriate forum in which to resolve
those issues and to propose standards to the FGDC, and pertinent review comments will
be forwarded to them.

* Parts II and III (the standard collection of symbols, colors, and patterns) will be revised and
submitted to GDS for comment as a draft Federal standard. This work will Tequire
technical advice from mappers and publications groups in the USGS and State geological
surveys.

* The standard symbols, colors, and patterns should be developed into digital files for use with
widely-used output devices and GIS and graphics software. Federal government
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) partners may be sought to
accomplish this. The files could be released through the CRADA partnership or as a
USGS product, on CD-ROM and at a WWW site.

* The cartographic standard should be accompanied or preceded by standard definitions for the
geologic features that they represent (for example, what is the generally-accepted, standard
definition for a disconformity, a thrust fault, a pingo?). This activity may be supported by
a USGS/AASG Working Group.


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Review of USGS Open-file Report 95-525 ("Cartographic and digital standard for geologic map
information") and plans for development of Federal draft standards for geologic map information

by

David R. Soller!

Open-file Report 96-725

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey
editorial standards. Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive
purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

——
1Reston, Virginia


compressed tar file. Take your pick. The graphics were developed in Adobe Illustrator. All
graphics files are uncompressed and DOS-compatible. On the Mac, the EPS files can be opened
in Adobe Mlustrator.

If your review identifies specific elements of the standard that would benefit from revision by
technical experts and/or managers, the GDS and USGS will work with AASG to resolve those
concerns. Thank you for assisting the geoscience community in this endeavor.

John F. Sutter David R. Soller
Chair, FGDC Geologic Exec. Secretary, FGDC Geologic
Data Subcommittee Data Subcommittee

12


Appendix 2. Excerpts from a letter to Thomas Berg (State Geologist of Ohio), asking for the state
geological surveys to conduct a formal review of USGS Open-file Report 95-525:

December 5, 1995

Thomas Berg
Chair, AASG Data and Standards Committee

Tom --

Based on our telephone conversations with you and with Walter Schmidt, the Federal Geographic
Data Committee's (FGDC) Geologic Data Subcommittee (GDS) requests that the AASG conduct
a technical review of USGS Open-file Report 95-525, entitled "Cartographic and digital standard
for geologic map information." Symbology represented in that report are released in digital form
in USGS Open-file Report 95-526; therefore, a review of that document is also requested.
Because the AASG was listed as a cooperating entity in 95-525, it is appropriate that they have the
Opportunity for a technical review. Likewise, the USGS will be conducting a technical review.

The GDS does not wish to constrain your review because there may be technical issues or
difficulties with implementing this standard that cannot be foreseen prior to technical review. We
do offer some issues for your consideration, partly based on preliminary reviews of the document:
-- do you agree with the general philosophy and approach as stated in the introductory
pages?
-- does Part 1 (Geologic map information) adequately address the subject?
~- are the digital symbols useful? Do various plotters, with different file formats,
reproduce the symbols adequately?
-- is the DLG-type attribute coding scheme adequate? Is it restrictive? Can it be translated
into SDTS format?
-- is the color scheme adequate and useable?
-- is the standard incomplete?

We do not expect each person to review the entire document with a consistent level of attention
throughout, but rather to concentrate on those aspects of the document which are most pertinent to
their expertise. Because this document can be subdivided into discrete topics (e.g., symbology,
coding scheme, or geologic map content), we do not require that all aspects of the document be
readied for FGDC release at the same time. If the entire document is acceptable, then it can be
released in its present form. If not, we can submit for FGDC approval those parts of the
document that we all agree are worthy and non-controversial; if the review identifies any
controversial sections, those could be held back for further discussion without delaying the
remainder of the document.

We are mailing you at least 50 copies of the document, and one copy of the floppy disk containing
Report 95-526. However, for reviewers who want to examine the digital version of the symbols
(separately released as USGS Open-file Report 95-526, but not widely available), it may be easier
for them to obtain a copy from Soller's workstation. There you will find twenty-eight EPS
graphics files and a WP5.1 (export) version of the documentation. You will also find a

ll


Resolution of comments:

1. The standard collection of symbols, colors, and patterns will be revised, and submitted to GDS
for comment as a draft Federal standard. As GDS Executive Secretary, I will resolve these
problems as best I can and submit the draft to the FGDC; additional comments from a
broader audience can then be heard through the FGDC review process. The following
actions will be required to prepare the draft standard:

a. Replace the coding scheme with a more practical one

b. Provide a more comprehensive standard set (especially for the patterns), based on
recommendations of USGS and State Publications Groups

c. Resolve specific comments from reviewers, especially for the symbols (for example,
some symbols are new and unfamiliar, and some are inadequate to describe the
geology, especially in complex structural terranes)

d. Remove the symbols for non-geologic features (the document now includes some
hydrologic and base cartographic symbols, which are within the purview of other
FGDC thematic subcommittees)

The draft standard will be prepared electronically and produced as a paper document for
FGDC review. It will also become available in electronic format. Preparation of the draft
standard will proceed as quickly as possible with available resources. Until the draft is
available for comment through the FGDC review process, the symbols, colors, and
patterns in OFR 95-525 should serve as a valuable reference.

2. The USGS and the geoscience community need digital versions of these standards, in formats
compatible with commonly used software, and in digital specification that will produce
high-quality, scalable output on commonly-used output devices. The following steps will
be coordinated by me, through interaction with interested experts in the USGS, the states,
and private industry:

a. Identify the requirements for hard-copy output (on which plotting and printing devices
do we want to implement the standards?)

b. Identify the digital formats in which the standard set will be developed (this decision
will be based on the software most commonly used by the USGS and, if additional
funding can be identified, other formats used by a sufficient number of state
geological surveys)

c. Develop strategies for converting the standard to digital formats.

d. Identify funding sources and/or establish a Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement (CRADA) with a private company. ~~

e. Develop the digital files

f. Pending negotiations with a CRADA partner, release the files to the public on CD-ROM
and at a WWW site.

3. The cartographic standard should be accompanied or preceded by standard definitions for the
geologic features that they represent (for example, what is the generally-accepted, standard
definition for a disconformity, a thrust fault, a pingo?). Standard definitions could be
developed by the USGS/AASG Data Model Working Group or the USGS Geologic
Division; discussions will be held with those groups to ascertain interest.


Similar concern was also expressed by USGS mappers:
"We believe that the draft goes too far in defining standards that are difficult or impossible
to apply in all situations or that have little scientific utility in some terranes.”

Particularly common were questions about the document's standard for locational accuracy.
Because of the rigorous use to which analysts may apply our digital data, resolution of this issue is
even more important than in the past. A standard or guideline for locational accuracy must be
addressed, collectively, before public release in a document such as this.
"The discussion of locational accuracy in section 1.0.1 is seriously flawed and is not
acceptable under the requirements of the ... FIPS standard for exchange of digital
cartographic data. ... Federal standards require that the accuracy of features on a digital
cartographic product must be specified, along with an explicit statement of how the
accuracy has been determined. ... The USGS either has to test the Positional accuracy of a
wide variety of geologic maps and publish the results, which they can then cite, or they will
have to explicitly acknowledge that the positional accuracy of features on their geologic
maps are not known but are subjectively believed to be thus-and-so.”

Resolution of comments:

The USGS could choose to submit this document as a Federal standard, which by definition need
not be applied by the states [even this strategy may be somewhat murky, as some reviewers
questioned whether participants in the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative
Geologic Mapping Program must adhere to a Federal standard]. We will instead coordinate the
development of standards through broad consensus, among the state, academic, private, and
federal geologic mapping community. The following actions will be taken.

1) Part I will not be revised for submittal to the FGDC, but may be used to develop specific
standards or guidelines as described in 2 and 3, below.

2) Some of the reviewers comments are pertinent to the activities of USGS/AASG standards
working groups and will be forwarded to those groups, to consider in their deliberations.
[In August, 1996, five USGS/AASG working groups were formed to address a variety of
standards and guidelines needed to support the National Geologic Map Database. These
working groups address: 1) Metadata, 2) Guidelines for Digital Geologic Map Publication,
3) Data Capture Techniques, 4) Spatial Accuracy, and 5) a Geologic Data Model. For
more information on the Database project and these working groups see the WWW site
(URL: http://ncgmp.usgs. gov/ngmdbproject/home.html).] —

Because many issues related to preparation of digital geologic maps and databases are
complex and not yet resolved, each issue must be thoroughly discussed and implemented
after careful testing, perhaps through pilot studies. The USGS/AASG working groups will
develop guidance or standards for technical issues that underlie digital mapping. In certain
cases, these efforts are planned to culminate in a proposed FGDC standard; for example, a
draft standard for a geologic data model.

"Now that the Geologic Data Subcommittee has developed standardized geologic

symbols for making maps and thereby documenting what is known very precisely,

the Subcommittee should turn its attention towards the more difficult subject of


and on maps, and this document deserves credit for addressing some of those standards. Many
reviews expressed their appreciation to the USGS and the document’s authors, and noted the
critical need for such standards. However, the most thorough reviews also identified significant
shortcomings to the document. Because I am charged through the FGDC with development of
Federal standards for geologic information, and because standards must be developed through
general consensus among all parties, this report focuses on the need for the document’s revision.

The document contains two parts -- a general discussion of geologic mapping procedures and
cartographic design ("Part I") and the collection of proposed standard symbols, colors, and
patterns ("Parts II and II"). These two parts are separately discussed below. My conclusions are
supported by reviewer’s quotes. To minimize controversy, I have chosen to omit attribution to the
quotes. However, a list of the reviewers is appended.

Part I -- general discussion of geologic mapping procedures and cartographic design

The title of this document is most welcome -- it Suggests a standard for digital map information
that is badly needed by the geoscience community. The transition from traditional paper-based.
map products (destined for application through visual inspection of the map) to digital databases
(destined for analysis using statistics and GIS techniques as well as output to paper maps for
visual inspection) has been difficult and expensive for geological surveys around the world.
Regardless, the opportunity to prepare our information in a format more useable for societal
decisionmaking, and the potential analytical power of the technology, have hastened the transition.

Unfortunately, this document does not address a comprehensive digital standard:
“The original title suggests to me that there is a digital standard for geologic information.
That is to say, there is a standard for computerized geologic databases, or at least certain
kinds of geologic data. This is clearly not the case, as there is no such model even
Suggested. ... The assumption that the printed (plotted) map is the most important
information source is clearly rooted in the past, not the future.”
"This report consistently treats digital geologic maps as digital copies of our current paper
maps."

As an example of this bias, I refer you to the document's item 1.0.1.2:
"This paragraph permits a point of observation to be moved on the map for the sake of
cartographic clarity. I firmly believe that one should never be permitted to move an
observation point."

Several reviewers suggested that Part I should be a guidelines document, not a standard:
"...much of the "standard" is not a standard at all, but rather is a style manual for USGS
authors and draftsmen. Unless everyone agrees that the only acceptable geological maps
are those that are stylistically identical to USGS maps, most of the detail in Part Lis
irrelevant."

Other reviewers questioned whether they would, or could, adhere to the standards:
"Because we have always viewed USGS cartographic standards such as these as
guidelines, some of our comments concern areas where we have found these standards to
be impracticable. It should be recognized that [we] and other state geological surveys may
have developed (or may need to develop) standards better suited to their specific GIS or
digital capabilities."


This report summarizes a technical review of USGS Open-file Report 95-525 "Cartographic and
digital standard for geologic map information" and OFR 95-526 (diskettes containing digital
Tepresentations of the standard symbols). If you are considering the purchase or use of those
documents, you should read this Teport first. For some purposes, OFR 95-525 (the printed
document) will prove to be an excellent resource. However, technical review identified significant
problems with the two documents that will be addressed by various Federal and State committees
composed of geologists and cartographers, as noted below. Therefore, the 2-year review period
noted in OFR 95-525 is no longer applicable. Until those problems are resolved and formal
Standards are issued, you may consult the following World-Wide Web (WWW) site which
contains information about development of geologic map standards:

URL: http://ncgmp.usgs. gov/ngmdbproject/home.html

If the WWW is not available to you, or if you have a specific question regarding the use of the
document, send e-mail (drsoller@usgs.gov) or write to:

Executive Secretary, Geologic Data Subcommittee
USGS

908 National Center

Reston, VA 20192

Background

The practice of geologic mapping, and representation of geologic information in digital databases
and on maps, must be supported by standards if we are to witness increased utility for our
information in support of societal issues. It is essential that such standards be developed
collaboratively, with mutual agreement of the need for, and content of, a standard. Unfortunately,
collaboration on USGS Open-file Report 95-525 was minimal. Cooperators on the report were
the USGS, the Association of American State Geologists (AASG), and the Federal Geographic
Data Committee's (FGDC) Geologic Data Subcommittee (GDS).

The document had been intended for release as a FGDC draft Federal standard, through the GDS.
Under Executive Order 12906, which established the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, the
FGDC has responsibility for assuring development of standards necessary to promote the
dissemination and use of information produced by the Federal government and, with their
Cooperation, by the states. A rigorous technical review of this document was essential, to
determine whether the document was acceptable to its cooperators and to the geologic mapping
community in general.

The technical review was conducted in 1996 (see Appendices). Comments were sought from the
State geological surveys (20 states provided comments), from mappers and cartographers in the
USGS Geologic Division, from the USGS Water Resources Division, and from the FGDC
Secretariat. Some private Companies also responded. Many of the reviews are excellent, and
provide valuable insight to the technical issues of geologic mapping -- for their efforts, I extend my
appreciation. I used their guidance to help prepare this report.

The authors of the standards document also certainly deserve appreciation for their efforts. The
geoscience community needs various standards for managing and presenting data in digital form


The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Open-file Report (OFR) 95-525 ("Cartographic and digital
Standard for geologic map information") and the accompanying diskettes (OFR 95-526) have been
reviewed by the USGS, the State Geological Surveys, and the Geologic Data Subcommittee of the
Federal Geographic Data Committee. The review, published as USGS OFR 96-725, describes
flaws in those reports and explains the plan for preparing a revised set of cartographic standards for

geologic maps.

Before you purchase either 95-525 or 95-526, you may want to read the review document; if you
like, we will send it to you (free of charge, except for postage) or you may read it on a USGS Web
Site (see URL: “http://ncgmp. usgs. gov/ngmdbproject/standards/carto/OFR95-525review. html").
For more information about the standards development activities underway at the USGS, see the
Web site “hip://ncgmp. usgs. gov/ngmdbproject/home. html". :

If you decide to purchase OFR 95-525, the cost of reproduction is as follows: 1) text b&w with
color reproduction of pages showing map symbols, colors, and Patterns -- $159.75; 2) text b&w
with color reproduction of pages showing map symbols (pages showing colors and patterns would
be b&w) — $96.75; or 3) all pages b&w -- $37.50.