Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Association of

American State Geologists

United States

Geological Survey

Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07 —

Workshop Proceedings

May 20 - 23, 2007

Columbia, South Carolina

Convened by the 

Association of American State Geologists and the United States Geological Survey

Hosted by the South Carolina Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2008-1385

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07—

Workshop Proceedings

Edited by David R. Soller

May 20-23, 2007

Columbia, South Carolina

Convened by the

Association of American State Geologists

and the

United States Geological Survey

Hosted by the

South Carolina Geological Survey

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN-FILE REPORT 2008-1385

2008

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for 

conformity with the 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 or State Governments.
iii

CONTENTS

Introduction

By David R. Soller (U.S. Geological Survey) .................................................................. 1

Oral Presentations

The National Geologic Map Database Project – 2007 Report of Progress

By David R. Soller (U.S. Geological Survey) ................................................................ 11

National Cooperative Soil Survey National Soil Information System

By Jim R. Fortner (USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service)........................... 21

Importance of Historical Elevation Data

By Gayle H. McColloch, Jr. and Jane S. McColloch

(West Virginia Geological Survey) ............................................................................ 31

The National Map – Products And Services

By William J. Carswell and Stafford Binder (U.S. Geological Survey)......................... 35

When Maps Were Scribed: USGS Geologic Map Production in the 1970’s

By Will R. Stettner and Paul Mathieux (U.S. Geological Survey) ................................ 39

Open Access Journal Publication: Implementation, Copyright and Dissemination, Using

The Journal of Maps as a Case Study 

By Mike J. Smith (Kingston University)........................................................................ 43

The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and Insight Into the

Future of Geologic Map Production

By Randall C. Orndorff, Peter T. Lyttle, Laurel M. Bybell, and Lydia Quintana

(U.S. Geological Survey)........................................................................................... 47

Geologic Field Mapping Using a Rugged Tablet Computer

By Kent D. Brown and Douglas A. Sprinkel (Utah Geological Survey)........................ 53

Proposal for an ArcGeology Version 1—A Geodatabase Design for

Digital Geologic Maps using ArcGIS ®

By Jordan T. Hastings, Gary L. Raines, Lorre A. Moyer (U.S. Geological Survey)...... 59

Exchanging Observations and Measurements: a Generic Model and Encoding

By Simon J. D. Cox (CSIRO)......................................................................................... 73

Idaho Geologic Map Data in a Statewide Geodatabase

By Loudon R. Stanford (Idaho Geological Survey) and Steve Mulberry (ESRI) .......... 79

Poster Presentations

Alaska Mapper: A Web-based Tool to Access Land Ownership and Other 

State-wide Geospatial Data

By Kenneth R. Papp and Peter Parker (Alaska Division of Geological and

Geophysical Surveys)................................................................................................. 83
iv

Seamless Digital Geological Map of Japan 1:200,000, and its Application

By Toshie Igawa, Koji Wakita, and Shinji Takarada (Geological Survey of Japan) ...... 89

Integrated Geological Map Database and Geological Information Index

By Koji Wakita, Shinji Takarada, and Yasuaki Murata (Geological Survey of Japan)... 93

Developing a Web Site to Provide Geologic Data and Map Products for

Allen County, Indiana

By Robin F. Rupp, Jennifer Olejnik, Nancy R. Hasenmueller, Marni D. Karaffa,

A. Chris Walls, Prem Radhakrishnan, and Nathan K. Eaton

(Indiana Geological Survey)...................................................................................... 97

Glacial Striae Observations for Ireland Compiled from Historic Records

By Mike J. Smith, Jasper Knight, and Kenneth S. Field (Kingston University) .......... 105

GIS Tools for 3-D Surficial Mapping in Ohio

By James McDonald, Richard R. Pavey, Erik R. Venteris, and

Joseph G. Wells (Ohio Division of Geological Survey) .......................................... 109

Mapping Potential Geologic Hazards for Proposed Highway Construction Projects in 

Pennsylvania: Route 15 in Lycoming County

By Stuart O. Reese (Pennsylvania Geological Survey)................................................ 123

Old Mapping and New LiDAR......a Reality Check

By Thomas G. Whitfield (Pennsylvania Geological Survey) ....................................... 127

DNAG Geologic Map of North America GIS Implementation: Overview and Progress

By Christopher P. Garrity and David R. Soller (U.S. Geological Survey) ................... 133

Compilation and Production of the 1:500,000-scale Geologic Map of Washington State,

and Some Aspects of 1:24,000-scale Map Production at the Washington

Division of Geology and Earth Resources

By J. Eric Schuster, Charles G. Caruthers, Anne C. Heinitz, and Karen D. Meyers

(Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources) ........................................ 137
Introduction

By David R. Soller

U.S. Geological Survey

926-A National Center

Reston, VA 20192

Telephone: (703) 648-6907

Fax: (703) 648-6977

e-mail: drsoller@usgs.gov

The Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07 (DMT’07) workshop was attended by 85 technical experts from 49 agencies, 

universities, and private companies, including representatives 

from 27 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop, hosted by the South Carolina Geological Survey, from 

May 20-23, 2007, on the University of South Carolina campus 

in Columbia, South Carolina, was similar in nature to the 

previous ten meetings (see Appendix B). As in the previous 

meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and 

exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure 

that I note that the objective was successfully met, as attendees 

continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, 

and renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT 

workshops.

Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, the latter of which was formed in August 1996 to support the AASG 

and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map 

Database (see Soller, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/

info/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed 

because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and 

quality of digital map products were needed for the database—

and for the State and Federal geological surveys—to provide 

more high-quality digital maps to the public.

At the 2007 meeting, oral and poster presentations and 

special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, “publishing” includes 

Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic 

techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; and 6) continued 

development of the National Geologic Map Database.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the South Carolina Geological Survey (SCGS) 

and their Director and State Geologist, William Clendenin, for 

hosting this meeting. It was a real pleasure to work with Erin 

Hudson and Scott Howard, who coordinated the events. I also 

thank Jennifer Krauser, Joe Koch, Chris Terry and Matt Nichols, Melissa Clare Beaty, Kimberly Meitzen, and Gary Taylor, 

for their hard work that ensured the meeting’s success.

I also thank the members of the Data Capture Working Group (Warren Anderson, Kentucky Geological Survey; 

Elizabeth Campbell, Virginia Division of Mines and Geology; 

Rob Krumm and Barb Stiff, Illinois State Geological Survey; 

Scott McColloch, West Virginia Geological and Economic 

Survey; George Saucedo, California Geological Survey; and 

Tom Whitfield, Pennsylvania Geological Survey) for advice in 

planning the workshop’s content.

And, last but not least, I thank all attendees for their 

participation; their enthusiasm and expertise were the primary 

reasons for the meeting’s success.

PRESENTATIONS AND POSTERS

The workshop included 21 oral presentations and 30 posters. Many are supported by a short paper contained in these 

Proceedings. The papers describe technical and procedural 

approaches that currently meet some or all needs for digital 

mapping at the respective agency. There is not, of course, 

a single “solution” or approach to digital mapping that will 

work for each agency or for each program or group within an 

agency; personnel and funding levels, and the schedule, data 

format, and manner in which we must deliver our information to the public require that each agency design their own 

approach. However, the value of this workshop and other 

forums like it is through their roles in helping to design or 

refine these agency-specific approaches to digital mapping, 

and to find applicable approaches used by other agencies. In 

other words, communication helps us to avoid having to “reinvent the wheel.”

During the course of the 11 annual DMT meetings, it has 

been my pleasure to meet, and work with, the many talented 

people who have authored papers in these Proceedings. As the 
2 Digital Mapping Techniques '07 igital Mapping Techniques 

subjects addressed by the DMT meetings have become even 

more essential to the Nation’s geological surveys, the demands 

placed on them have risen to the point where many authors 

scarcely have time to address their work fully. Predictably, 

less time is then available to compose written summaries of 

their work; I’m sure the readers (or at least other editors) can 

sympathize with this predicament. Therefore, I include with 

this Introduction a list of all presentations and posters (Appendix C). If the reader finds an interesting title that isn’t recorded 

in these Proceedings, I encourage them to contact the authors 

directly. Further, some presentations and related information 

is available for download at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/dmt/

DMT07presentations.html.

THE NEXT DMT WORKSHOP

The twelfth annual DMT meeting will be held in the 

Spring of 2008, on the campus of University of Idaho, in Moscow, Idaho. Please consult the Web site (http://ngmdb.usgs.

gov/Info/dmt/) for additional information about this and other 

DMT meetings.
Introduction 3

Appendix A. List of workshop attendees

[Grouped by affiliation]

Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys

Kenneth Papp

Arizona Geological Survey/USGS

Stephen Richard

Arkansas Geological Commission

Jerry Clark

Doug Hanson

Nathan Taylor

Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres

Francois Robida

British Geological Survey

Ian Jackson

C Tech Development Corporation

Reed Copsey

California Geological Survey

George Saucedo

Colorado Geological Survey

Nicholas Watterson

Colorado State University / National Park Service

Ron Karpilo

Stephanie O'Meara

CSIRO

Simon Cox

ESRI

Steve Mulberry

Geological Survey of Canada

Boyan Brodaric

Geological Survey of Japan

Toshie Igawa

Koji Wakita

Georgia Geologic Survey

Mark Cocker

Geoscience Australia

Lesley Wyborn

Idaho Geological Survey

Jane Freed

Loudon Stanford

Illinois State Geological Survey

Jane Domier

Indiana Geological Survey

Robin Rupp

Kingston University

Mike Smith

Louisiana Geological Survey

Robert Paulsell

Michigan Geological Survey

John Esch

Minnesota Geological Survey

Harvey Thorleifson

Missouri Geological Survey

Chris Vierrether

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology

Susan M. Smith

National Park Service

Andrea Croskrey

Georgia Hybels

David Shelley

Natural Resources Canada

John Broome

Parm Dhesi

Dave Everett

Mike Sigouin

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology

Jennifer Mauldin

New Mexico Division of Geology and Mineral Resources

Glen Jones

North Carolina Division of Land Resources

Jeff Reid

Ohio Division of Geological Survey

James McDonald

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

Mark Sanchez

Pennsylvania Geological Survey

Stuart Reese

Thomas Whitfield

Portland State University

David Percy

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Hydrology

Lee Mitchell

South Carolina Geodetic Survey

Lewis Lapine

Matt Wellslager
4 Digital Mapping Techniques '07

South Carolina Geological Survey

Melissa Clare Beaty

Will Doar

Scott Howard

Erin Hudson

Jennifer Krauser

Ralph Willoughby

U.S. Geological Survey

Gregory Allord

Stafford Binder

Bill Carswell

Jonathan Craigue

Mary DiGiacomo-Cohen

Chris Garrity

Jordan Hastings

Bruce Johnson

Gary Merrill

Randall Orndorff

Lisa Rukstales

David Soller

Nancy Stamm

Will Stettner

University of Alabama

Douglas Behm

University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Randi Clapham

University of Minnesota

Paul Morin

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Paul Hanson

University of South Carolina

Kimberly Meitzen

USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service

Jim Fortner

Utah Geological Survey

Kent Brown

Basia Matyjasik

Virginia Division of Mineral Resources

Elizabeth Campbell

Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources

Chuck Caruthers

Anne Heinitz

Karen Meyers

West Virginia Geological Survey

Jane McColloch

Scott McColloch

Wisconsin Geological & Natural History Survey

Kathy Roushar

Wyoming State Geological Survey

Allory Deiss

David Lucke

Phyllis Ranz
Introduction 5

Appendix B. Previous Digital Mapping Techniques Workshops.

1997:

Hosted by the Kansas Geological Survey, Lawrence, Kansas, June 2-5. 73 technical experts attended, from 30 state 

geological surveys, the USGS, and the Geological Survey 

of Canada.

Soller, D.R., editor, 1997, Proceedings of a workshop on 

digital mapping techniques: Methods for geologic map data 

capture, management, and publication: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 97-269, 120 p., available at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/of/of97-269/.

1998:

Hosted by the Illinois State Geological Survey in Champaign, Illinois, May 27-30. More than 80 technical experts 

attended, mostly from the state geological surveys and the 

USGS.

Soller, D.R., editor, 1998, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘98—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98-487, 134 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/

of98-487/.

1999:

Hosted by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History 

Survey in Madison, Wisconsin, May 19-22. 91 selected 

technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private 

companies attended, including representatives from 30 state 

geological surveys.

Soller, D.R., editor, 1999, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘99—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 99-386, 216 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/

of99-386/front.html.

2000:

Hosted by the Kentucky Geological Survey in Lexington, 

Kentucky, May 17-20. 99 technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private companies attended, including 

representatives from 28 state geological surveys.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2000, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘00—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 00-325, 209 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/

of00-325/.

2001:

Hosted by the Geological Survey of Alabama, in Tuscaloosa, 

Alabama, May 20-23. 108 technical experts from 48 agencies, universities, and private companies attended, including 

representatives from 31 state geological surveys.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2001, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘01—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 01-223, 248 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2001/of01-223/.

2002:

Hosted by the Utah Geological Survey, in Salt Lake City, 

Utah, May 19-22. More than 100 technical experts from 

40 agencies, universities, and private companies attended, 

including representatives from 30 state geological surveys.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2002, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘02—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 02-370, 214 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2002/of02-370/.

2003:

Hosted by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, in Millersville, Pennsylvania, June 1-4. Nearly 90 technical experts 

from 36 agencies, universities, and private companies 

attended, including representatives from 22 state geological 

surveys.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2003, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘03—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 03-471, 262 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2003/of03-471/.

2004:

Hosted by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries, in Portland, Oregon, May 16-19. Nearly 100 

technical experts from 40 agencies, universities, and private 

companies attended, including representatives from 22 state 

geological surveys.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2004, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘04—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2004-1451, 220 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2004/1451/.

2005:

Hosted by the Louisiana Geological Survey, in Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana, April 24-27. More than 100 technical experts 

from 47 agencies, universities, and private companies 

attended, including representatives from 25 state geological 

surveys.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2005, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘05—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2005-1428, 268 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2005/1428/.
6 Digital Mapping Techniques '07

2006:

Hosted by the Ohio Geological Survey, in Columbus, Ohio, 

June 11-14. More than 115 technical experts from 49 agencies, universities, and private companies attended, including 

representatives from 27 state geological surveys.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2007, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘06—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2007-1285, 217 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2007/1285/.
Introduction 7

Appendix C. List of oral and poster presentations, and 

discussion sessions.

Oral Presentations:

OneGeology - noble aspiration or pragmatic solution (... or 

both?)

By Ian Jackson (Director of Information, British Geological Survey), John Broome (Head, ESS Data Management 

Policy & Strategy, Natural Resources Canada), and Harvey 

Thorleifson (Director, Minnesota Geological Survey)

The U.S. National Geologic Map Database

By David R. Soller (U.S. Geological Survey), Harvey 

Thorleifson (Minnesota Geological Survey), and Nancy R. 

Stamm (U.S. Geological Survey)

USDA-NRCS National Soil Information System

By Jim R. Fortner (USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service)

Importance of Historical Elevation Data

By Gayle H. McColloch, Jr. and Jane S. McColloch (West 

Virginia Geological Survey)

Discussion Session - “The National Map: Products and Services”

By William Carswell and Stafford Binder (U.S. Geological 

Survey)

Geologic Map Production During the 70s at the U.S. Geological Survey

By Will Stettner, Linda Masonic, and Paul Mathieux (U.S. 

Geological Survey)

Open Access Journal Publication: methods of implementation 

and copyright issues using the Journal of Maps as a case 

study

By Mike J. Smith (Kingston University)

New Developments in Data Management Policy & Strategy in 

the Earth Sciences Sector/Geological Survey of Canada

By John Broome (Head, ESS Data Management Policy & 

Strategy, Natural Resources Canada)

BGS information: The highs (and lows) of 2006/07

By Ian Jackson (Director of Information, British Geological 

Survey)

The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and 

Insight Into the Future of Geologic Map Production

By Randall C. Orndorff (U.S. Geological Survey)

Discussion Session – “Can we develop National guidelines or 

standards for database format and content?”

A discussion of commonly-used practices, and whether 

guidelines can, and should be developed. Led by Dave 

Soller (U.S. Geological Survey)

Geologic Field Mapping Using a Ruggedized Tablet Computer

By Kent D. Brown, Douglas A. Sprinkel, Basia Matyjasik, 

and J. Buck Ehler (Utah Geological Survey)

South Carolina Virtual Reference Station Network - Centimeter Positional Accuracy in Real Time for South Carolina

By Lew Lapine and Matt Wellslager (South Carolina Geodetic Survey)

Workflow and distribution of USGS manuscripts and illustrations

By Greg Allord (U.S. Geological Survey)

Introduction to the NGMDB “Phase 3” Prototype Data Portal

By David R. Soller (U.S. Geological Survey), David Percy 

(Portland State University), Steve Richard (Arizona Geological Survey), and Jon Craigue (University of Arizona/

U.S. Geological Survey)

3D Volumetric Visualization with EVS and MVS

By Reed Copsey (C Tech Development Corporation)

The challenge of efficiently building closed volumetric 3D 

geological models that are scientifically rigorous: an Australian perspective

By Richard Lane and Lesley Wyborn (Geoscience Australia)

Classrooms, Museums and Mapping in Antarctica; What new 

techniques mean to you

By Paul J. Morin (University of Minnesota)

Proposed Arc Geology Version 1

By Gary L. Raines, Jordan T. Hastings, and Lorre A. Moyer 

(U.S. Geological Survey)

Progress Report on Development of GeoSciML

By Steve Richard (Arizona Geological Survey) and the 

IUGS CGI Data Model Collaboration Working Group

Exchanging observations and measurements: a generic model 

and encoding

By Simon J.D. Cox (CSIRO Exploration & Mining, Australia)

Discussion Session —“ESRI products and Geodatabase 

implementation” —Loudon R. Stanford (Idaho Geological Survey) and Steve Mulberry (ESRI Atlanta) provided a 

presentation on “Idaho Geologic Map Data In a Statewide 

Geodatabase: Design, Data Management Tools, and Online 

Distribution”. Steve Mulberry (ESRI), provided an overview of ESRI products, and addressed questions posed by 

the attendees.
8 Digital Mapping Techniques '07

Discussion Session - Digital Cartography —Discussion of 

technical issues related to cartography, methods for communicating/sharing this knowledge (e.g., Cartographic 

Resources website), and an update on implementation of the 

FGDC Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization. Led by 

Dave Soller (U.S. Geological Survey)

Poster Presentations (listed alphabetically, by agency):

Alaska Mapper, a Web-based tool to access land ownership 

and other state-wide geospatial data

By Kenneth R. Papp (AK Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys) and Peter Parker (AK Department of 

Natural Resources)

The IUGS CGI Concept Definitions Working Group

By Steve Richard (Arizona Geological Survey) and the 

IUGS CGI Data Model Collaboration Working Group

Geology of Mount Magazine State Park and Vicinity, Logan 

County, Arkansas

By Scott M. Ausbrooks, Charles G. Stone, and Boyd R. 

Haley; digital compilation by Jerry W. Clark (Arkansas 

Geological Commission)

Geologic Report of Little River County, Arkansas

By William D. Hanson and Benjamin F. Clardy; digital 

compilation by Tiffaney Celis (Arkansas Geological Commission)

Geology of the Crater of Diamonds State Park and Vicinity, 

Pike County, Arkansas

By William D. Hanson, J. Michael Howard, and Benjamin 

F. Clardy; digital compilation by Nathan H. Taylor (Arkansas Geological Commission)

Virtual Geologic Field Trip to Rocky Mountain National Park, 

Colorado

By James R. Chappell, Ronald D. Karpilo, Jason Isherwood, Heather I. Stanton, Philip Reiker and Stephanie A. 

O'Meara (Colorado State University)

GeoSciML Testbed 2 Demonstration

By Boyan Brodaric (Geological Survey of Canada), Bruce 

Johnson (U.S. Geological Survey, and Francois Robida 

(BRGM)

Mapping Halifax Harbour - the making of a GSC Bulletin

By Gordon B.J. Fader, Robert O. Miller and Phil O’Regan 

(Geological Survey of Canada)

Seamless Digital Geological Map of Japan 1:200,000, and its 

application

By Toshie Igawa, Koji Wakita, and Shinji Takarada (Geological Survey of Japan)

Integrated Geological Map Database and Geological Information Index

By Koji Wakita, Shinji Takarada, and Yasuaki Murata (Geological Survey of Japan)

On-line FIncs System for the Management and Delivery of 

Fluid Inclusion Data

By Terrence P. Mernagh, Dale Percival, Evgeniy N. Bastrakov, and Lesley A.I. Wyborn (Geoscience Australia)

The Australian Landslides Data Model

By Monica Osuchowski (Geoscience Australia), Rob Atkinson (Social Change Online), Simon Cox (CSIRO Division 

of Exploration and Mining), and Nick Ardlie and Stuart 

Girvan Australia)

The Australian Mineral Occurrence Data Exchange Model

By Adele Seymon and Bruce Simons (GeoScience Victoria), 

Oliver Raymond (Geoscience Australia), Gary Andrews 

(Northern Territory Geological Survey), Terry Denaro 

(Geological Survey of Queensland), Greg Jenkins (Primary 

Industries and Resources SA, Government of South Australia), Peter Lewis (Geological Survey of New South Wales), 

James Llorca (GeoScience Victoria), Marcus McClenaghan 

(Mineral Resources Tasmania), Alistair Ritchie (GeoScience Victoria), Jafar Taheri (Mineral Resources Tasmania), 

Ian Withnall (Geological Survey of Queensland), Andrew 

Wygralak (Northern Territory Geological Survey), and Lesley Wyborn (Geoscience Australia)

Idaho Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map Data Model 

v3.1b: ESRI Geodatabase Schema Diagram

By Loudon Stanford (Idaho Geological Survey) and Steve 

Mulberry (ESRI)

Developing a Web Site To Provide Geologic Data and Map 

Products for Allen County, Indiana

By Robin F. Rupp, Jennifer Olejnik, Nancy R. Hasenmueller, Marni D. Karaffa, A. Chris Walls, Prem Radhakrishnan, 

and Nathan K. Eaton (Indiana Geological Survey)

A map of glacial striae observations for Ireland compiled from 

historic records

By M. J. Smith (Kingston University), J. Knight (University 

of Exeter), and K. Field (Kingston University)

GIS tools for 3-D surficial mapping in Ohio

By James McDonald, Richard R. Pavey, Erik R. Venteris, 

and Joseph G. Wells (Ohio Geological Survey)

Relative Earthquake Induced Hazard Maps and Identified 

Landslide Hazard Map for Six Counties in the Mid-Willamette Valley, Including Yamhill, Marion, Polk, Benton, 

Linn, and Lane Counties, Oregon

By William Burns, R. Jon Hofmeister, Rudie Watzig, and 

Yumei Wang (Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries)
Introduction 9

Landslide Mapping Using LiDAR Data Technology

By Mark A. Sanchez (Oregon Department of Geology and 

Mineral Industries)

Mapping Potential Geologic Hazards for Proposed Highway 

Construction Projects in Pennsylvania: Route 15 in Lycoming County

By Stuart Reese (Pennsylvania Geological Survey)

Old mapping and new LiDAR.....a reality check

By Tom Whitfield (Pennsylvania Geological Survey)

USDA-NRCS National Soil Information System

By Jim R. Fortner (USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service)

Combining mixed sources, unknown projections, and varying 

resolutions with state line faults to create coherent source 

and assessment unit outlines for the 2007 USGS Illinois 

Basin Oil and Gas Assessment

By Joseph A. East (U.S. Geological Survey)

Progress Report on Database Development for the Geologic 

Map of North America

By Christopher P. Garrity and David R. Soller (U.S. Geological Survey)

The National Geologic Map Database

By David R. Soller (U.S. Geological Survey), Harvey 

Thorleifson (Minnesota Geological Survey), and Nancy R. 

Stamm (U.S. Geological Survey)

The FGDC Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization

By David R. Soller and Taryn Lindquist (U.S. Geological 

Survey)

Divisions of Geologic Time - Major Chronostratigraphic and 

Geochronologic Units

By the Geologic Names Committee of the U.S. Geological 

Survey

Congaree River Floodplain Inundation Model: Developing A 

Decision Support Tool for Congaree National Park, South 

Carolina

By Kimberly M. Meitzen (University of South Carolina)

Creating an Integrated Geologic Data System in Virginia

By Elizabeth Campbell (Virginia Division of Mineral 

Resources)

Compilation and Production of the 1:500,000-scale Geologic 

Map of Washington State, and Some Aspects of 1:24,000-

scale Map Production at the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources

By J. Eric Schuster, Charles G. Caruthers, Anne C. Heinitz, 

and Karen D. Meyers (Washington Division of Geology and 

Earth Resources)

The National Geologic Map Database Project – 2007 

Report of Progress

By David R. Soller

U.S. Geological Survey

926-A National Center

Reston, VA 20192

Telephone: (703) 648-6907

Fax: (703) 648-6977

e-mail: drsoller@usgs.gov

Development and management of geologic map databases for support of societal decisionmaking and scientific 

research is a critical need. The National Geologic Mapping 

Act of 1992 (http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ncgmpabout/ngmact/

ngmact1992) and its subsequent reauthorizations mandate 

the creation and maintenance of a National Geologic Map 

Database (NGMDB, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov) as a national 

archive of spatially referenced geoscience data, including 

geology, paleontology, and geochronology. The Act further 

stipulates that all new information contributed to the NGMDB 

must adhere to technical and science standards that are to 

be developed as needed under the guidance of the NGMDB 

project. Development of a national database and its attendant 

standards is a daunting task that requires close collaboration 

among all geoscience agencies in the U.S., at the State and 

Federal levels. The Act, therefore, creates the environment 

within which the USGS and the Association of American State 

Geologists (AASG) can collaborate to build the NGMDB and 

also serve the needs of their own agencies.

From the guidelines in the National Geologic Mapping 

Act, and through extensive discussions and forums with the 

geoscience community and with the public, a general strategy 

for building the NGMDB was defined in 1995. Based on 

continued public input, the NGMDB has evolved from a concept to a set of resources that substantially help the Nation’s 

geological surveys provide to the public, in a more efficient 

manner, standardized digital geoscience information.

The NGMDB is designed to be a comprehensive reference tool and data management system for spatial geoscience 

information in paper and digital form. It consists of the 

following: 1) a Map Catalog containing limited metadata for 

all paper and digital geoscience maps and book publications 

that contain maps (including maps of any part of the Nation, 

published by any agency), online viewable images of paper 

and digital maps, and links to online data; 2) the U.S. Geologic 

Names Lexicon; 3) the Mapping in Progress Database; 4) 

nationwide geologic map coverage at intermediate and small 

scales; 5) an online database of geologic maps (predominantly 

in vector format; planned as a distributed system); 6) a set of 

Web interfaces to permit access to these products; and 7) a 

set of standards and guidelines to promote more efficient use 

and management of spatial geoscience information. The 

NGMDB system is a hybrid – some aspects are centralized 

and some are distributed, with the map information held 

by various cooperators (for example, the State geological 

surveys). Through a primary entry point on the Web, users 

can browse and query the NGMDB, and obtain access to the 

information wherever it resides.

The Congressional mandate for state-federal collaboration has proven invaluable, facilitating progress on many 

technical issues that would otherwise have been much more 

difficult to achieve. The NGMDB’s long record of accomplishment owes a significant debt to its many collaborators, 

and to the institutions with which it interacts (Appendix 

A). Each year in these Proceedings, and at numerous 

meetings and presentations, technical plans and progress are 

reported. In order to minimize repetition in this report, I 

have limited the background and explanatory information, 

which are contained in previous reports of progress (Appendix 

B; in particular the 2005 report).

PROJECT ORGANIZATION

The project consists of a set of related tasks that will 

develop, over time, a NGMDB with increasing complexity and 

utility. This is being accomplished through a network of geoscientists, computer scientists, librarians, and others committed to supporting the project’s objectives. Phase One of this 

project principally involves the building of a comprehensive 

Geoscience Map Catalog of bibliographic records and online 

images of all available paper and digital maps, and many 

books, guidebooks, and journal articles that either include 

maps or describe the geology of an area; although the project’s 

name refers only to maps, the Catalog contains information 
12 Digital Mapping Techniques '07

related to the numerous earth-science themes specified in 

the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. Critical to 

this first phase is the design and development of the U.S. 

Geologic Names Lexicon (Geolex), the Mapping in Progress 

Database, and the National Paleontology Database. Phase 

Two addresses the development of standards and guidelines 

for geologic map and database content and format. Phase 

Three is a long-term effort to develop a distributed database 

containing nationwide geologic map coverage at multiple 

map scales, populated according to a set of content and format 

specifications that are standardized through general agreement 

among all partners in the NGMDB (principally the AASG and 

USGS); this database will be integrated with the databases 

developed in Phase One. The NGMDB project’s technology 

and standards development efforts also are coordinated with 

various international bodies, including the Federal Geographic 

Data Committee, ESRI, the North American Geologic Map 

Data Model Steering Committee (NADM), the U.S. National 

Science Foundation’s database management and interoperability projects, the IUGS Commission on the Management and 

Application of Geoscience Information (“IUGS CGI”), the 

IUGS Commission on Stratigraphy, the IUGS-affiliated Commission for the Geological Map of the World, and the International Association of Mathematical Geology (IAMG).

A full realization of the project’s third phase is not 

assured and will require a strong commitment among the 

cooperators as well as adequate technology, map data, and 

funding. The project will continue to assess various options 

for development of this database, based on realistic funding 

projections and other factors. During the development of 

these phases of the NGMDB, extensive work will be conducted to generate Web interfaces and search engines and to 

continually improve them, and to develop the data management and administrative protocols necessary to ensure that the 

NGMDB will function efficiently in the future. The NGMDB’s databases and project information can be found at http://

ngmdb.usgs.gov.

PROGRESS IN 2007

Phase One

A wealth of geoscience information is available in various paper and digital formats. With the emergence of the 

Internet and Web, the public has come to expect rapid, easy, 

and unfettered access to government data holdings. Geoscience data must therefore become widely available via 

the Web, and the concepts presented in its products must be 

understandable to the public. If our information is more 

readily available to the public, and if tools are offered to help 

integrate and provide access to that information, its utility may 

be greatly increased.

However, providing effective public Web access to our 

products presents a real challenge for each geoscience agency, 

because of new and rapidly evolving technology, restricted 

funding, new requirements from the user community, and the 

somewhat confusing array of websites at which various types 

and quality of information can be found. To help address 

these challenges, Phase One focuses on providing simple, 

straightforward access to a broad spectrum of geoscience 

information, and forms the stable platform upon which the 

other NGMDB tasks and capabilities are based. 

Specific accomplishments in 2007 include:

1. Expanded the Geoscience Map Catalog by 

about 3700 records, to a total of about 78,000 

records. This includes 37,500 USGS publications 

in map, book, and open-file series, 27,000 state geological survey publications, and 13,500 products by 

other publishers. About 4700 existing records were 

updated; these mostly consisted of links to newlyonline versions of the publication.

2. Engaged 49 states in the process of entering Map 

Catalog records. This resulted in the addition of 

about 2700 new records for state geological survey 

publications.

3. Increased the number of links from the Map Catalog 

to online publications, including map images, from 

about 10,000 to 15,000.

4. Continued to expand and revise Geolex (U.S. 

Geologic Names Lexicon), with a major update 

completed in mid-year. This update included the 

addition of ~1500 synopses, 500 references, and 70 

geologic units.

5. Significantly revised the Geolex web interface to: 

a) allow more flexible search of geologic names; b) 

provide search results that include units related to 

that name; and c) provide forms for users and project 

personnel to assist in making additions and corrections.

6. Engaged 12 state geological surveys in a systematic 

review of Geolex, partly in cooperation with the 

USGS Energy Resources Program.

7. Under agreement with the USGS Publications Warehouse (PW), obtained 7000 map images scanned by 

the PW, and have processed 3200 for direct service 

via the Map Catalog image viewer. The agreement 

was undertaken to minimize duplication between the 

two systems, integrate them, and provide to the user 

the image viewer most appropriate for the publication format (e.g., MrSID format for large-format 

maps via NGMDB, and DjVu format for multi-page 

documents via PW).

8. Configured a 7-TB computer for short-term storage 

of map images and for image processing. Loaded 

to this computer 4.1 TB of images scanned by 

NGMDB or obtained from cooperators.
The National Geologic Map Database Project 13

9. Received approval by USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) and 

their Federal Advisory Committee for a plan to 

make images of selected EDMAP-grant deliverables publicly available via the Map Catalog (e.g., 

http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_81551.

htm). Unpublished GIS files of these maps will be 

archived and password-protected in the NGMDB, 

for later use by researchers.

10. Completed a significant effort to include in the Map 

Catalog a geographic search (see http://ngmdb.

usgs.gov/ngmdb/ngm_compsearch.html). This 

new function allows the user to visually define the 

geographic boundary of their search. In a future 

redesign of the entire site, the geographic search is 

expected to serve a central, organizing role.

11. Created a set of monthly web statistics that identify 

the extent to which state geological survey publications are accessed via the Map Catalog. These 

statistics will be provided to each state geologist.

12. Evaluated user response to a prototype application 

that generates a file to display Map Catalog search 

results in Google Earth. Based on public comments 

received, this application will be further developed.

13. In response to NCGMP and AASG requests, and 

in part to address NCGMP performance metrics 

required by the Office of Management and Budget, 

provided: a) index maps showing areas in the U.S. 

that have been geologically mapped at various scales 

and time periods, and b) computations including 

the number of square miles geologically mapped at 

intermediate and more detailed scales (see Soller, 

2005).

14. Worked with NCGMP to improve their data-entry 

procedure for the Mapping in Progress database, 

focusing on database redesign and adding information most useful to NCGMP management. 

15. Gave numerous project presentations to scientists 

and managers at USGS, AASG, and other scientific meetings, whereby details of the project were 

explained and participation in building various 

NGMDB standards and databases was increased.

16. Completed several hundred productive interchanges with Map Catalog and Geolex users, via 

the NGMDB feedback form and other mechanisms. These users vary widely in interest and 

background, and include school children, homeowners, local government planners, and professional 

geologists.

Phase Two

Geoscience information increasingly is available in 

digital format. Within an agency, program, or a project, there 

are standard practices for the preparation and distribution of 

this information. However, widely accepted standards and/

or guidelines for the format, content, and symbolization of 

this information do not yet exist. Such standards are critical 

to the broader acceptance, comprehension, and use of geoscience information by the non-professional and professional 

alike. Under the mandate of the National Geologic Mapping Act, the NGMDB project serves as one mechanism for 

coordinating and developing the standards and guidelines that 

are deemed necessary by the U.S. and international geoscience 

community. 

The NGMDB project leads or assists in development of 

standards and guidelines for digital database and map preparation, publication, and management. This activity is a challenging one that entails a lengthy period of conceptual design, 

documentation, and test-implementation. For example: 1) a 

conceptual data model must be shown to be implementable in 

a commonly-available GIS such as ESRI’s ArcGIS; 2) a datainterchange standard must be demonstrated to be an effective 

mechanism for integrating (e.g., through the NGMDB portal) 

the many and varied data systems maintained by the state 

geological surveys, USGS, and others; and 3) a map symbolization standard must be implemented in, for example, Postscript or ArcGIS before it can be used to create a map product. Then, of course, each proposed standard must become 

widely adopted; otherwise, it isn’t really a standard. Internationally, the NGMDB participates in venues that help to 

develop and refine the U.S. standards. These venues also bring 

our work to the international community, thereby promoting 

greater standardization with other countries. 

Specific accomplishments in 2007 include:

1. Coordinated work on the new Federally-endorsed 

(FGDC) geologic map symbolization standard, especially preparation of the printed version of the standard, and the Postscript implementation, which will 

be a USGS publication. Responded to inquiries 

and comments from users. Redesigned the FGDC 

Geologic Data Subcommittee website, and posted 

the PDF version of the standard there (http://ngmdb.

usgs.gov/fgdc_gds/).

2. Served as Chair of the FGDC Geologic Data 

Subcommittee.

3. Organized and led the eleventh annual “Digital Mapping Techniques” workshop. Developed the agenda, 

solicited presentations, and worked to prepare the 

workshop proceedings. Edited and prepared for 

publication the workshop Proceedings from the 

previous year’s meeting (DMT ‘06, Columbus, 

OH). These meetings have helped the geosci-
14 Digital Mapping Techniques '07

ence community to converge on more standardized 

approaches for digital mapping and GIS analysis.

4. Served as committee Secretary and as member of 

the U.S. Geologic Names Committee. Assisted in 

proposal of geologic time scale and color scheme 

that was adopted by the USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/

fs/2007/3015/).

5. Served as Coordinator of the North American Geologic Map Data Model Steering Committee (NADMSC) and managed the NADM website (http://

nadm-geo.org/).

6. Served as U.S. representative to DIMAS, the global 

standards body serving the Commission for the 

Geological Map of the World (http://www.geology.

cz/dimas). Provided technical information and 

guidance on data model and science terminology 

standards under development in North America, and 

participated in DIMAS initiatives to develop global 

standards.

7. Served as the U.S. Council Member to the IUGS 

Commission for the Management and Application 

of Geoscience Information (“CGI”, http://www.cgiiugs.org/).

8. Participated in the IUGS CGI’s Interoperability 

Working Group (https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/

bin/view/CGIModel/InteroperabilityWG). Helped 

to develop consensus for international standards for 

a geologic data model. Contributed to development 

of the GeoSciML schema, which is proposed as an 

international data-exchange standard for geoscience 

information.

9. Served as IUGS CGI liaison to the Multi-Lingual 

Thesaurus Working Group. This group is enabling 

global exchange of geoscience information by 

developing a common science vocabulary that is 

translated into many languages.

10. Served as USGS technical representative to the 

international “OneGeology” project (http://www.

onegeology.org/). Provided technical guidance and 

support to the project.

11. Participated in USGS-AASG meetings on “Geoinformatics”, intended to identify common ground for 

building the infrastructure needed to support projects 

such as the NGMDB.

12. Continued to interact with ESRI regarding: a) collaboration on an ArcGIS Geology Data Model that 

could be compatible with the NGMDB data model 

now under development; and b) ESRI implementation of the FGDC geologic map symbolization 

standard. 

Phase Three

It is a commonly held vision that the National Geologic 

Map Database will be a repository of geologic map and related 

information, managed in a system distributed among the 

USGS and State geological surveys. The system would offer 

public access to complex, attributed vector and raster geoscience data, and allow users to perform queries, create derivative 

maps, and download source and derived map data. To realize 

this vision requires: 1) close collaboration among the partners; 2) a flexible and evolving set of standards, guidelines, 

and data management protocols; 3) a clear understanding of 

the technical challenges to building such a system; and 4) an 

adequate source of funding. Phase Three is designed to foster an environment where the distributed database system can 

be prototyped while these requirements are being addressed 

by the partners. The NGMDB is prototyping a system with 

two components: 1) a centralized database containing digital 

geologic map coverage for the U.S. at selected intermediate 

and small scales, and 2) distributed access to a more comprehensive set of map data held by the NGMDB collaborators 

(principally the state geological surveys). All information 

in the system would retain metadata that clearly indicates its 

source (e.g., who created the source map and, ideally, details 

on the origin and modifications to a particular contact, fault, or 

map unit attributes).

This is a long-term effort whose fully realized form is, 

at this time, difficult to predict. Because it is a complex task 

that depends on data availability, technological evolution, 

skilled personnel (in high demand and, therefore, in short supply), and the ability for all participants to reach consensus on 

the approach, the scope and details of Phase Three are systematically explored and developed through prototypes. Each 

prototype addresses aspects of the database design, implementation in GIS software (e.g., ArcGIS), standard science 

terminologies, and software tools designed to facilitate data 

entry. Each prototype is presented to the participants and the 

public for comment and guidance. The focus of new prototypes is guided by the comments received.

For example, in FY01 the NGMDB completed a major 

prototype in cooperation with the Kentucky Geological 

Survey, the Geological Survey of Canada, the University of 

California at Santa Barbara, and the private sector (Soller 

and others, 2002). The principal goal was to implement the 

NADM draft standard logical data model in a physical system, 

and to demonstrate certain very basic, essential characteristics 

of the envisioned system. That prototype was demonstrated 

and discussed at numerous scientific meetings, and its data 

model contributed to development of the North American 

conceptual data model. The project then considered plans to 

improve that system by adding more complex geologic data 

and software functionality. However, it would have required 

significant new funding at a time when technology and 

geoscience community ideas on database design were rapidly 

evolving. Therefore, a more limited approach is being pursued in the current prototype, in which draft NGMDB science 
The National Geologic Map Database Project 15

terminologies, a NADM-based database design, and data-entry 

tools were devised in order for the project to develop a Map 

Data Portal that offers public access to a simplified view of 

GIS data held by various cooperating agencies. 

Specific accomplishments include:

1. Significant advances were made in design of the NGMDB 

prototype Map Data Portal. Components developed 

in previous years (e.g., a NADM-derived data model 

(Richard and others, 2004 and 2005), a Data-Entry 

Tool, and NADM-derived science terminologies) were 

brought together to demonstrate for USGS and AASG 

consideration a system model in which the full richness 

and variability of map information content is managed 

by the publishing agencies or other repositories, with a 

subset of the information made available via the NGMDB 

data portal for browsing and querying and, on a limited 

basis, for downloading in formats such as Arc shapefiles 

and GeoSciML. Our overall philosophy is to provide 

through this Portal a simplified view, a glimpse, of the 

maps and, as in the Map Catalog, to then direct the user 

to the source (the publishing agency) to obtain the actual 

data. Because the information provided through this 

Portal uses standardized, controlled science terms, it presents a somewhat unified or harmonized view of the source 

maps, which should assist users in understanding the basic 

aspects of a region’s geology.

Technical and management involvement in Portal development, and the datasets served therein, was 

obtained from the geological surveys of Washington, 

Oregon, Idaho, and Arizona, and from Portland State 

University and the University of Arizona. The NGMDB 

Map Data Portal was demonstrated at the GSA Geoinformatics’07, DMT’07, and AASG’07 annual meetings – the 

response from management and technical staff was highly 

favorable, encouraging development to proceed.

The Portal’s general design and workflow are shown 

in Figure 1. Map data are incorporated into the Portal’s 

database by means of a data-import tool that facilitates 

attribution of map units with controlled vocabulary 

terms. The tool, which manages the map data in a local 

copy of NGMDB’s database design, then exports it to an 

interchange format for loading into the Portal’s PostGIS 

database. Presently, we are using Shapefiles as the 

interchange format, but envision using GeoSciML when it 

Figure 1. The NGMDB prototype Map Data Portal – general design and workflow. See text for explanation.
16 Digital Mapping Techniques '07

has matured and stabilized. When the map attributes and 

geometry are loaded into PostGIS, various map portrayals (e.g., geologic materials, geologic age) are prepared 

and cached as images. This pre-processing is essential 

in a portal of this type, because we intend to only provide 

the user with a quick overview of the geology rather than 

serving as a platform for in-depth query and analysis – for 

those needs, we link users to the source data, as shown 

along the bottom of the Figure. Mapserver software and 

an open-source interface (Map-Fu) provide the user with 

map display and simple queries such as “identify” a map 

unit. For that query, the displayed information includes 

links to the source map (in the NGMDB Map Catalog) 

and to geologic name information (in Geolex). These 

links provide the mechanism to direct users to the agency 

that published and maintains the source map data, and is 

our first step in tying this Portal to the Phase One databases. The Portal also will provide access to the map 

data through one or more OGC-compliant Web Services 

(hence “WxS” in Figure 1); this is intended to promote 

direct user access to the database, as well as access by 

other portals.

2. Concluded work for the Database Interoperability Testbed 

#2, which was sponsored by the IUGS CGI’s Interoperability Working Group; this testbed demonstrated among 

eight agencies worldwide a limited implementation of the 

draft international geoscience data-interchange format, 

GeoSciML. This is a vitally important activity for the 

NGMDB, and for the USGS and AASG in general. The 

NGMDB contribution involved the USGS, Arizona 

Geological Survey, Portland State University, Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, and the 

University of Arizona. Began work on enhancements to 

GeoSciML, in preparation for release of a new version to 

support Testbed #3, which will be conducted in 2008.

3. In order to create modern, small-scale, consistent geologic map coverage for the U.S., the NGMDB project is 

converting the recently published Geologic Map of North 

America (GMNA) to digital format. This is a daunting 

task, and so an area was selected in which a prototype 

map database would be developed (it included part of the 

U.S., Canada, and the Pacific Ocean). The prototype 

map database was created and subjected to peer review at 

the DMT’06 meeting (Garrity and Soller, 2007). This 

prototype demonstrated the feasibility of converting the 

enormously complex map files from Adobe Illustrator to 

ArcGIS.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the NGMDB project staff and collaborators for 

their enthusiastic participation and expertise, without whom 

the project would not be possible. In particular, I thank: 

Nancy Stamm (USGS, Reston; Geolex database manager and 

associate project chief); Alex Acosta, Dennis McMacken, 

Michael Gishey, Ed Pfeifer, and Jana Ruhlman (USGS, 

Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson, AZ; Website and database 

management), Chuck Mayfield (USGS, Menlo Park; Map 

Catalog content), Robert Wardwell and Justine Takacs (USGS, 

Vancouver, WA, and Reston, VA; Image Library), Steve Richard (Arizona Geological Survey / USGS, Tucson, AZ; Phase 

3 – data model and science terminology), Jon Craigue (University of Arizona /USGS, Tucson, AZ; Phase 3 – data-entry 

tool), and David Percy (Portland State University; Phase 3 – 

Data Portal). I also thank the many committee members who 

provided technical guidance and standards (Appendix A).

REFERENCES

Garrity, C.P., and Soller, D.R., 2007, Prototype GIS Database 

for the DNAG Geologic Map of North America, in D.R. 

Soller, ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’06 – Workshop 

Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 

2007-1285, p. 197-201, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2007/1285/pdf/Garrity.pdf.

Richard, S.M., Craigue, J.A., and Soller, D.R., 2004, Implementing NADM C1 for the National Geologic Map Database, in D.R. Soller, ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’04 

– Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file 

Report 2004-1451, p. 111-144, available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2004/1451/richard/.

Richard, S.M., Craigue, J.A., and Soller, D.R., 2005, NGMDB 

Geologic Map Feature Class Model, in D.R. Soller, ed., 

Digital Mapping Techniques ’05 – Workshop Proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2005-1428, p. 

143-158, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1428/

richard/.

Soller, D.R., 2005, Assessing the Status of Geologic Map 

Coverage of the United States—A New Application of the 

National Geologic Map Database, in D.R. Soller, ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’05 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-file Report 2005-1428, p.41-47, 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1428/soller2/.

Soller, D.R., 2006, The National Geologic Map Database 

Project: Overview and Progress, in D.R. Soller, ed., Digital 

Mapping Techniques ’06 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-file Report 2007-1285, p. 7-13, 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1285/pdf/Soller.

pdf.

Soller, D.R., Brodaric, Boyan, Hastings, J.T., Wahl, Ron, 

and Weisenfluh, G.A., 2002, The central Kentucky prototype: An object-oriented geologic map data model for the 

National Geologic Map Database: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 02-202, 38 p., available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-202/.
The National Geologic Map Database Project 17

Appendix A. Principal committees and people 

collaborating with the National Geologic Map 

Database project.

Geologic Data Subcommittee of the Federal Geographic 

Data Committee:

Dave Soller (U.S. Geological Survey and Subcommittee 

Chair)

Jerry Bernard (USDA-Natural Resources Conservation 

Service)

Mark Crowell (Dept. of Homeland Security, Federal 

Emergency Mgmt. Agency)

Jim Gauthier-Warinner (U.S. Forest Service, Minerals and 

Geology Management)

Laurel T. Gorman (U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center)

John L. LaBrecque (National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration)

Lindsay McClelland (National Park Service)

Jay Parrish (State Geologist, Pennsylvania Geological Survey)

George F. Sharman (NOAA National Geophysical Data 

Center)

Dave Zinzer (Minerals Management Service)

Map Symbol Standards Committee:

Dave Soller (U.S. Geological Survey and Committee 

Coordinator)

Tom Berg (State Geologist, Ohio Geological Survey)

Bob Hatcher (University of Tennessee, Knoxville)

Mark Jirsa (Minnesota Geological Survey)

Taryn Lindquist (U.S. Geological Survey)

Jon Matti (U.S. Geological Survey)

Jay Parrish (State Geologist, Pennsylvania Geological Survey)

Jack Reed (U.S. Geological Survey)

Steve Reynolds (Arizona State University)

Byron Stone (U.S. Geological Survey)

AASG/USGS Data Capture Working Group:

Dave Soller (U.S. Geological Survey and Working Group 

Chair)

Warren Anderson (Kentucky Geological Survey)

Rick Berquist (Virginia Geological Survey)

Elizabeth Campbell (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources)

Rob Krumm (Illinois State Geological Survey)

Scott McCulloch (West Virginia Geological and Economic 

Survey)

Gina Ross (Kansas Geological Survey)

George Saucedo (California Geological Survey)

Barb Stiff (Illinois State Geological Survey)

Tom Whitfield (Pennsylvania Geological Survey)

DMT Listserve:

Maintained by Doug Behm, University of Alabama

North American Data Model Steering Committee:

Dave Soller (U.S. Geological Survey and Committee 

Coordinator)

Tom Berg (Ohio Geological Survey)

Boyan Brodaric (Geological Survey of Canada and Chair of 

the Data Model Design Technical Team) 

Peter Davenport (Geological Survey of Canada)

Bruce Johnson (U.S. Geological Survey and Chair of the Data 

Interchange Technical Team) 

Rob Krumm (Illinois State Geological Survey)

Scott McColloch (West Virginia Geological and Economic 

Survey) 

Steve Richard (Arizona Geological Survey)

Loudon Stanford (Idaho Geological Survey) 

Jerry Weisenfluh (Kentucky Geological Survey)

IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of 

Geoscience Information:

Dave Soller (U.S. Geological Survey, Council Member)

Conceptual Model/Interchange Task Group (of the 

Interoperability Working Group of the IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience 

Information):

Steve Richard (Arizona Geological Survey / U.S. Geological 

Survey, Task Group Member)

DIMAS (Digital Map Standards Working Group of the 

Commission for the Geological Map of the World):

Dave Soller (U.S. Geological Survey, Working Group 

Member)

NGMDB contact-persons in each State geological survey:

These people help the NGMDB with the Geoscience Map 

Catalog and GEOLEX. Please see http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/

info/statecontacts.html for this list.

These groups have fulfilled their mission and are no longer 

active:

NGMDB Technical Advisory Committee:

Boyan Brodaric (Geological Survey of Canada)

David Collins (Kansas Geological Survey)

Larry Freeman (Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical 

Surveys)

Jordan Hastings (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Dan Nelson (Illinois State Geological Survey)

Stephen Richard (Arizona Geological Survey)

Jerry Weisenfluh (Kentucky Geological Survey)
18 Digital Mapping Techniques '07

AASG/USGS Metadata Working Group:

Peter Schweitzer (U.S. Geological Survey and Working Group 

Chair)

Dan Nelson (Illinois State Geological Survey) 

Greg Hermann (New Jersey Geological Survey)

Kate Barrett (Wisconsin Geological and Natural History 

Survey)

Ron Wahl (U.S. Geological Survey)

AASG/USGS Data Information Exchange Working 

Group:

Dave Soller (U.S. Geological Survey and Working Group 

Chair)

Ron Hess (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology)

Ian Duncan (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources)

Gene Ellis (U.S. Geological Survey)

Jim Giglierano (Iowa Geological Survey)

AASG/USGS Data Model Working Group:

Gary Raines (U.S. Geological Survey and Working Group 

Chair)

Boyan Brodaric (Geological Survey of Canada)

Jim Cobb (Kentucky Geological Survey)

Ralph Haugerud (U.S. Geological Survey)

Greg Hermann (New Jersey Geological Survey)

Bruce Johnson (U.S. Geological Survey)

Jon Matti (U.S. Geological Survey)

Jim McDonald (Ohio Geological Survey)

Don McKay (Illinois State Geological Survey)

Steve Schilling (U.S. Geological Survey)

Randy Schumann (U.S. Geological Survey)

Bill Shilts (Illinois State Geological Survey)

Ron Wahl (U.S. Geological Survey)
The National Geologic Map Database Project 19

Appendix B. List of progress reports on 

the National Geologic Map Database, and 

proceedings of the Digital Mapping Techniques 

workshops.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2007, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘06—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2007-1285, 217 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2007/1285/.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2005, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘05—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2005-1428, 268 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2005/1428/.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2004, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘04—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2004-1451, 220 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2004/1451/.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2003, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘03—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 03-471, 262 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2003/of03-471/.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2002, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘02—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 02-370, 214 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2002/of02-370/.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2001, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘01—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 01-223, 248 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2001/of01-223/.

Soller, D.R., editor, 2000, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘00—

Workshop proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file 

Report 00-325, 209 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/

of00-325/.

Soller, D.R., editor, 1999, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘99—

Workshop proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file 

Report 99-386, 216 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/

of99-386/front.html.

Soller, D.R., editor, 1998, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘98—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98-487, 134 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/

of98-487/.

Soller, D.R., editor, 1997, Proceedings of a workshop on 

digital mapping techniques: Methods for geologic map data 

capture, management, and publication: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 97-269, 120 p., available at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/of/of97-269/.

Soller, D.R., 2007, The National Geologic Map Database 

Project: Overview and Progress, in D.R. Soller, ed., Digital 

Mapping Techniques ’06 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-file Report 2007-1285, p. 7-13, 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1285/pdf/Soller.

pdf.

Soller, D.R., Berg, T.M., and Stamm, N.R., 2005, The National 

Geologic Map Database Project: Overview and Progress, in

D.R. Soller, ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’05 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 

2005-1428, p. 23-40, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2005/1428/soller1/.

Soller, D.R., Berg, T.M., and Stamm, N.R., 2004, The National 

Geologic Map Database project: Overview and progress, 

in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ‘04—

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2005-1451, p.15-31, available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2004/1451/soller/.

Soller, D.R., and Berg, T.M., 2003, The National Geologic 

Map Database project: Overview and progress, in Soller, 

D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ‘03—Workshop 

Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

03-471, p. 57-77, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/

of03-471/soller1/.

Soller, D.R., and Berg, T.M., 2002, The National Geologic 

Map Database: A progress report, in Soller, D.R., editor, 

Digital Mapping Techniques ‘02—Workshop proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 02-370, p. 75-83, 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-370/soller2.

html.

Soller, D.R., and Berg, T.M., 2001, The National Geologic 

Map Database—A progress report, in Soller, D.R., editor, 

Digital Mapping Techniques ‘01—Workshop proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 01-223, p. 51-57, 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-223/soller1.

html.

Soller, D.R., and Berg, T.M., 2000, The National Geologic 

Map Database—A progress report, in Soller, D.R., editor, 

Digital Mapping Techniques ‘00—Workshop proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 00-325, p. 27-30, 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of00-325/soller2.html.

Soller, D.R., and Berg, T.M., 1999a, Building the National 

Geologic Map Database: Progress and challenges, in

Derksen, C.R.M, and Manson, C.J., editors, Accreting the 

continent’s collections: Geoscience Information Society 

Proceedings, v. 29, p. 47-55, available at http://ngmdb.usgs.

gov/info/reports/gisproc98.html.
20 Digital Mapping Techniques '07

Soller, D.R., and Berg, T.M., 1999b, The National Geologic 

Map Database—A progress report, in Soller, D.R., editor, 

Digital Mapping Techniques ‘99—Workshop proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 99-386, p. 31-34, 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of99-386/soller1.html.

Soller, D.R., and Berg, T.M., 1998, Progress Toward Development of the National Geologic Map Database, in Soller, 

D.R., editor, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘98—Workshop 

proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 

98-487, p. 37-39, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of98-

487/soller2.html.

Soller, D.R., and Berg. T.M., 1997, The National Geologic 

Map Database—A progress report: Geotimes, v. 42, no. 12, 

p. 29-31, available at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/reports/

geotimes97.html.

Soller, D.R., and Berg, T.M., 1995, Developing the National 

Geologic Map Database: Geotimes, v. 40, no. 6, p. 16-18, 

available at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/reports/geotimes95.

html.
National Cooperative Soil Survey National Soil 

Information System

By Jim R. Fortner

National Soil Survey Center

Natural Resources Conservation Service

100 Centennial Mall North, Rm. 152

Lincoln, NE 68508-3866

Phone: (402) 437-5755

Fax: (402) 437-5336

email: jim.fortner@lin.usda.gov

BRIEF HISTORY AND STATUS OF SOIL 

SURVEY

The organized soil survey effort began in the United 

States in 1899. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now 

called Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), was 

designated the lead agency by legislation in 1951. SCS 

was assigned responsibility for mapping all privately owned 

land in the Nation. Publicly owned land is the responsibility of the respective managing agency. In the 1950s, the 

National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) was formed. The 

NCSS consists of NRCS (which is the lead agency), partners 

(including other Federal land management agencies such as 

the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Park 

Service), State Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local 

governmental entities.

In the same timeframe in which the NCSS was formed, 

the so-called modern era of soil survey began with the publication of reports based on soil survey areas. In the eastern 

two-thirds of the United States, the soil survey area generally 

coincides with a county or parish. In the western one-third, 

the survey area is commonly a part or parts of one or more 

counties or is publicly-owned land. To date, more than 95 

percent of privately owned land has been surveyed and 92 

percent of all land has been surveyed (Figure 1).

In the late 1960s, computer records were created for the 

estimated soil properties and interpretations of the various soil 

types identified in soil surveys. In the mid-1980s, a state-bystate database of these records was developed. In 1994, the 

current NASIS (National Soil Information System) transactional database was implemented in each state. In 2000, the 

NASIS databases were combined into a national centralized 

database.

Digitizing of soil maps began in the mid-1980s. During 

this period, standards for map compilation and map digitizing 

were developed. These standards are known as the SSURGO 

(Soil Survey Geographic) standards, and are available at 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part647.

html#06. In the mid-1990s, a concentrated effort was begun 

to digitize all the completed soil maps for the Nation according to these established standards. This effort is scheduled 

for completion in early 2008. Unmapped areas will be 

digitized as they are mapped, as part of the ongoing mapping 

effort. The goal is to have all privately owned land surveyed 

by 2012.

Late in 2003, the Soil Data Warehouse and Soil Data 

Mart were established to house all official soil survey 

(SSURGO) data and to be the central delivery point for that 

data. The Soil Data Warehouse stores various versions of 

the data dating from 2003, while the Soil Data Mart makes 

only the current version of data available for distribution to a 

wide-ranging list of customers, including the general public. Downloads of data are by individual soil survey areas.

In 2005, the Web Soil Survey (WSS) was brought online 

to provide public access to, and online viewing of, information in the Soil Data Mart. Figure 2 shows a schematic of 

how the various components of the National Soil Information 

System fit together. More information about the various 

components will be given later in this paper.

How did we get here?

• Development of the current soil survey product 

involved a number of significant milestones. One 

of the major milestones was the establishment of 

the National Cooperative Soil Survey organization 

itself. Through the NCSS, a number of standards 

have been developed for:

• Describing and analyzing soils
22 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 1. Soil survey data availability for the United States, possessions, and territories. For the darker green areas, maps have been 

digitized and are available through the Soil Data Mart and Web Soil Survey. The lighter green areas have been surveyed but are not 

yet digitized. White areas remain to be mapped.

• Classification of soils—Soil Taxonomy (http://soils.

usda.gov/technical/classification/taxonomy/)

• Mapping scales, intensity, and procedures, including 

joins (joins include joining datasets and maps between 

soil survey areas, and between individual map sheets 

within a soil survey area.)

• Quality-control and quality-assurance procedures

• Database structure and content

• Map compilation and digitizing specifications

• FGDC Soil Data Standard (http://www.fgdc.gov/

standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/soils/

soil997.PDF)

• Interpretation criteria

• Publication format and content

• Data delivery formats.

Unless noted otherwise, these standards are documented 

in the National Soil Survey Handbook at http://soils.usda.gov/

technical/handbook/ and other technical references maintained 

by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The use of these standards has enabled the development of a database of soil survey data and information that is 

reasonably consistent across the United States. This effort 

continues through annual conferences to discuss and resolve 

ongoing and emerging issues related to soil survey and protection of this most basic of natural resources.

Information about the National Cooperative Soil Survey and its conferences can be found at http://soils.usda.gov/

partnerships/ncss/. National NCSS conferences are held in 

odd-numbered years, with four regional conferences being 

held in even-numbered years. Locations rotate throughout 

the regions. They are open to anyone interested in the subject matter. There is a Soil Survey Standards branch of the 

NRCS National Soil Survey Center that facilitates the disposition of proposed changes or additions to existing standards.
National Soil Information System 23

Figure 2. A schematic of the overall NRCS National Soil Information System showing data flow pathways. Major parts of the 

information system are explained elsewhere in this paper.

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE 

NATIONAL SOIL INFORMATION 

SYSTEM

NASIS

NASIS (the National Soils Information System computer 

application and database) is a centralized transactional 

database of tabular soil property and interpretive data about 

the soils of the United States. It includes onsite detailed 

descriptions of soils from about 250,000 locations. These 

descriptions are primarily used as supporting documentation 

for the soil description and the ranges of physical and 

chemical properties of soil map unit components. Full 

laboratory characterization data are available for about 

32,000 of these sites. NASIS also includes the data for 

about 350,000 soil map units and about 1 million map unit 

components that accompany the soil maps. A major function 

of NASIS is the ability to generate soil interpretations for the 

map unit components using standard interpretation criteria 

and an interpretation system based on fuzzy logic. NCSS 

field soil scientists log into this database via a Web-based 

application to input and manage soil survey data on a daily 

basis.

The method of developing the digital soil maps is 

currently a parallel process that occurs outside the NASIS 

database. The soil map files are developed by the seven 

NRCS digitizing centers, which either digitize the hard copy 

maps from the field scientists or perform QC/QA functions 

on field-digitized maps to ensure they meet established 

standards. When digital map files for a soil survey area 

are completed, they are placed on a staging server, where 

they are merged with accompanying tabular data files from 

NASIS. Following final checking and certification, these 

merged files then move to the Soil Data Warehouse for 

storage.
24 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Soil Data Warehouse

This database provides central storage for the various 

versions of official soil survey data, including both the soil 

maps and the descriptive, tabular data about each soil. Periodically, a new version of data for a particular soil survey 

area will be exported from NASIS, certified, and posted to 

the warehouse database. It may contain enhanced data since 

the previous version because additional data elements in the 

database were populated, errors were corrected, data were 

modified after the gathering of additional documentation, and 

other factors. This database is not a public access point, but 

it is possible to retrieve older versions of data if needed.

Soil Data Mart

The Soil Data Mart contains the current version of 

official data from the Soil Data Warehouse and makes it 

publicly available for distribution to a wide-ranging list 

of customers. The data can be downloaded in a standard 

SSURGO database format for use in a local Geographic 

Information System (GIS), or the tabular portion of the data 

can be viewed online via generation of standard tabular data 

reports. Downloaded datasets are packaged into individual 

soil survey area files and are time stamped and versioned for 

reference purposes. Each downloaded dataset includes an 

FGDC compliant metadata file. Viewing of soil maps is not 

available here, but is available through the Web Soil Survey 

(see below). The Soil Data Mart can be accessed at http://

soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Soil Data Mart Web Services 

These web services provide a mechanism for users to 

directly access the Soil Data Mart database and 

acquire spatial and/or tabular data they need by writing custom 

SQL queries against the database. These services provide:

• The customers with the ability to link their GIS 

applications directly to the Soil Data Mart database 

and acquire soil data needed for their local application 

without the need to actually download a whole soil 

survey areas dataset as described above.

• The ability for customers to select their spatial area of 

interest, such as a watershed, farm field, ownership 

boundary, study area, etc., irrespective of soil survey 

area boundaries 

• The flexibility to select only those data attributes of 

interest (spatial and/or tabular data) 

• Delivery of data in various formats (HTML, XML, 

and ASCII delimited) for import into a customer’s 

database system

• Data can be acquired in real-time or queued for later 

delivery via ftp link.

These Web services can be accessed at http://

sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Web Soil Survey

The Web Soil Survey (Figure 3) is a Web application 

that provides producers, governmental agencies, consultants, 

and others with electronic access to, and online viewing of, 

relevant soil and related information needed to make wise land 

use and management decisions. Web Soil Survey (WSS) 

provides an alternative to traditional hardcopy soil survey publication and a means for quicker delivery of information. It 

provides electronic access to full soil survey report content 

and access to the most current data available.

With WSS, customers can outline their geographic area 

of interest (AOI), as shown in (Figure 4), and can obtain available soil survey maps (Figure 5) and associated map unit data 

and interpretations. Thematic maps showing soil interpretations (Figure 6), various physical (Figure 7) and chemical 

(Figure 8) soil properties, and soil qualities (Figure 9) can be 

generated for the AOI. Tabular data reports (Figure 10) like 

those from the Soil Data Mart also can be generated. This 

information can be viewed online, or PDF files (Figure 11) can 

be generated for downloading or printing.

Web Soil Survey has a Shopping Cart function (no cost 

involved) that allows the user to collect a variety of thematic 

maps, tabular data reports, and desired explanatory information that they the user decides are important or of interest to 

their identified resource concern into a Custom Soil Resource 

Report for the AOI. Some introductory material, soil map, 

and map unit descriptions are automatically added to the 

report. When the user goes through Check Out the contents 

of the Shopping Cart are assembled into a single PDF file for 

viewing, saving or printing. Web Soil Survey can be accessed 

at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

Enhancements to the Web Soil Survey application 

continue. A new version is to be released in Summer 

2008. Major enhancements in this version will be a Search 

function to help users locate desired information in the system. Users can input a keyword or phase and the system 

will return one or more links to sections that contain the word 

or phrase. Also included in this version will be a distance 

measuring tool, a direct link to a glossary of soil related terms, 

the ability for the user to download the raw data from the Soil 

Data Mart that has been clipped to the AOI boundary, and the 

ability to tile soil and thematic maps to multiple pages. Additional and larger computer servers will also be installed in 

order improve performance of the system.

Future enhancements planned include the ability for the 

user to Save their defined AOI for later use, the ability for the 

user to identify multiple tracts of land within an AOI, and the 

ability to import an AOI boundary from an outside application. Increasing the allowable size of an AOI is also desired.
National Soil Information System 25

Figure 3. Web Soil Survey homepage.

Figure 4. Defining the Area of Interest (AOI) in Web Soil Survey. A number of navigational tools are available for finding the AOI.
26 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 5. By selecting the Soils Map tab, the soil map of the AOI is displayed along with a list of map units in the area and their extents 

within the AOI. Clicking the highlighted map unit names displays a map unit description of that map unit.

Figure 6. Thematic map showing soil interpretations available from the Web Soil Survey; here, the degree of limitations for dwellings 

with basements.
National Soil Information System 27

Figure 7. Thematic map showing available water capacity in 0- to 100-cm zone of each map unit.

Figure 8. Thematic map showing pH in the surface layer of each map unit.
28 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 9. Thematic map showing representative percent slope of each map unit.

Figure 10. Tabular data report generated from Web Soil Survey.
National Soil Information System 29

Figure 11. PDF report document generated by Web Soil Survey using the Shopping Cart function. Content of the report can be 

customized by the customer; hence the name “Custom Soil Resource Report for...” Individual thematic maps and tabular reports can 

be added as desired. The basic soil map, map unit legend, and map unit descriptions are added by default.

Importance of Historical Elevation Data

By Gayle H. McColloch, Jr. and Jane S. McColloch

West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey

1 Mont Chateau Road

Morgantown, WV 26508-8079

Telephone: (304) 594-2331

Fax: (304) 594-2575

mccolloch@geosrv.wvnet.edu, janemc@geosrv.wvnet.edu

INTRODUCTION

Our recent geologic mapping projects are performed as 

part of the joint AASG/USGS Statemap program. We begin 

with products of the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey’s Coal Bed Mapping Program (CBMP). This 

program captures and analyzes mineral resource data to 

produce a series of GIS data sets that model coal resources 

statewide. The primary foci of this program are to produce 

data that can be input into modeling software to establish the 

value of coal beds to produce mineral tax assessments and, 

since the Quecreek Mine rescue on July 28, 2002 in Somerset County, PA, capturing mining data geographically and 

stratigraphically.

Products of the CBMP include:

- Bed structure (vector contours and grids)

- Bed thickness (vector contours and grids)

- Bed partings (vector contours and grids)

- Mined areas

- Bed discontinuities

- Coal boundaries

- Bed thickness point locations

- Bed elevation point locations.

GEOLOGIC MAPPING METHODOLOGY

In Carboniferous rocks of the Appalachian Plateau, formation contacts commonly are widespread coal beds or other 

persistent horizons. Many, but not all, of these coal beds 

are economically important. Examples of stratigraphically 

important, persistent horizons from our current mapping area 

that are not economic resources include the Ames limestone 

and shale of the Upper Pennsylvanian Conemaugh Group and 

the Jollytown coal bed of the Upper Pennsylvanian (basal 

Permian?) Dunkard Group.

Because one focus of the CBMP is to determine economic coal resources, our first task is to determine if important coal beds have not been mapped or are not considered 

economic resources within our study area, and to identify 

where gaps in CBMP data exist and where additional stratigraphic data are needed.

After analyzing previous work, we collect additional data 

from new fieldwork, records on file at WVGES, and other 

sources such as state Division of Highways borings. The 

new data are used to fill in the gaps in CBMP data products. Our first product is a series of elevation grids representing all important horizons not mapped by CBMP. Outcrop 

lines are generated by intersecting the horizons with digital 

elevation models (DEMs). We generally use 2003 1/9 arc 

second DEMs (USGS et al, 2005a) derived from West Virginia 

State Addressing and Mapping Board photography completed 

in the first half of 2003 (USGS et al, 2005b), but for areas 

where the original topography has been significantly altered 

we sometimes need to work with older topographic information, as explained in this paper.

Outcrops of all important horizons, including the CBMP 

products, are plotted on topographic bases to produce field 

maps (Figure 1). The outcrops plotted on these field maps 

are field checked, and outcrops lines and structure contours are 

revised as necessary. Revised structure contours are used to 

generate new grids. Since we also have 2003 digital orthophoto quarter quads (DOQQs) with 2-meter pixel resolution, 

the final step is to digitally overlay onto DOQQs the final, 

corrected outcrops and examine the linework for otherwise 

inaccesible problem areas. These outcrops are used to 

construct open file report maps and ultimately to produce GIS 

datasets. Cross sections for these open-file maps are created by generating profiles of all important horizons using the 

elevation grids and the DEM.

TOPOGRAPHIC COMPLICATIONS 

RELATED TO HUMAN ACTIVITY

Selecting the proper topographic data for a geologic 

mapping project is important because human activities, or 

the manner in which the DEM was generated, can produce 
32 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 1. Grayscale image of the provisional geologic field map, 

Wheeling 7.5-minute quadrangle. The gray lines paralleling 

the topographic contours trace the outcrops of critical horizons 

which, in the Appalachian Plateau, commonly are widespread 

coal beds.

topographic surfaces that cannot be reliably used for prediction of the extent of geologic units. 

During field work for our mapping project in the Wheeling, West Virginia, area we found several areas where the 

topography had been so significantly altered that the most 

recent topographic data could not be used to map the original 

locations of outcrops. It was therefore necessary to substitute 

DEMs based on older topography, or use contours based on 

plane-tabled topography (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005) from 

a 15-minute, 1:62,500 series map, in order to better identify 

the correct locations of geologic unit contacts.

Figure 2. The outcrops of the Pittsburgh (dotted line), 

Waynesburg (solid line), and Washington (dashed line) coals, in 

the Wheeling-Ohio County Airport area, Tiltonsville 7.5-minute 

quadrangle. Locations “A” and “B” are discussed in the text.

An excellent example of geologic mapping problems 

related to altered topography is the Wheeling-Ohio County 

Airport area on the Tiltonsville 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure 

2). When the airport was built in the 1946 (Quarles, 2008), 

cut and fill associated with runway construction and surface 

mining of coal seams in the immediate vicinity of the airport 

significantly disturbed the original topography. The topography shown on the Tiltonsville quadrangle was produced in 

1966 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1997b), and therefore shows 

the altered landscape. To produce outcrops that show the 

pre-construction topography, we used pertinent information 

from the 1:62,500 Wheeling 15-minute topographic map (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 1902). The outcrop lines of the Pittsburgh, Waynesburg, and Washington coals were delineated 

from the DEM that was derived from the 1966 topography 

modified using 1902 vintage 15-minute maps, and is shown 

on Figure 2 superimposed on a 2003 aerial photo image of 

the Wheeling-Ohio County Airport area. In the figure, the 

dashed line represents the outcrop location of the Washington 

coal, before construction of the airport. The Washington was 

initially surface-mined at location A in the mid 1940s to make 

room for the runway alignment. The solid line represents the 

outcrop of the Waynesburg coal; it was covered at location B 

by fill, most of which was apparently removed from location 

A to construct the runway. The dotted line represents the 

outcrop of the Pittsburgh coal. Recently, aside from the airport excavation all three coals were extensively surface mined 

and the land has been returned to the original contour so the 

outcrop lines approximate those of the early 1940s, before the 

airport was constructed.

Another example of profoundly altered topography that 

required us to use older topographic information is along 

Browns Run near Benwood, in the Wheeling 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure 3). This location is near the Consolidation 

Coal Company’s Shoemaker underground mine. The mine 

portal is located along the Ohio River, and a coal preparation facility and a barge loading dock are located adjacent 

to it. This facility required a nearby mine dump to receive 

material cleaned from the coal by the preparation plant. We 

found two types of topography-related errors that required correction in this area.

The most obvious problem was the incorrectly mapped 

outcrop lines of the Jollytown coal, which were produced 

by intersecting the coal’s structure contour map with the 

DEM produced from the 2003 topography (see Figure 3, area 

“A”). By that time, the valleys had been extensively filled 

with mine waste, significantly changing the topography. The 

Shoemaker mine began production in 1966 (West Virginia 

Department of Mines, 1966) and so we consulted the topography compiled in 1956 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1994) in 

order to more correctly map the Jollytown coal’s original 

outcrop pattern. For the areas of valley fill, a small part of 

the 1956 DEM was used to recompute the Jollytown’s original 

outcrop. This was patched into the outcrop for the rest of the 

quadrangle. The resulting outcrop is shown as the dashed line 

within area “A” in Figure 3.
Importance of Historical Elevation Data 33

Figure 3. Changes in the topographic surface near Browns Run, 

Wheeling 7.5-minute quadrangle map. The solid and dashed 

geologic lines within areas “A” and “B” are discussed in the text

While applying this patch, a problem was found with the 

projected location of the Waynesburg coal outcrop. Because 

ponds obscure the underlying topographic contours, they 

are treated by the algorithm used to produce the DEM as flat 

surfaces. Therefore, when the Waynesburg coal outcrop 

locations were generated by intersecting the structure contours 

with the DEM, the outcrop pattern was affected by the earthen 

dam instead of extending up the valley, into the settling pond 

in the area labeled “B” on Figure 3. This error was easily corrected by projecting the topography through the pond 

area. A similar problem was noted in another area where the 

outcrop of the Waynesburg coal intersects a farm pond on the 

Bethany 7.5-minute quadrangle.

Another area where topographic changes have affected 

the projected location of a critical horizon is on the Valley 

Grove 7.5-minute quadrangle, which we encountered during our 2007-08 mapping project. An extensive shopping 

area, the Highlands Complex, is being built partially on a 

mine refuse dump associated with a preparation facility near 

the Valley Camp Coal Company’s Number 3 mine in the 

Pittsburgh coal (Figure 4). The location where the photo 

in Figure 4 was taken is labeled “E” in Figure 5. The site 

topography has been constantly changing since site development began in 2002 or 2003. We estimate the area affected 

to be in excess of 300 acres with a maximum fill thickness of 

as much as 100 feet.

Between 1938, when the first air photos of the area were 

taken, and 1956, when the first photo-derived topography was 

produced from the first version of the Valley Grove 7.5-minute 

quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey, 1997c), the mine dump 

appears to have significantly altered the topography. Valley Camp Coal Company has a long and complex history in 

the area, and it is difficult to determine from available public 

records an exact date for the construction of the preparation 

facility. Stereo pairs of the first air photos are unavailable, 

so the only source that shows the original topography is the 

15-minute Wheeling Quadrangle, which was completed in 

1902 (USGS, 1902). This topography is imperfect when 

compared to more recent topographic mapping, but it is good 

enough to suggest that our outcrops are probably near the 

original location. The areas labeled “A” and “B” on the left 

side of Figure 5 illustrate the problem. The solid gray line 

labeled “B” is the original outcrop of the Jollytown coal, as 

validated by the 1902 USGS map. The line marked with 

short dashes labeled “A” is based on the 2003 topography and 

has been influenced by the mine dump.

Another, less pronounced, but potentially more common, 

outcrop alteration occurred when I-70 was constructed in the 

1970s. Fill has significantly altered the projected outcrop of 

the Jollytown coal nearby. Two versions of the Jollytown 

coal outcrop are shown on a small area of the Valley Grove 

7.5-minute quadrangle (right side of Figure 5). The solid 

gray line labeled “D” shows the outcrop derived from the 

7.5-minute topography. The dashed black line labeled “C” 

shows the outcrop derived from the 2003 1/9 arc-second data 

that reflects excavations for I-70 and earliest preliminary site 

preparation for the Highlands Complex.

Figure 4. View of a small area of the Highlands Complex that 

is being built partially on a mine refuse dump. The buildings 

in the background are not located on the mine refuse fill. The 

area in the foreground is located over part of the refuse dump 

that has been subsequently filled with material from the current 

site preparation. During a recent site visit we observed new 

construction taking place on this filled area. 

CONCLUSIONS

Today, the tendency is to assume that newer data are 

almost, by definition, better than older data. Although 

newer data are generally more precise and up to date, many 

reasons exist to preserve older data. We have found that it 

is critically important to preserve all versions of historical 

topographic data for geologic mapping in areas that have been 

disturbed by human activity.
34 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 5. Two versions of the Jollytown coal outcrop are 

shown on a small area of the Valley Grove 7.5-minute quadrangle 

including Interstate 70 and the developing area known as the 

Highlands Complex. Locations A-D are discussed in the text.

REFERENCES

Quarles, C.C., 2008, Wheeling-Ohio County Airport (HLG) 

Wheeling, West Virginia: available at http://www.rfci.net/

airliner/wheeling.html, accessed January 15, 2008.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1902, Wheeling Quadrangle West 

Virginia-Ohio-Pennsylvania, 15-minute series (topographic): Washington, DC, U.S. Geological Survey, scale 

1:62,500.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1994, Wheeling Quadrangle West 

Virginia-Ohio, 7.5-minute series (topographic): Denver, 

CO, U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:24,000.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, Topographic Mapping: Online 

Edition: available at http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/

topo/topo.html#top, accessed January 14, 2008.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997a, Bethany Quadrangle OhioWest Virginia, 7.5-minute series (topographic): Denver, CO, 

U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:24,000.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997b, Tiltonsville Quadrangle OhioWest Virginia, 7.5-minute series (topographic): Denver, CO, 

U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:24,000.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997c, Valley Grove Quadrangle 

Ohio-West Virginia, 7.5-minute series (topographic): Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:24,000.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), West Virginia Statewide Addressing and Mapping Board (WVSAMB), and 

West Virginia University GIS Technical Center, 2005a, 

High Resolution 7.5’ Quarter-Quad Orthoimages for the 

state of West Virginia, UTM Zone 17 for entire state, 

MrSID Compressed: Sioux Falls, SD, U.S. Geological 

Survey, available at http://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.

php?action=search&ID=254.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), West Virginia Statewide 

Addressing and Mapping Board (WVSAMB), 2005b West 

Virginia Statewide Digital Elevation Models: Rolla, MO, 

U.S. Geological Survey, available at http://wvgis.wvu.edu/

data/dataset.php?action=search&ID=261.

West Virginia Department of Mines, 1966, West Virginia 

Department of Mines Annual Report: West Virginia Department of Mines, 256 p.
The National Map – Products And Services

By William J. Carswell1 and Stafford Binder2

1

U.S. Geological Survey

National Center, MS 590

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

Telephone: (703) 648-4140

Fax: (703) 648-4722

email: carswell@usgs.gov

2

U. S. Geological Survey

P.O. Box 25046, MS-510

Denver, CO, 80225-0046

Telephone (303) 202-4444

Fax (303) 202-4020

email: sgbinder@usgs.gov

THE U.S. NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL 

PROGRAM (NGP)

The U.S. Geological Survey NGP provides 19 geospatial 

products and services. This paper provides some background 

information on the NGP with emphasis on The National 

Map, Geospatial One-Stop, and the Graphics Project. The 

information in this paper is current as of May, 2007.

NGP Purposes

The U. S. Geological Survey’s National Geospatial Program 

provides leadership to:

- Place geographic knowledge at the fingertips of the 

Nation,

- Assure the availability of current and accurate 

geospatial data on a local, national and global 

basis in order to contribute to economic growth, 

environmental quality and stability, and social 

progress,

- Establish a unified approach to accomplishing the 

National Spatial Data - Infrastructure (NSDI) 

through the Federal Geographic Data Committee 

(FGDC), The National Map, Geospatial One-Stop 

(GOS), and the National Atlas of the United States, 

and

- Develop partnerships to build the NSDI with Federal, 

State, tribal, academic, private, and local partners.

The NGP Portfolio

The NGP has a broad portfolio that:

- Provides Department of the Interior (DOI) geospatial 

leadership and coordination among DOI bureaus,

- Provides geospatial readiness for emergency operations,

- Conducts a formal geospatial coordination among 

Federal agencies and with State, local, and tribal 

governments,

- Hosts the FGDC Secretariat providing coordination 

among Federal agencies and with other nations,

- Hosts the USGS geospatial liaison network,

- Hosts The National Map,

- Hosts the National Atlas, to provide consistent, 

national-scale, organized information about 

physical, historical, economic, and socio-cultural 

characteristics of the United States,

- Hosts the GOS for discovery and access to geospatial 

data in a common infrastructure,

- Hosts the Board on Geographic Names Secretariat for 

a formal coordination among Federal agencies and 

with other nations,

- Hosts the National Geospatial Technical Operations 

Center as the NGP’s operational asset focused on 

“putting geographic knowledge at the fingertips of 

the nation”, and

- Hosts the Center of Excellence for Geospatial 

Information Science for leadership in basic research 

about geospatial information.
36 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

The National Map

User access to The National Map is primarily through its 

on-line viewer found at http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.

htm. The National Map viewer offers an array of functions 

and tools for viewing and creating maps. The National Map

provides base content data for the Nation. Base content is 

made up of eight data themes, elevation, imagery, names, 

transportation, structures, boundaries, hydrography, and land 

use land cover. Developed and maintained through partnerships, it is a national foundation data set for science, land 

and resource management, recreation, policy making, and 

homeland security. Through The National Map’s portal, the 

user accesses U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and partner 

data from multiple map services. FGDC-compliant metadata 

is available for each of the eight data themes. Data within 

each of the eight data themes can be viewed and printed as 

PDF images. It is also the source for revised topographic 

maps. Many of the layers can be downloaded. The 

National Map is many things to many people, maps, a data 

viewer, systems, work flows and processes, and applications.

Orthorectified imagery, land cover, elevation, hydrography, geographic names, transportation, structures, and 

boundaries data are available from The National Map (Figure 

1). As stipulated in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

circulars/a016/a016_rev.html), the USGS has responsibility 

for each of the eight data themes but the transportation, structures, and boundaries themes or layers. The NGP acquires 

these data for these three themes through partnerships and 

purchases. The acquired data are used to upgrade national 

databases of base content, to produce topographic maps, and 

by customers for various applications. The status of these 

data layers is available from the National Geospatial Program 

Office (http://www.usgs.gov/ngpo/ngpo_contacts.html).

USGS’s roles are changing from producing topographic 

maps to being the guarantor of national data completeness. The NGP is the organizer responsible for awareness, 

availability, and utility of geospatial data. The NGP is the 

catalyst and collaborator for creating and stimulating data partnerships, the partner in standards development, the integrator 

of data from other participants, and the data producer and 

owner when no other source exists.

Figure 1. The vision of The National Map as a fully integrated set 

of data accurately representing features on the earth.

Figure 2. Data content of The National Map as a national 

seamless coverage of data acquired from partners for all eight 

data themes of The National Map

USGS’s vision for The National Map (Figure 2), is that 

of a seamless, continuously maintained, nationally consistent 

set of base geographic data. USGS envisions the availability, through The National Map, of legacy topographic maps, 

standard digital image maps with overlays, standard digital 

topographic maps, and custom topographic maps. Users will 

be provided with scalable geospatial services, systems, and 

workflows.

Geospatial One-Stop (GOS)

GOS contains Federal data sets, state/regional data sets, 

integrated national data sets, and scientific knowledge contained in reports, models, and applications. GOS provides 

access and discovery of all these data sets. In 2006, records 

in these categories grew from 81,000 to 123,000. In October 

2006, the USGS NGP was designated the managing partner 

for GOS by the Department of the Interior. The USGS will 

continue to enhance the capabilities of GOS.
The National Map – Products And Services 37

Graphics Project

The national coverage of the 1:24,000-scale Primary 

Series Topographic Maps (those which are now available 

as lithographically printed maps) was completed in May, 

1991. It was an immense engineering feat, for which the cost 

of replication today would be over two billion dollars. This 

primary series of the topographic maps is the only national 

synthesis of topographic content that is comprehensive, 

transjursidictional, and border-to-border (and coast-to-coast) 

coverage at a consistent scale and content.

The legacy topographic maps’ value is eroding rapidly 

as they become increasingly outdated and the divergence 

between base data and topographic maps increase. Another 

impact on their value is the duplication of effort among and 

between geographic information sectors.

Today USGS’s focus is on building The National Map

by building the Nation’s database of topographic information, 

and maintaining those data. In addition, USGS is building 

GOS. Using The National Map data, USGS is producing 

new image maps (Figure 3) over hurricane-prone areas of the 

Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. The focus for the graphics project 

over the next two years will be to begin production of new 

topographic maps from The National Map data and to develop 

a capability by which users can make new topographic maps 

on-line. Standards for the new topographic and the new 

image maps’ content, format, and file structure are being 

developed. The new topographic maps will use only suitable 

data where they are available. Because of the availability of 

suitable data and new technology the new topographic maps 

and image maps will be enhanced from the published primary 

series topographic maps. Where suitable data are not available, an image map made from an orthophotograph will be 

available.

USGS is considering a program by which the legacy 

topographic maps (published Primary Series Topographic 

Maps) available from USGS’s warehouse will be scanned and 

enhanced to replace the existing Digital Raster Graphic (DRG) 

files. These files will be available to the public as a supplement, if not a replacement, for the published paper editions of 

the primary series topographic maps. USGS is also considering scanning the map separates from which the published 

topographic maps were printed.

Figure 3. Digital image map (draft made from The National Map

data).

FINAL REMARKS

The National Map is a critical asset, providing geospatial data and map products. Interoperability standards 

being applied to both GOS to leverage The National Map will 

allow The National Map to both see and use GOS information. Integrated databases (local, regional, and national) are 

key to The National Map’s success. New enhancements for 

The National Map are either now being implemented or are in 

development. Map separates used to print the topographic 

maps will continue to be available.

RESOURCES

The National Map Team, 2003, Implementation Plan for The 

National Map: U.S. Geological Survey, October 18, 2003, 

ver. 1.0., available at http://nationalmap.gov/nmreports.

html.

Zulick, C.A., 2008, The National Map 2.0 Tactical Plan — 

Toward The (Integrated) National Map: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report 2008-1263, 57 p., available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr20081263. [Preprint accessed by permission from the National Geospatial 

Program Office.]

When Maps Were Scribed: USGS Geologic Map 

Production in the 1970’s

By Will R. Stettner and Paul Mathieux

U.S. Geological Survey

National Center, MS 903

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

Telephone: (703) 648-4343

Fax: (703) 648-6138

email: wstettne@usgs.gov

INTRODUCTION

With its history as a science and mapping agency, the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has always been on the forefront of embracing new technologies that would improve how 

maps are produced. During the 1960’s, the USGS evaluated 

plastic films, known as mylars, and mylar engraving tools for 

use in map production. This technological advance would 

replace the production method of inking on board and metal 

mounts. In the 1970’s, scribing on coated mylars and color 

separation using peelcoats became the method for producing 

maps and would not change significantly until the introduction 

of computers.

PUBLICATIONS DIVISION

Except for topographic maps, which were the responsibility of the Topographic Division, the production of geologic 

and hydrologic map products and book size publications was 

the responsibility of the Publications Division, which provided 

editorial review, cartographic preparation, typesetting, photo 

lab support, and printing services. By the 1970’s the Publications Division had established an efficient map production process using various types of films and mylars and a documented 

set of cartographic standards that addressed every aspect of 

geologic map production, including layout, symbols, fonts, 

line weights, colors, and materials to be used.

CARTOGRAPHIC TOOLS

Cartographic production was performed by individuals 

who were classified as cartographic technicians. The tools 

required by a technician included an assortment of scribing 

tools used to engrave or remove the red- or yellow-colored 

emulsion on mylar known as Scribecoat. Basic three-legged 

metal engraving tools, using phonograph needles as scribing 

points, were developed into an array of specialized tools with 

attached magnification lenses; some had swivel points, ideal 

for scribing smooth, flowing lines. The 1970’s saw the introduction of a lighter plastic scribing tool, known as an Astrascribe, with interchangeable and predefined sapphire points that 

never required sharpening. Rapidograph pens, magnifiers, 

opaque brushes, X-Acto knives, burnishing tools, and leathercovered weights rounded out most of the tools required for 

cartographic preparation (Figure 1). All films and mylars 

had to be punch-registered. The Aldis punch system, an offset 

punch hole system, was used to punch film so that registration 

pins could hold all working copies in perfect registration.

MAP DESIGN

Cartographic preparation could not begin until the 

author’s materials or mill copy received a technical review and 

had subsequently been given Director’s Approval for publication. Only then could the technician begin with map design 

or “lay out” using the geologist’s compilation. The compilation would be an inked copy on a greenline, which consisted 

of a topographic base photographically applied in green on to 

a piece of frosted mylar. The layout used all the components 

(for example, the map itself, correlation of map units, explanation of map symbols, text, title, and explanatory notes) that a 

geologist identified to be part of the report. The layout would 

be “locked into position” on a pre-punched 34x44 inch or 

42x58 inch piece of clear mylar which would then be submitted to the photo lab for a negative. This negative would be 

exposed onto a color-coated opaque mylar (Scribecoat) that 
40 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 1. Shown are some of the tools such as scribing tools, a 

sharpening stone, magnifiers, registration pins, and various other 

tools, required by the cartographic technician of the 1970’s.

was then used to scribe all color boundaries, such as geologic 

map units and water bodies. That same Scribecoat would 

later be used to finish scribing all other line features, such as 

faults, anticlines, and synclines.

COLOR SELECTION

Early in the Survey’s history, a standard color and pattern 

scheme was established for geologic age groupings (browns 

for Proterozoic; yellows for Quaternary; and so on). This 

color scheme is still in use today. Selecting map unit colors 

was identified as a specialized activity and required a color 

expert and was not done by the cartographic technicians. The 

ages and type of rocks identified in the correlation and explanation of map units served as a starting point for color and 

pattern selection. Colors were defined using percentages and 

combinations of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black (CMYK), 

known to printers as the process colors. The color and pattern scheme for a particular map was identified on the map’s 

color guide. The color guide identified each geologic map 

unit and its letter symbol, the percentages of CMYK identified for each map unit, and any additional information, such as 

units whose colors were determined from adjoining maps (Figure 2). This color guide could then be used by the technician 

to identify the number of peelcoats needed to create the map’s 

color scheme.

TYPE SETTING

Irrespective of the methods used in map production, 

activities are defined by a set of procedures that reflect current technology. During the 1970’s, typesetting services 

were provided by the Publications Division for all USGS 

offices by using teletype communications. Type was set on 

a Merganthaler photo typesetter. The cartographic standards 

defined how text and type were to be written, coded, and 

submitted on a type order form. Every characteristic, such 

as type font, size of type, alignment and spacing of type, and 

the pica width of lines had to be identified on this form. A 

film or paper proof of the typeset type was then returned to 

the technician for review and then resubmitted for corrections. When all corrections were finalized, a photographic 

exposure was made onto thin waxed-backed film or strip 

film. Type on the strip film would then be cut out by the 

technician with an X-Acto knife and positioned and burnished 

onto a punch-registered clear piece of mylar, known as the 

type overlay.

SYMBOL AND TYPE PLACEMENT

A green plastic template (also used for topographic maps) 

became a critical tool for scribing consistent and uniform symbols on a geologic map. Following the instructions provided 

by the cartographic standards, this template could be used to 

construct complex geologic map symbols (Figure 3). Even 

though scribed symbols produced a high-quality reproducible 

copy, it was determined that the scribing of complex symbols 

was inefficient because once scribed, symbols could not be 

repositioned. For that reason a set of scribed symbols was 

reproduced photographically onto strip film, which could then 

be cut out with an X-Acto knife and correctly positioned on 

the type overlay. All map text, base and credit notes, and 

other miscellaneous type was placed on this type overlay, 

which was then made into a negative and used in conjunction 

with the other black printing separates.

Figure 2. The CMYK color and pattern charts from which 

selections were made and entered onto the map’s color and 

pattern guide.
When Maps Were Scribed 41

Figure 3. The plastic template used to construct geologic 

structure symbols. When following the USGS Cartographic 

Technical Standards, the combination of template numbers 14, 37, 

8, and 31 would result in the symbol for an overturned, plunging 

anticline

COLOR SEPARATION

Peelcoats were mylars with a photosensitive coating that 

when developed were etched with lines that replicated the 

scribed color contacts on the Scribecoat (Figure 4). Because 

the peeling up of the thin film between contact lines left the 

mylar clear, halftone screens identifying screen percentages 

could be placed on the peelcoat and would later be exposed 

in the photo lab for combination negatives. Depending on 

the CMYK color, the technician was also required to apply 

these screens at their appropriate angles in order to avoid 

moirés. This was done with the aid of various screen angle 

determination devices that identified a screen offset of 15° for 

each color.

MAP PROOF

Once all the map components (Scribecoats, type overlays, peelcoats, and base separates) were prepared, these 

separates were submitted to the photo lab for a proof. A 

proof was made by applying one of the CMYK colors to a 

Figure 4. A peelcoat where the thin film is being removed within 

the two etched lines that define a geologic unit. The open area 

will then have a halftone screen applied, required for the unit’s 

color as defined by the color and pattern guide.

white opaque mylar and exposing it to all the separate pieces 

of mylar requiring that color. Exposed areas were fixed, 

unexposed areas were washed off, and the process continued 

until all items were exposed for their appropriate colors. The 

proof would then be reviewed by the technician’s supervisor, the technical editor, and the author for omissions and 

errors. Once corrections were made, all separates were then 

combined onto the printing negatives required for process 

color (CMYK) printing.

SUMMARY

This was the cartographic procedure employed during 

the 1970’s, which, of course, could always be complicated by 

using additional colors, graphics, cross sections, and bases 

that didn’t fit. It should be kept in mind that many of the 

procedures used in the 1970’s evolved from procedures and 

standards developed during the previous 100 years. It can 

also be stated that the digital procedures in place today reflect 

the developments and procedures of the 1970’s. 

Open Access Journal Publication: Implementation, 

Copyright and Dissemination, Using the Journal of Maps 

as a Case Study

By Mike J. Smith

School of Geography, Geology, and the Environment

Kingston University

Penrhyn Road

Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 2EE

Telephone: +44 (207) 099-2817

Fax: +44 (870) 063-3061

email: michael.smith@kingston.ac.uk

INTRODUCTION

Open access (OA) journals are rapidly becoming 

an important channel for publishing academic articles 

(Rightscom, 2005) and, although they represent a small 

proportion of the total number of journals published annually, 

it is significant that organisations such as British Medical 

Journals (BMJ) operate in this manner. This article explores 

the broad implementation of OA journals, issues pertaining to 

copyright and the distribution of (geospatial) research data.

Much of the material elicited in the preparation of this 

article was derived from experiences as editor of the Journal 

of Maps (JoM; http://www.journalofmaps.com) and therefore 

the discussion should be understood within this context. The 

Journal of Maps was established against the backdrop of a 

perceived decline in the publication of research based maps 

(Smith, 2005a). With the movement of print published 

journals towards a standardised A4 copy format, large maps 

are not easily publishable. The inclusion of “inserts” 

(folded or stitched) into journals appears to have declined 

over the last century (Smith, 2005a) and, with the high cost 

of colour printing, there is an apparent decline in research 

map publication. Maps are also rarely seen as a research 

goal in their own right, with the focus of journal publication 

often upon the communication of research results. JoM 

was therefore founded as a charity with the specific remit of 

publishing research maps.

OPEN ACCESS

Open access can be defined as material that is free at 

the point of consumption. Although simple in concept 

in that you “give” content away, there are a variety of 

implementations currently used by journal publishers. There 

are also hybrid publication models, being part OA and 

part “paid-for”. Rightscom (2005) summarised the main 

publishing models currently used for academic publications in 

the UK, highlighting the growing importance of OA, as well 

as listing the main methods that are currently implemented.

Research Councils UK (2005) state that over 60% of 

university research in the UK is funded directly by the government. The dissemination of research results is traditionally performed through academic journals, after peer review 

has taken place. Indeed, editorial boards that make up the 

academic component of journals are normally non-stipendiary 

positions, indirectly funded by the institution at which they are 

employed. This work is deemed to be “scholarly activity” 

and part of the duties of an academic. The journal publishers, however, are interested in making a “reasonable profit” 

from the publication of a journal title, whilst the “consumers” of journals are typically research institutions (universities). The position that the funding body (in this instance 

the government) finds itself in, is paying to access the results 

(through a subscription based publishing model) of research it 

has already funded. This position is considered untenable by 

the UK government (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2004) and it recommends greater access 

to research findings, possibly through the lodgment of results 

in institutional repositories. This position was subsequently 

backed by the principal research funding bodies, represented 

by Research Councils UK (2005), who now require the deposition of the results of all funded projects in research council 

specific repositories (e.g. Natural Environment Research 

Council; http://www.neodc.rl.ac.uk/). Such moves have been 

partially mirrored in the USA where the National Institutes 

of Health (NIH) have announced a similar move, requiring 

the deposition of results from funded work in PubMedCentral 

(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov).
44 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

The government initiatives outlined above will clearly be 

driving the agenda for the establishment of OA journals over 

the next few years. Other effects of a subscription-based 

journal publishing model are the restriction of access to current research for developing nations, as well as the increased 

financial burden placed upon libraries. However it is important to note that journals will never be free to publish (Morris 

and Powell, 2005), as there are always costs associated with 

review and publication. Rowland (2002) estimates a cost of 

$200-400 per article, so the main concern is whether journals 

can be appropriately funded.

OA does therefore not mean a “no cost” publishing 

model. To re-iterate, it is free at the point of consumption. Users (or consumers) of the material do not have to pay 

to access the material. Funding sources for OA journals are 

therefore required from elsewhere. Two broad categories can 

be identified:

1. Author Pays

This is the most common funding model and has been 

adopted by large volume OA publishers such as BioMed 

Central (http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/, accessed 

2004) and the Public Library of Science (http://www.plos.

org). The financial result of this model is that it shifts 

the cost of article publication from the consumer to the 

grant body, which may be a research council or the host 

institution, however it produces barriers to those with 

little funding. This can be mitigated against with free 

submission for low income groups.

2. Those that can afford

This has been implemented by the BMJ (Delamothe and 

Smith, 2003), who previously operated an OA publication methodology, cross-funded by other activities of the 

organisation. This has not proved sustainable and it now 

charges “some users some of the time.” Articles are 

freely distributed immediately upon publication (1 week), 

followed by a period (1 year) where charges are levied 

against users from wealthy nations. Developing nations 

are not charged. The importance of this methodology is 

that it charges those nations that can afford to subscribe, 

whilst still freely distributing material elsewhere (defined 

by the World Bank’s list of 120 low and lower middle 

income countries).

COPYRIGHT

This section discusses copyright, within the context of 

JoM, and is based around two issues. The first relates to the 

copyright that JoM claims based upon the material it publishes. The second relates to third party data included within 

maps that are published by JoM.

Publishing Copyright

It is common when submitting a research article for publication for the author to retain full copyright up to the point 

where it is accepted for publication. Many journals, after 

accepting the article, will require the submission of a copyright transfer form that assigns full, irrevocable, copyright for 

the material to the publisher. Some authors are unhappy at 

the requirement to transfer the copyright of their own work to 

a third party and, for government employees, a separate agreement is often used.

JoM allows the author to retain full copyright, whilst 

granting JoM an irrevocable license to publish the material. In essence the author and publisher share the copyright. JoM is also open access, with a requirement to make 

material freely distributable. It has therefore adopted 

the Creative Commons licensing model (http://www.

creativecommons.org) that allows detailed specification in 

the use of published material, whilst still retaining copyright. Specifically, the license allows the freedom to copy, 

distribute, and display all published material for non-commercial purposes, whilst requiring full attribution in its use and 

non-alteration.

Third Party Copyright

The incorporation of third party material (e.g. photo, 

diagram, table) in a journal article requires agreement from the 

owner of the copyright. Within the context of JoM, this principally means the incorporation of third party data within published maps. The copyright restrictions are dependent upon 

the data supplier and will vary from organisation to organisation. For example, the USA federal government cannot claim 

copyright (see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.

html) for data that has been acquired through the use of public 

funding and has a mandate to make it available at the cost 

of distribution. This includes data sets such as the Shuttle 

Radar Topography Mission digital elevation models and Landsat ETM+ satellite imagery. As these products are public 

domain, they can be incorporated into other materials.

Within the UK the national mapping agency, the Ordnance Survey (OS), is the primary supplier of geospatial 

data. Detailed licensing restrictions for universities cover 

the use and reproduction of data in print and electronically 

for local and international distribution (see Ordnance Survey data sub-licence agreement, at http://www.edina.ac.uk/

digimap/osterms.html). In particular, the license is flexible 

with respect to use of data in posters, presentations, teaching 

materials, and internal use. However, greater restrictions are 

imposed upon electronic, publicly accessible, publications; 

these are based upon a combination of the maximum (print) 

size of an individual image (200 cm2

) and the maximum 

ground area it represents (e.g. the island of Ireland has an area 

~84,000 km2

). The latter restriction varies by product, so 

that, for example, a ground area no bigger than 50 km2 can 

be published for Land-Form PANORAMATM data. This 
Open Access Journal Publication 45

generally means that any map larger than ~A5 (200 cm2) is 

not publishable. It is important to understand the implications of this restriction. As most peer-reviewed journals are 

now distributed over the internet, either solely electronically 

or in tandem with a traditional print process, it means that any 

OS digital product is effectively unpublishable in any journal. However the ramifications of this policy are more far 

reaching in that the license also covers all data derived from 

the original OS data source. Smith (2005a) has outlined an 

example where JoM could not publish a map that had been 

accepted for publication due to these restrictions.

DATA DISTRIBUTION

The move towards open access publication has, in part, 

been driven by the requirements of funding bodies to access 

research results. This mandate has also been extended to 

data deposition, with institutional repositories often accepting 

data. In addition there are also data centres maintained by 

funding bodies (e.g. Natural Environment Research Council; 

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/sites/data/). Despite this 

move towards data deposition, sharing and distribution, access

to research data remains ad hoc, particularly when research 

has no direct funding. There is often less impetus to share 

data and this is partly due to research publications driving the 

research agenda, not data. And, within geosciences at least, 

there is little historical context for data sharing.

Researcher’s willingness to share data are slowly changing, however the publishing agenda also needs to change. In 

much the same way that JoM provides an opportunity to publish maps, so there should also be an opportunity to publish 

the observational, analytical, and interpretive data from which 

the map was created. This must be citable, with an original, 

definitive, version stored in an appropriate location. And in 

the same way that journal articles are peer reviewed, so data 

should also be.

There are further complications to data sharing that 

remain active areas of research, e.g. GRADE (Geospatial 

Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction) Project, 

http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/index.html. These include:

1. Data Sharing: which digital data formats should be used 

to distribute data?

2. Data Preservation: which digital data formats will allow 

maximum preservation (durability)?

3. Data Presentation: how can cartographic presentation be 

preserved?

In terms of data sharing, geospatial data types simplify 

to raster, vector, and attribute data. These form the lowest common denominator meaning that they should be both 

easy to share and easy to preserve, however there remains no 

preservation of the cartographic presentation. Increasingly 

the complexity of data formats will allow a greater richness 

in data sets and, in particular, data presentation (e.g. an ESRI 

.mxd file), however this will often be at the cost of proprietary 

formats and therefore the ability to both share and preserve 

data. Simple, open, data formats remain an essential starting 

point. At JoM, data can be incorporated as part of the journal 

article and is distributed in the following formats:

1. Vector: the Shapefile remains a good file format as it is 

openly published, with open source tools available to 

manipulate them. Unfortunately it does not preserve 

topological relationships and a format such as E00 might 

be required in these situations.

2. Raster: GeoTIFF remains the predominant open format 

that is widely supported, however both JPG and JPG2000 

have wide application and remain suitable for distribution.

3. Attributes: there currently remains no open database 

format ideally suitable to supporting the distribution of 

attribute data. DBASE IV is widely supported, however 

text-base CSV remains the lowest common denominator.

One format that isn’t noted above is the Geographical Markup Language, an Open Geospatial Consortium 

specification for the encoding of geospatial data (http://www.

opengeospatial.org/standards/gml). Whilst only ratified in 

2002, over 40 vendors formally support the format and it has 

the potential to provide a widely supported, open format for 

data distribution.

JoM supports the distribution of data and, in particular, 

the ethos that “data should follow the research.” Separating 

data and content is problematic in that an explicit link needs 

to be maintained between the two. Journals from the 19th 

century were able to distribute “data” in the form of photos, 

tables, maps and drawings and it is clear how effective this 

immediacy was. The peer review process also becomes 

much simpler.

The distribution of data also touches upon both open 

access and copyright. With an increase in OA journals the 

potential to have free and immediate data distribution is an 

attractive proposal. However there needs to be considerable 

care taken in resolving remaining copyright issues. Not only 

are appropriate licensing arrangements for third party data 

required, but the vested interest of stakeholders in data that is 

deposited must be considered. Third party copyright remains 

an active research area, although initial reports suggest that 

this may not be as restrictive as previously thought (Waelde 

and McGinley, 2007). The issues related to stakeholder interests, however, requires further investigation. For example, 

what are the interests of the employer, employee, funding 

agency, and any co-investigators?

Additionally, the complexity of dealing with data formats 

and, in particular, data volumes, makes coupling data distribution and publishing a difficult task. The de facto solution 

is for an author to reference their data as residing in a separate data repository, although many request that third parties 

contact them directly. However there is a strong argument 

to maintain the article-data link, placing the emphasis for data 

review, storage and dissemination with the publishers. This 

may increase the cost of publishing, but would provide a consistent approach, across disciplines.
46 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

CONCLUSIONS

This article has covered material related to journal 

publication, yet the central thrust is actually far more general. Grant awarding bodies do not want to pay to view 

research they have already funded and the preference is 

that these are “free to access” (i.e. open access). OA does 

not necessarily mean a “traditional” journal, but can also 

incorporate e-only journals, institutional repositories, subject repositories, and grant body repositories. These may 

or may not incorporate peer review as part of the lodgment 

procedure. Preservation of research remains a central issue 

and it is clear that publishers take this issue seriously with, 

for example, Elsevier and the National Library of the Netherlands (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.

cws_home/companynews05_00020, accessed 2007) providing a permanent digital archive for current journals. All of 

the content published by JoM is permanently archived by the 

British Library under the UK Web Preservation Programme 

(http://www.webarchive.org.uk/).

Preservation goes beyond the publication of research 

results in journals, with the requirement in the United Kingdom for research grant holders to deposit research data in 

repositories. Data distribution is a key component in any 

data preservation strategy and should be closely linked to the 

published, peer reviewed, research outputs. For the time 

being, journal publication and data repositories remain separate entities, however there is a strong argument to, at least in 

part, merge the activities of these two areas.

There also remain more practical considerations, with a 

move to greater emphasis on data distribution. In particular, 

what data formats should be used for the storage of spatial 

data? These need to be fit-for-purpose and open, with a high 

potential for preservation. Geospatial repositories remain 

in their infancy and the subject of active research, such as the 

GRADE Project (scoping report accessed 2005, at http://www.

jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=project_grade).

The final link in this chain revolves around legal aspects 

of data sharing and, in particular, copyright. The above 

discussion outlines some of the fundamental issues concerning the use and re-use of research outputs and geospatial 

data. Can the interests of multiple stakeholders be satisfactorily resolved to allow data distribution? Should geospatial 

data be considered under copyright or, in Europe, is the Database Directive (covering “collections” of data) more appropriate (Waelde and McGinley, 2007)? Are licensing restrictions 

concerning the use of derivative datasets satisfactory? Whilst 

the first question remains unresolved, the second has been 

highlighted as being actively researched. Derivative datasets are an important area, with licensing conditions varying 

between suppliers. For example, Intermap, with the sale of 

the NEXTMap Britain product, does not claim intellectual 

property rights for thematically derived data (product handbook accessed in 2005, at http://www.intermap.com/images/

handbook/producthandbook.pdf), whilst the OS do claim these 

rights (see Ordnance Survey data sub-licence agreement, at 

http://www.edina.ac.uk/digimap/osterms.html).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Some of this material appeared in an earlier article 

(Smith, 2005b) and is now significantly updated.

REFERENCES

Delamothe, Tony, and Smith, Richard, 2003, Editorial; Paying 

for bmj.com: British Medical Journal, v. 327, no. 7409, 

p. 241-242, available at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/

full/327/7409/241.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 

2004, Scientific Publications: Free for all?; Tenth Report of 

Session 2003-04: London, The Stationery Office Limited, 

HC 399-1, v. 1, 114 p., available at http://www.publications.

parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399.

pdf.

Morris, S., and Powell, A., 2005, Dissemination of and access 

to UK research outputs: response from the Association of 

Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) to 

the Research Councils UK position statement. [Accessed 

in 2005, no longer available online.]

Research Councils UK, 2005, RCUK Position Statement 

on Access to Research Outputs: Research Councils UK 

Report, 15 p., available at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/

downloads/rcuk/documents/2005statement.pdf.

Rightscom, 2005, Business models for Journal Content; Final 

Report: London, Rightscom Ltd., 64 p. Submitted to Joint 

Information Services Committee. Available at http://www.

nesli2.ac.uk/JBM_o_20050401Final_report_redacted_for_

publication.pdf.

Rowland, J.F.B., 2002, The peer-review process: Learned 

Publishing, v. 15, no. 4, p. 247-258.

Smith, M. J., 2005a, The Journal of Maps: an electronic 

journal for the presentation and dissemination of map based 

data: Journal of Maps, v. 2005, p. 1-6, available at http://

www.journalofmaps.com/.

Smith, M.J., 2005b, Open access journal publication: methods 

of implementation and copyright issues: Society of Cartographers Bulletin, v. 39, p. 21-24.

Waelde, Charlotte, and McGinley, Mags, 2007, Designing a 

licensing strategy for sharing and re-use of geospatial data 

in the academic sector: [publisher unknown], 40 p. Final 

report to the GRADE Project. Available at http://edina.

ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf.
The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and

Insight Into the Future of Geologic Map Production

By Randall C. Orndorff, Peter T. Lyttle, Laurel M. Bybell, and Lydia Quintana

U.S. Geological Survey

908 National Center

Reston, VA 20192

Telephone: (703) 648-4316

Fax: (703) 648-6937

email: rorndorf@usgs.gov; plyttle@usgs.gov; 

lbybell@usgs.gov; lquintan@usgs.gov

INTRODUCTION

Geologic maps form a primary foundation for virtually 

all applied and basic earth-science investigations. The process of constructing a geologic map involves basic scientific 

research on the Earth’s history and the processes that operated to form the planet’s rocks and surficial materials. The 

definition of what constitutes a geologic map has changed over 

the years from a traditional paper product to multi-use digital 

geologic map databases. In this paper, the term “geologic 

map” refers to the representation of the geology at the earth’s 

surface, as well as the related subsurface interpretations of the 

geology, and includes any related databases.

The U.S. National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) has a mission to produce accurate geologic 

maps and three-dimensional geologic framework models 

that provide indispensable data and improved understanding of earth surface processes, ground-water availability, and 

onshore-offshore sediment transport processes. Collectively, 

this information is used to sustain and improve the quality of 

life and economic vitality of the Nation. These maps and 

frameworks support Department of Interior (DOI) land management decisions, mitigate hazards, and assist in ecological 

and climatic monitoring and modeling. This paper provides 

some background about the NCGMP and explores the impact 

of changing technology on geologic map products.

THE U.S. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE 

GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM

History and Background 

In 1992, the 102nd Congress recognized that a coordinated 

program was needed to facilitate geologic map production for 

the Nation by means of a uniform system in which priorities are established according to customer needs. In the late 

1980s, less than 20 percent of the United States had detailed 

geologic map coverage at scales necessary for land-use and 

resource managers to make wise decisions (National Research 

Council, 1987) and very few of these geologic maps were 

in a digital format that now is the standard for geologic map 

production.

The National Geologic Mapping Act (NGMA, Public 

Law 102-285), which was signed into law in 1992, created the 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program to implement and coordinate an expanded geologic mapping effort by 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the State geological surveys. The Act has been re-authorized twice, in 1997 

(Public Law 105-36) and in 1999 (Public Law 106-148), and 

currently is in the process of its third reauthorization. The 

NGMA and its reauthorizations are available at http://ncgmp.

usgs.gov/ncgmpabout/ngmact/.
48 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

The program today represents successful cooperation 

among Federal, State, and academic partners to deliver modern digital geologic maps to the communities and users that 

need them. In doing so, the program delivers the regionalscale (generally 1:24,000 or smaller) geologic maps that are 

critically needed by society. For example, private sector geotechnical consultants have come to depend on these maps as a 

base for constructing their larger-scale, site-specific geologic 

maps to support planning and engineering projects. The 

metadata from these efforts across all of the U.S. will continue 

to be stored and made available in the National Geologic 

Map Database’s Map Catalog (NGMDB, http://ngmdb.usgs.

gov). In support of geologic mapping, a common set of 

geologic map cartographic standards was published in 2006 

(Federal Geographic Data Committee, Geologic Data Subcommittee, 2006); this was developed by NCGMP in cooperation other Federal agencies, the state geological surveys, and 

the NGMDB.

The success of the NCGMP is evident as recent geologic 

mapping has been an important part of scientific advancement in areas as diverse as earthquake mechanisms, groundwater flow modeling, mineral and petroleum exploration, 

and the mitigation of natural hazards. The success of these 

efforts can also be gauged by the fact that the percentage of 

the Nation with geologic map coverage has risen dramatically. Also, geologic map production, compilation, and 

training have been promoted in 49 of the 50 states and Puerto 

Rico during the past 13 years (Figure 1).

Program Components

Each of three components of the program, as described 

below, has a unique role, yet all work cooperatively in the process of determining priorities for and producing new geologic 

maps. The Federal component of the program, FEDMAP, 

which officially began in 1993, creates regional geologic 

frameworks for areas that are vital to the economic, social, 

or scientific welfare of the Nation. The program annually 

supports approximately 25-30 multi-year USGS projects, 

which frequently include interdisciplinary studies that add 

value to the geologic mapping and promote dissemination 

of these products to a wide variety of consumers. National 

priorities are set with the advice of both a Federal Advisory Committee and a FEDMAP Review Panel, which have 

Federal, State, private industry, and academic members, and 

through less formal meetings with customers, collaborators, 

and cooperators. Program funding is also used to maintain 

the National Geologic Map Database (NGMDB), an effort 

mandated by the NGMA. The NGMDB provides information to the public about all geologic maps produced in the 

United States. Through the NGMDB, the Program also is 

Figure 1. Geologic mapping projects by component of NCGMP for FY 2007.
NCGMP: The Future of Geologic Map Production 49

developing a uniform set of map production standards for use 

by all Program components and the entire geologic mapping 

community, and is promoting the use of sophisticated data 

models for the construction and dissemination of geologic 

maps.

The STATEMAP component creates geologic frameworks for areas that are vital to the economic, social, or scientific welfare of individual States. State geological surveys 

first received STATEMAP funding in 1993. While contributing to the NCGMP mission priorities, each State Geologist 

determines the State’s mapping priorities in consultation with 

a State Mapping Advisory Committee. The highest priority 

efforts address multiple societal issues, a compelling single 

issue, or where geologic maps are essential for solving critical 

Earth science problems in a given State. The Association 

of American State Geologists, an organization consisting of 

all 50 State Geologists, routinely provides the Program with 

insightful guidance on critical issues that affect the States 

collectively. Each year, the NCGMP funds approximately 

120 projects in as many as 47 States. STATEMAP is a 

competitive grants program where Federal funding is matched 

one-to-one with State funds. Proposals are reviewed by 

national award panels made up of scientists from the USGS 

and selected representatives from the State geological surveys.

EDMAP, which began in 1996, provides university students with a carefully mentored education in the fundamental 

principles of geologic mapping and field studies. College 

or university geology professors, who are skilled in geologic 

mapping and willing to provide appropriate mentorship, 

request EDMAP funding to support their undergraduate and 

graduate students’ participation in geologic mapping field 

projects. EDMAP geology professors and their students 

are required to have a partner geologist from a State geological survey or USGS project, which provides opportunities 

for shared information and resources. The NCGMP allocates funds to colleges and universities in the United States 

and Puerto Rico through an annual competitive grant process. Proposals are reviewed by national award panels made 

up of scientists from the USGS, State geological surveys, and 

universities. Every Federal dollar that is awarded is matched 

one-to-one with university or other non-federal funds.

The success of this component is realized in that more 

than 90% of EDMAP students have pursued additional 

geoscience degrees or developed geoscience careers. The 

program fills a unique role in its training of new geologic 

mappers because other programs, such as the National Science 

Foundation, rarely support basic research devoted to geologic 

mapping.

USES OF GEOLOGIC MAPS

Decision makers at the Federal, State, and local levels 

are increasingly in need of objective scientific information to 

make sound decisions regarding planning, development and 

natural resource use. A modern digital geologic map often 

is the best scientific product for conveying this information 

because such a map is the single best source for understanding 

the history of the Earth. Geologic maps depict and interpret the bedrock and surficial geologic units that occur at and 

beneath the Earth’s surface. They also present information 

about the complex depositional and tectonic histories that the 

rocks have undergone, and may provide information about 

geologic age, mineral resources, fossils, geochemistry, and 

a host of other basic earth science information. Although 

the original decision to map an area may have been based on 

a specific need or issue, the resulting maps have significant 

derivative value because of the quality and type of information found in the geologic maps. These maps also are being 

used to address a multitude of other land-use issues for years 

after their original publication. The derivative uses continue 

to provide a substantial and prolonged return on the initial 

research investment. Bernknopf and others (1996) discussed 

the uses, derivatives and values of geologic maps and how 

land-use decisions are based on these products. In 2000, 

Bhagwat and Ipe (2000) found through a survey of geologic 

map users in the state of Kentucky that the return on the 

investment of producing geologic maps for the entire state was 

about 30 times the cost of production. This economic value 

was realized through multiple uses of the maps for energy 

exploration in the 1970’s and water resources in the 1990’s 

and 2000’s.

Prior to the NGMA, the major justifications for geologic 

mapping in the U.S. involved the use of maps in discovering and developing energy and mineral resources. In recent 

years, the need to maintain adequate clean water resources 

has become a major impetus for geologic mapping (Figure 

2). Another recent demand for geologic maps is to solve a 

broad array of environmental concerns, such as ecosystem 

restoration and proper siting of waste facilities. The NCGMP

will continue to recognize and support new uses for geologic 

Figure 2. Justifications and purposes of geologic mapping for 

FY 2007 FEDMAP and STATEMAP projects. Information was 

compiled from NCGMP project descriptions.
50 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

maps through sustained close communication with customers 

and stakeholders, especially the input received through the 

State Geologic Mapping Advisory Committees.

NCGMP MAPPING IN PROGRESS

The productivity of NCGMP is measured in the number of geologic maps and the square miles mapped each 

year. The Program has developed a mapping-in-progress 

database to track all geologic mapping occurring through the 

Program across the U.S. This database is linked to internal 

NCGMP spreadsheets, USGS Geography Discipline databases 

showing the square miles for each quadrangle in the U.S., and 

the NGMDB where information can be obtained by the public 

(http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/MapProgress/MapProgress_home.

html). Information stored in the mapping-in-progress 

database includes quadrangle name and state, square miles 

to be mapped, bedrock or surficial mapping, and principal 

investigator contact information (Figure 3). Within one year 

of notification that a map is published and recorded in the 

NGMDB, it will be removed from the mapping-in-progress 

database.

The mapping-in-progress database serves several functions. If a geologic map is unpublished or not included in the 

geologic map catalog of the NGMDB, it directs the public to 

the organization (USGS, State geological survey, or university) that is currently mapping a particular area. Also, the 

NCGMP uses this database to internally track geologic maps 

from time of proposal, to formal agreement, and to delivery 

of the map to the Program. The Program can evaluate trends 

in geologic mapping such as amount of bedrock and surficial 

geologic mapping, amount of digital compilation of previously 

published geologic maps, and differences in costs of geologic 

mapping over time and regions of the U.S. Another important use of this database is the ability to compile information to respond to requests from Government accountability 

programs for the Office of Management and Budget and for 

Congress (see also Soller, 2005).

Although there is information on past geologic mapping projects for NCGMP dating back to 1996, the most 

Figure 3. Diagram showing linkages within NCGMP mapping-in-progress database.
NCGMP: The Future of Geologic Map Production 51

Figure 4. Number of maps (left bar) and square miles (right bar) funded for geologic mapping each year from 2003 through 2006 for 

1:24,000 and 1:100,000 scales.

comprehensive data for the mapping-in-progress database has 

been collected since 2003. Since 2003, the USGS, state geological surveys, and university geoscience departments have 

mapped nearly 3000 7 1⁄2-minute quadrangles (full or in part) 

equaling nearly 150,000 square miles (Figure 4). For 30’ x 

60’ quadrangles, these same organizations have mapped 126 

quadrangles (full or in part) equaling 171,968 square miles.

THE FUTURE OF GEOLOGIC MAPPING

While a traditional geologic map portrays all of its 

information on a large sheet of paper, new digital techniques 

and computer software enable geologic mappers to represent 

the information in ways that are easier for their customers to 

visualize, understand, and use. These digital presentations 

frequently include additional information that was difficult or 

impossible to portray on paper maps. For instance, regional 

geophysical data sets such as gravity and aeromagnetic anomalies can be combined with a robust set of point data such as 

earthquake epicenters and water wells, to form one component 

or layer of the digital geologic map.

The dilemma of geologic mapping in the 21st Century 

is the need to bridge a transition from the traditional paper 

map products to digital geologic map databases that can be 

used in Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The paper 

geologic map places all information from the geologic mapping study in one place displayed at the scale it was intended 

by the author. Descriptions of the map units, cross sections, 

explanations of map symbols, correlation charts, and other 

information are presented with the map and can be carried in 

the field by the map user. In many cases, the paper map can 

be used in places that a computer is not practical. Also, the 

entire map can be viewed at its proper scale and in its entirety, 

something that cannot be done on a computer screen.

However, the power and usefulness of digital map products is limitless. Various geologic layers can be displayed 

and combined with other map products to produce desired 

derivative products for decision-making. Derivative maps 

from geologic maps have long existed and are one of the most 

powerful products of the original comprehensive geologic 

map. Geologic maps from the early 19th Century of Great 

Britain were used to develop engineering maps for building 

of canals and resource maps of coal resources (Winchester, 

2001). With the advent of GIS, geologic layers can now be 

combined with many other types of map products to allow for 

maps useful for land-use decisions. Geologic maps combined with land-use maps help to define zoning, protect sensitive ecosystems, and define critical recharge areas for ground 

water.

The concept of scale has changed with the advent of 

digital maps. Scale has traditionally referred to the ratio 

of linear distance on a map to the corresponding distance on 

the Earth’s surface being mapped. However, with digitally 

displayed map information, it is possible to zoom in and out 

on maps that can be viewed on computer monitors projecting the map at various scales. Therefore, the term scale in 

digital mapping becomes the resolution of the map, or the 

scale at which the map data was compiled. This can cause 

map users to misuse maps by looking at detail that is not part 

of the original compilation. For example, a map compiled 

at 1:100,000 scale should not be used to zoom into a site at a 

much larger scale of 1:24,000 or larger. Contacts and other 

map information lose their accuracy when viewed at inappropriate scales. Digital geologic maps should include disclaimers notifying the user of the accuracy of the maps at particular 

scales. Ideally, digital maps could include an algorithm that 

prohibits the map user from zooming in too far.

Another powerful aspect of digital geologic maps is 

the inclusion of the third dimension. The term “threedimensional geologic maps” can mean different things to 

different people. As one example, the draping of geologic 

map polygons on digital elevation models shows the threedimensional relationships of geologic units where they occur 
52 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

A

B

Figure 5. Examples of three-dimensional geologic maps. A) 

Geologic units draped over a digital elevation model, from North 

Dakota (Thomas, 2004). B) Geologic framework showing 

subsurface extent of geologic units.

at land surface (Figure 5a). In another example, cross 

sections developed from drillhole and other information can 

be interpolated to make a block diagram showing geology 

in the third dimension (Figure 5b). The power of the block 

geologic map is that it can be used as the boundary and threedimensional conditions for models. For instance, geologic 

conditions related to faulting and shaking can be displayed and 

interpreted for earthquake hazards. Also, three-dimensional 

geologic maps are used to build ground-water models to assess 

recharge, storage, and discharge of aquifers.

The need for both the traditional geologic map product 

and digital geology layers requires more resources than previously, when just a paper map was produced. Development 

of digital geologic maps does not necessarily make production more efficient. However, efficiency can be increased 

by digitally collecting field data on handheld computers 

with mapping software. Efficiency is also realized in map 

compilation where the field data can be easily transferred to 

a GIS to develop the digital map and database. However, to 

effectively develop digital geologic map data, knowledge of 

geology (geologic mapping), cartography, GIS, and computer 

programming is necessary. Also, effective distribution of 

digital maps requires use of the worldwide web.

REFERENCES

Bhagwat, S.B., and Ipe, V.C., 2000, Economic benefits of 

detailed geologic mapping to Kentucky: Illinois Geological Survey, Special Report 3, 30 p.

Bernknopf, R.L., Brookshire, D.S., Soller, D.R., McKee, M.J., 

Sutter, J.F., Matti, J.C., and Campbell, R.H., 1996, Societal 

Value of Geologic Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1111, 53 p., available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/

cir/cir1111.

Federal Geographic Data Committee, Geologic Data Subcommittee, 2006, FGDC digital cartographic standard for 

geologic map symbolization: Federal Geographic Data 

Committee Document Number FGDC-STD-013-2006, 290 

p., 2 pls., available at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/fgdc_gds/.

National Research Council, 1987, Geologic mapping in the 

U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 22 p.

Soller, D.R., 2005, Assessing the Status of Geologic Map 

Coverage of the United States – A New Application of 

the National Geologic Map Database, in D.R. Soller, 

ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’05 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 

2005-1428, p. 41-47, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2005/1428/soller2/index.html.

Thomas, W.A., 2004, Meeting challenges with geologic 

maps: American Geological Institute, Environmental 

Awareness Series, 64 p.

Winchester, Simon, 2001, The map that changed the world 

– William Smith and the birth of modern geology: New 

York, Harper Collins, 329 p.
Geologic Field Mapping Using a Rugged Tablet Computer

By Kent D. Brown and Douglas A. Sprinkel

Utah Geological Survey

1594 W. North Temple

Salt Lake City, Utah 84116

Telephone: (801) 537-3300

Fax: (801) 537-3400

email: kentbrown@utah.gov; douglassprinkel@utah.gov

INTRODUCTION

The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) publishes geologic 

maps principally at scales of 1:24,000 and 1:100,000. Each 

geologic map, regardless of scale, requires a certain level of 

field mapping where data are recorded on aerial photographs 

and in field books. Traditionally, geologic line work is 

hand-transferred to a topographic base map on which the final 

map is prepared for publication using accepted cartographic 

techniques. Since about 1991, however, the UGS has used 

digital technologies to prepare the final map for publication, 

and for the past few years to record data in the field, making 

geologic fieldwork and map preparation more efficient. This 

is particularly true for some of our 1:100,000-scale geologic 

maps.

Using digital technologies for geologic field mapping 

has many distinct advantages: (1) improved precision in 

placement of geologic features and sample locations using 

Global Positioning System (GPS) and on-screen display of 

geospatially corrected imagery and topographic base maps for 

reference, (2) increased efficiency in drawing field-attributed 

geologic lines because they do not need to be hand-transferred 

or redrawn on another map in the office and then digitized, 

(3) graphical notation on digital photographs with geologic 

relationships, and (4) accessing key publications in a digital 

library.

Utah Geological Survey mapping geologist Doug Sprinkel began a field trial in 2005 using a rugged tablet computer 

and GIS software to create and attribute geologic map data for 

the Dutch John, Vernal, and Seep Ridge 30’ x 60’ quadrangles 

in northeastern Utah. This paper describes the experience of 

that trial.

TECHNOLOGY CHOICES

The merits of using various electronic devices and 

software for field collection of geologic map data has been 

studied and debated by numerous researchers (e.g., Struik and 

others, 1991; Brodaric, 1997; Walsh and others, 1999; Kramer, 

2000; Edmondo, 2002; McCaffrey and others, 2005; Clegg 

and others, 2006). Many geoscientists have used a palmsized Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) or similar device and 

customized software applications (Brodaric, 1997; Walsh and 

others, 1999; Brimhall and others, 2002; Edmondo, 2002), 

while others have chosen systems based on a larger rugged 

tablet computer (De Donatis and others, 2005, Sprinkel and 

Brown, 2008), which is bulkier but offers distinct advantages. A detailed comparison of both types of systems (Clegg 

and others, 2006) along with the development of Map IT GIS 

software for geologic field mapping (De Donatis and others, 2005; De Donatis and Bruciatelli, 2006) convinced us to 

choose a rugged tablet computer and Map IT GIS software for 

a UGS mapping program field trial.

Several brands and models of rugged tablet computers are 

now available. We chose a rugged tablet model from Xplore 

Technologies that meets military specifications for water, dust, 

and shock resistance and has a relatively large 10.4” LCD 

screen and illumination technology that enhances the display’s 

legibility, even in bright sunlight. The tablet has a 1.2 GHz 

Intel Pentium M 753 - ULV processor, 1 GB of RAM, an 80 

GB hard drive, Integrated 802.11 wireless networking, and 

Microsoft Windows XP Tablet Edition. Although the tablet 

and software will work with a full range of GPS devices 

from the simplest inexpensive USB units, Bluetooth devices, 

or survey-grade equipment costing thousands of dollars, we 

chose the integrated GPS receiver.

OVERVIEW OF METHODS

Geologic mapping using digital field techniques is really 

not that much different from traditional methods. A geologist still has to go in the field with a rock hammer, hand lens, 

and compass, aided by stereo pairs of aerial photographs and a 

stereoscope (needed to see the map area in three dimensions) 

to determine formation contacts and faults, measure bedding 
54 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

attitudes (strike and dip), collect samples, and take field 

notes. However, instead of carrying a map board and drawing lines on paper-based aerial photographs or topographic 

base maps using an ink pen, the geologist uses a rugged tablet 

computer with a touch-screen as the map board and GIS software and a stylus to draw lines on digital base map images that 

are displayed on the screen for positional reference; digital 

images could be topographic, geospatially corrected photographic (orthophoto) images (Figure 1) or shaded relief maps, 

as well as images of other geologic maps.

In addition to drawing lines using the stylus, line data 

can be collected using an active GPS receiver while walking 

the contact or fault. Point data such as bedding attitudes and 

sample locations can also be easily and accurately collected 

using the GPS receiver and displayed on the digital base 

(Figure 2). Field notes are electronically written into word 

processing software using the stylus or a portable external 

keyboard. Finally, digital photography permits the geologist 

to capture an image of a scene, transfer the image to the tablet 

computer, and then easily make graphical notations on the 

photograph in the field.

Map IT, the GIS software, allows us to create custom data 

input forms with pull-down pick-lists to simplify and standardize the collection of geologic data. This allows the geologist 

to create a digital map while still in the field, with attributed 

and colored map unit polygons, geologic symbols, and feature 

labels.

Pre-Field Mapping Procedures

Any successful mapping project begins with a certain 

amount of office preparation before the first step is taken in the 

field. This is particularly true for digital field mapping. For 

example, in Map IT and other spatial database software, the 

geologic database must be configured, and tables must be 

created to accept the necessary feature attributes. When the 

Figure 1. Rugged tablet computer showing geology mapped in the field superimposed over digital orthophoto
Geologic Field Mapping Using a Rugged Tablet Computer 55

Figure 2. Field-collected bedding attitudes on a geologic map. Symbol size is exaggerated for clarity.

tables are ready for feature attributes, then data entry forms are 

created, one for each data type (e.g., points, lines, and polygons). On a tablet computer using Map IT, these forms are 

important so the geologist can draw lines and points and easily 

select their attributes from choices in a list. These pick-list 

choices populate the data tables’ attribute fields. The forms 

are fairly easy to create and using them keeps errors to a minimum and makes the data consistent from map to map. Forms 

are simple to very complex depending on our needs and they 

can be reused from one project to the next. We prepare and 

check project files in Map IT to ensure that all of the forms, 

scripts, and data tables are in the new project and that they 

function properly. There is nothing more frustrating than to 

be in the field attempting to enter a data point, only to discover 

that the data table or forms linked to lookup tables are not 

present. Data tables and forms can be created on the fly in 

the field but that takes up valuable field time.

We still use paper copies of stereo pairs of aerial photographs, and a pocket stereoscope, so the geologist can see the 

field area in 3-D. In addition to assembling the aerial photographs needed, we gather the best-available digital orthophoto 

files and DRG topographic map files. Finally, we assemble a 

library of digital documents on the tablet computer containing 

important articles and existing geologic maps that pertain to 

the map area. Most journal and government-agency articles 

and maps are available in PDF format. Accessing these 

digital publications on the outcrop is handy and may save you 

a repeat trip to the outcrop.

IN THE FIELD

We believe that digitally collecting geologic field data 

using the tablet PC with Map IT permits the geologist to 

easily and consistently attribute data, reduces potential errors 

in transferring line work and point locations, and saves time 

by not having to redraw line work from one step in the map 

production process to the next. Line work and data points 

are directly mapped in layers using the tablet’s stylus, or 

their positions are recorded from the GPS receiver. Lines 

and points representing contacts, faults, fold axes, bedding 

attitudes, structural data, and sample locations are attributed in 

the field using pull-down dialog boxes linked to look-up tables 

(Figure 3).

Map IT has many tools very similar to those in other GIS 

software. For example, it is easy for the field mapper to create preliminary geologic unit polygons with attributes, and to 

color the polygons by their unique values. With this in mind, 

unit symbol annotations are placed in each unit so they can be 

used as ID points to automatically generate polygon attributes 

for use in the field, as well as in the publication process.

Another viable use for this wireless-enabled system is 

collecting and transferring time-sensitive data (maps, field 

notes, and images) from the field to the office during geologic 

hazard events or other natural disasters. Earthquake hazard 

is relatively high in the western US and these systems could 

prove to be valuable assets to government agencies involved 

in emergency response.
56 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 3. A simple Map IT data form with pick-lists is used for field-attributing geologic features.

Photos and Field Sketches

Photographs of key outcrops, sample locations, or field 

relationships are taken using a digital camera and the images 

are transferred to the tablet via USB cable where the geologist 

can draw graphical interpretations on the photos, in the field, 

using a simple image viewing and editing tool included with 

Map IT. By these means, traditional paper field sketches can 

be replaced with digital drawings and photos (Figure 4).

Voice Recordings

The Xplore tablet computer has both a built-in microphone and an external microphone line-in port, which is useful 

because Map IT includes an easy-to-use voice-recording 

tool. This is a great way to audibly record thoughts and interpretations as they occur without having to grab a notebook 

and write everything down. It is likely that voice recognition 

software eventually will enable conversion of these recordings 

to text!

Easy-Notes

The Map IT Easy-Notes tool is arguably the most 

interesting and useful tool we’ve seen in a GIS. It allows 

the user to tie all sorts of information to a single clickable 

geographic point on a map. It works by pointing to a spot on 

your map and making it a point of interest, symbolized with 

a pushpin icon. Clicking on this icon pops-up a yellow note 

box similar to the familiar paper “Sticky Notes” (Figure 5) 

commonly used in the office. In this yellow note box, you 

can use the stylus to make handwritten notes, to drag-and-drop 

photo images, text documents of any type, or Internet URL’s, 

and to link your personal voice recordings to that locality. As 

you drop documents into your Easy-Note, they are listed there 

with the familiar icons of their associated software. Display 

of Easy-Note pushpin icons can be turned on or off. Clicking on a pushpin opens the Easy-Note to reveal documents 

tagged to that geographic location, which you can then open 

with the touch of the stylus. This is very useful for indexing 

annotated photos, field sketches, and notations to a particular 

outcrop or viewpoint, for example.
Geologic Field Mapping Using a Rugged Tablet Computer 57

Figure 4. Digital photographs can be annotated and sketched 

upon, in the field, with a simple image-editing tool included in 

Map IT.

Concerns

Disadvantages of this technology include a fairly steep 

learning curve for the software, and getting accustomed to 

using a tablet computer and stylus in the field. Newer models of the Xplore tablets have much improved screen brightness technology, although at times it is still difficult to see the 

display in the field, which can be very frustrating. This is 

particularly true in bright sunlight when wearing sunglasses; 

polarizing sunglasses especially tend to darken the display. This can be somewhat remedied by using a case with a 

flap (Figure 6) to shade the screen from direct sunlight.

A more important issue is, of course, reliance on 

battery power and the fact that the rugged tablet craves 

power! These devices run on fairly powerful batteries that 

can operate continuously for up to 4 hours; however, battery 

life can be extended if the power-saving schemes are enabled 

such as using the hibernation mode when you are not entering 

data. Our newest rugged Xplore tablet uses a more energyefficient Intel processor, which should help with this problem, 

but no matter what power-saving scheme is employed or the 

number of spare batteries, you still need daily access to a 

power source to charge the batteries. This means using a 

vehicle power adapter or returning to your motel each evening 

to charge the tablet’s batteries for the next day of field mapping. Digital mapping in remote areas for more than a couple 

of days may not be an option, unless solar panels or other 

compatible remote power sources are used.

Figure 5. The Map IT Easy-Note tool is a useful way to link to or 

access various information files relating to a single geographic 

point on a map.

Figure 6. To improve readability in the bright sun, a tablet PC 

carrying case with sunshade can be used, as this soft case made 

from durable rip-stop nylon shows.

CONCLUSIONS

Each field-mapping technique, ranging in complexity 

from pen and field notebook to a rugged tablet computer and 

software, has advantages and disadvantages. Regarding the 

modern, computer-based systems, acquiring geologic data in 

the field using the tablet with a GPS receiver and Map IT GIS 

software saves time, and in our opinion, is more efficient than 

other tested methods. Being able to capture digital images 

of outcrops, sample locations, and key geologic relationships, 

and carefully annotating them while still at the spot where the 

image was captured and then tagging them to a geographic 

point of interest on the digital map is very useful and greatly 

improves our ability to interpret our field observations as we 

compile our geologic maps.
58 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

The disadvantages of using this system include a fairly 

steep learning curve (unless the field geologist is already 

familiar with GIS software) and the insatiable appetite that 

any field computer system has for power. However, we think 

these are manageable problems.

Digital acquisition of geologic data in the field will likely 

increase as organizations discover the advantages of porting 

data seamlessly from a geologist’s tablet computer to the GIS 

analyst’s desktop. This may be particularly true as more 

wireless-enabled tablets are deployed to geologists who must 

transfer time-sensitive data from the field to the office during 

times of natural disasters.

NOTE

The UGS does not endorse any computer software or 

hardware products or manufacturers. Reference to any specific commercial product or process by trade name, trademark, 

or otherwise, does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by the UGS.

REFERENCES

Brimhall, G.H., Vanegas, Abel, and Lerch, Derek, 2002, 

Geomapper Program for Paperless Field Mapping with 

Seamless Map Production in ESRI ArcMap and GeoLogger for Drill-Hole Data Capture: Applications in Geology, 

Astronomy, Environmental Remediation, and Raised-Relief 

Models, in Soller, D.R., editor, Digital Mapping Techniques 

’02 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-file Report 02-370, p. 141-152, http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2002/of02-370/brimhall.html.

Brodaric, Boyan, 1997, Field Data Capture and Manipulation using GSC FIELDLOG v3.0, in Soller, D.R., editor, 

Proceedings of a Workshop on Digital Mapping Techniques: 

Methods for Geologic Map Capture, Management, and Publication: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 97-269, 

p. 77-81, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-269/brodaric.

html.

Clegg, P., Bruciatelli, L., Domingos, F., Jones, R.R., De Donatis, M., and Wilson, R.W., 2006, Digital Geological Mapping with Tablet PC and PDA - A Comparison: Computers 

& Geosciences, v. 32, p. 1682-1698, http://www.dur.ac.uk/

grl/Downloads/C&G2006-v32-Clegg.pdf.

De Donatis, Mauro, and Bruciatelli, Lorenzo, 2006, MAP 

IT- The GIS Software for Field Mapping with a Tablet PC: 

Computers & Geosciences, v. 32, p. 673-680.

De Donatis, Mauro, Bruciatelli, Lorenzo, and Susini, Sara, 

2005, MAP IT- A GIS/GPS Software Solution for Digital 

Mapping, in Soller, D.R., editor, Digital Mapping Techniques ‘05 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report 2005-1428, p. 97-101, http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2005/1428/dedonatis1/index.html.

Edmondo, G.P., 2002, Digital Geologic Field Mapping using 

ArcPad, in Soller, D.R., editor, Digital Mapping Techniques 

’02 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-file Report 02-370, p. 129-134, http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2002/of02-370/edmondo.html.

Kramer, J.H., 2000, Digital Mapping Systems for Field Data, 

in Soller, D.R., editor, Digital Mapping Techniques ’00 – 

Workshop proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file 

Report 00-325, p. 13-19, http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of00-

325/kramer.html.

McCaffrey, K.J.W., Jones, R.R., Holdsworth, R.E., Wilson, 

R.W., Clegg, P., Imber, J., Holliman, N., and Trinks, I., 

2005, Unlocking the Spatial Dimension - Digital Technologies and the Future of Geoscience Fieldwork: Journal of the 

Geological Society, v. 162, p. 927-938.

Sprinkel, D.A., and Brown, K.D., 2008, Using Digital Technology in the Field: Utah Geological Survey, Survey Notes, 

v. 40, no. 1, p. 1-2.

Struik, L.C., Atrens, A., and Haynes, A., 1991, Handheld 

Computer as a Field Notebook, and its Integration with the 

Ontario Geological Survey’s ‘‘Fieldlog’’ Program, in Current research; Part A, Cordillera and Pacific Margin: Geological Survey of Canada Paper No. 91-01A, p. 279-284.

Walsh, G.J., Reddy, J.E., and Armstrong, T.R., 1999, Geologic Mapping and Collection of Geologic Structure Data 

with a GPS Receiver and a Personal Digital Assistance 

(PDA) Computer, in Soller, D.R., editor, Digital Mapping 

Techniques ‘99 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report 99-386, p. 127-131, http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/of99-386/walsh.html.

RESOURCES

Xplore Technologies Corporation of America

14000 Summit Drive, Suite 900

Austin, TX 78728

Web: http://www.xploretech.com/index.pl

For information on Map IT:

Prof. Mauro De Donatis

Universita’ degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo”

Facolta’ di Scienze Ambientali - Campus Scientifico Loc. 

Crocicchia

61029 Urbino, Italy

Email: dedonatis@uniurb.it

Web: http://www.uniurb.it/ISDA/MAPIT/index.htm
Proposal for an ArcGeology Version 1

A Geodatabase Design for Digital Geologic Maps using 

ArcGIS®

By Jordan T. Hastings1,2, Gary L. Raines2, Lorre A. Moyer2

1

 Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (as of August 2007) 

Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering 

University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557-0178

email: hastings@unr.edu 2

 U.S. Geological Survey

Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering

University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557-0176

email: graines@usgs.gov; lorre@usgs.gov

ABSTRACT

This document presents a geodatabase design, proposed 

as an “ArcGeology Version 1”, for digital geologic maps 

utilizing ESRI ArcGIS® 9.1 or 9.2 software. The design 

outlines a specific set of feature datasets and feature classes, 

together with feature attributes, subtypes and domains, suitable for a variety of geologic maps. In addition to basic geology (lithology, contacts and faults, etc.), the maps may include 

rock/mineral alteration and other overprints, cross-sections, 

and explanatory legend-graphics such as descriptive lists of 

map units and correlation charts, used to supplement columnar 

legends automatically produced by ArcGIS. Setup files are 

provided to create a new empty geodatabase and companion 

map document. The geodatabase design is compatible with 

field work using ArcPad® 6 or 7.

This proposal is demonstrated with a fictitious geologic 

map, UNRCampus, set on the University of Nevada, Reno 

campus (Figure 1). This demonstration, as a completed 

ArcMap document and geodatabase with FGDC-compliant 

metadata, plus the setup files to create similar databases, is 

available for download at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/dmt/

docs/AG1b.zip. To better understand this report and geodatabase design, the reader invited to fully explore the UNRCampus demonstration. 

Throughout this document, proficiency with ArcGIS and 

geodatabases is presumed. For simplicity and portability, 

only ArcGIS software is used. To create new maps, at least 

an ArcEditor-level license is required.

INTRODUCTION

The following typographic conventions are adopted 

in this document. Geologic mapping and ArcGIS-related 

technical terms are italicized on first use, and concepts and 

practices of particular importance are noted in bold italics. Specific data structures, fields, etc., are shown in roman 

Title Case, without quotes to avoid clutter. Sans serif font is 

used for Windows-specific file names and also for ArcGIS tool 

names; the latter are bolded on every use (optionally followed 

by a parenthetical comment about the user-interface context in 

which they can be found).

Geologic maps present a complex amalgam of basic 

topographic facts, verifiable field observations, and subjective interpretations (Bain and Giles, 1997); they are among 

the most intricate of cartographic products. Widespread 

automation in geosciences, including the use of geographic 

information systems (GIS), presents the opportunity to capture 

geologic knowledge into map-databases. In addition to their 

cartographic sophistication, such map-databases afford more 

versatility and analytical capability than is possible with traditional paper maps.

Based on ESRI ArcGIS software, this proposal for an 

“ArcGeology Version 1” (AG1) outlines a simple but flexible 

system for producing a geologic map-database (GMDB) that 

serves both cartographic and analytical purposes. Because 

the geoscience community and ESRI have not yet engaged 

in a collective process to design such a GMDB structure, 

which by ESRI convention might then be formally named 
60 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 1. Fictitious Geological Map of UNR Campus.

“ArcGeology”, in this article our proposal will be referred to 

only as AG1.

Specifically, AG1 comprises an ArcGIS geodatabase data 

model and companion operational procedures that predominantly address the geospatial features of a GMDB. Other 

groups (NADMSC, 2004 et seq.) have been active in developing a general conceptual model for geoscience information, originally known as “C1.0”, which might eventually be 

integrated with AG1. Richard (2003) and Richard and others 

(2004, 2005) have progressively implemented portions of C1.0 

in geodatabases with different structures and techniques than 

those proposed here. Various geological surveys, projects, 

and individual geologists have developed GMDB designs for 

their own purposes. Recently, interest has grown around the 

GeoSciML notation (Commission for the Management and 

Application of Geoscience Information, http://www.geosciml.

org) as a means of sharing geoscience information in more 

generality than a GMDB.

Harmonization of the various GMDB designs is urgently 

needed in order to make digital geologic map data more 

widely accessible and more useful, to non-geologists particularly. Accordingly, AG1 has taken a minimalist approach, 

focused on the geospatial aspects of the map, with the goal 

of fostering harmony by: 1) simplifying and generalizing 

the spatial feature classes using subtypes and domains to 

support essential description for cartography; and 2) deferring the selection/standardization of extended descriptive 

attributes to the geologic community, where discussion is 

already underway. In short, the AG1 proposal is intended to 

evolve to AG2, AG3, etc. with participation and support of the 

community.

AG1 utilizes ArcMap, ArcCatalog, and their associated 

tools “out of the box,” avoiding any additional software. In 

addition, AG1 is immediately functional with ArcPad for field 

mapping. Our expectation is that geologists will become 

proficient with ArcGIS and its related software in order to 

produce high-quality GMDB products.

Several known problems with ArcGIS also cause problems in the implementation of AG1; these are discussed in 

Appendix C.
Proposal for an ArcGeology Version 1 61

DESIGN OVERVIEW

This section provides an overview of the AG1 geodatabase structure, operational concepts, and metadata.

Geodatabase

The traditional paper geologic map presents: a main 

spatial figure – “the map” itself; optionally, one or more crosssections, which may be superimposed on the main map and/

or shown separately; optionally, one or more legend-graphics, 

which depict the map units in descriptive lists, correlation diagrams, etc., parallel to the main map; and a substantial block 

of explanatory text. Tables and charts also may be present, 

along with index maps(s), graticules, scale bars, title and credits, logos, etc. The layout of these elements is an art form, 

varying from map to map. AG1 focuses on the first three 

map elements: the main map, cross-section(s), and legendgraphic(s), each of which is treated in a parallel manner and 

data structure.

The AG1 geodatabase design is organized around feature 

datasets corresponding to the three principal elements above, 

plus a fourth catch-all for basemap/framework materials. For 

details refer to Appendix A. These feature datasets are:

• Geology – holds the primary content of the map: the 

geologic “unit” polygons as bounded by contacts, 

faults, and other “structure” lines on some mapping 

horizon, plus a variety of “station” data points. In 

AG1, polygons are primarily handled as derivative 

features, constructed on demand from lines and points 

using ArcGIS utilities and tools, as discussed in Operational Concepts below. This approach automatically 

achieves the topological relationships required for 

geologic maps, and greatly facilitates map editing and 

compilation.

• CrossSection$ (where $ is a single capital letter) 

– holds a more-or-less vertical profile of geology 

along a line-of-section through the main map. Each 

cross-section is managed as a small free-standing 

map in the same coordinate system as the main figure, 

even though the two datasets are not, in fact, co-registered. By this trick, a cross-section can be drawn 

directly on top of the main map, and will appear to 

“stand up” just by the superposition. Alternatively, 

when placed in a separate data frame, the cross-section 

can be rotated into an “upright” orientation.

• LegendGraphic# (where # is a single numeric digit) – 

holds an auxiliary diagram that explains relationships 

within a map (as distinct from the columnar legend that 

can be produced directly by ArcMap). The prototypical legend-graphic is a correlation chart, showing the 

temporal and spatial relationships among geologic 

units; this also may include block diagrams of the units 

themselves, depicting facies, intrusions, etc.

• Basemap – holds foundational vector data (elevation contours, lake outlines, streams, roads, etc.) and/

or raster data (topographic maps, air photos, etc.) that 

provide a framework for mapping. Point data, such 

as tic marks (useful for verifying map registration) also 

occur in this dataset.

Images and rasters can be included directly in a file 

geodatabase (new at ArcGIS 9.2); in a personal geodatabase, they are stored in a separate folder indirectly referenced 

through the geodatabase. For efficiency, images and rasters 

should be in the same projection as the Basemap and Geology 

feature datasets, although because of ArcGIS’ capability for 

projection on-the-fly, this is not mandatory.

Within each feature dataset, other than Basemap, three 

or four feature classes may appear. For the Geology feature 

dataset, the three essential feature classes are: GeoFrame, 

which delimits the study area; GeoLines, which presents 

all the raw geologic “line work” (contacts, faults, etc.); and 

GeoPolys, which contains the geologic polygon features (rock 

units, alteration units, etc.) constructed from GeoFrame and 

GeoLines. GeoPoints is an optional feature class, corollary 

to GeoLines, which presents the geologic “point data” (observation points, structural measurements, sample localities, etc.) 

relevant to the map. Parallel feature classes with the same 

attributes pertain to the CrossSection$ and LegendGraphic# 

components (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of feature datasets and feature classes.

Feature Dataset

Feature Classes

Polygons (in)

(Requirements vary)

Lines

(Required)

Points

(Optional)

Polygons (out)

(Derived)

Geology GeoFrame, 

GeoPolys (optional)

GeoLines GeoPoints GeoPolys

CrossSection$ XS$Frame XS$Lines XS$Points XS$Polys

LegendGraphic# LG#Frame (opt.) LG#Lines LG#Points LG#Polys
62 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

For each feature class other than the “Frames”, which are 

in general simple perimeters, a group of up to seven common 

feature attributes is present. These attributes are described in 

Table 2 with regard to the Geology feature dataset, and Table 

3 presents some examples of their use. See Appendix A for 

additional details.

The first five entries deal with the basic symbolization of the features in the map. Kind, Type, and Style are 

closely controlled fields, established via ArcGIS domains and 

subtypes. These fields encode AG1’s knowledge organization system (World Wide Web Consortium; http://www.

w3.org/2004/02/skos/) for GMDBs in general, and should not 

be modified casually. Kind subdivides geologic features into 

tiers (rock, alteration, overprint, etc.), while Type and Style 

define rough and fine categorizations, respectively, of features 

within a tier. In some regards, these three fields function 

hierarchically and in other regards independently (Table 

3). Note that only a few example entries are shown.

By contrast, Symbol and Symval are unconstrained 

user-supplied fields, providing cartographic and descriptive 

details for particular features as needed. Typically, Symbol 

is used for map-unit labels, dip amounts (which may be blank 

or non-numeric, e.g. <10), station identifiers, etc. Symval 

is available for various purposes where a number is required, 

such as symbol transparency or rotation. Domain-based 

control of Symbols (but not Symvals) is also possible, if for 

example the stratigraphy of units that may appear on a map is 

fixed in advance.

ItemID serves to link the geospatial features to extended 

desciptions in other tables, if present: it is a generic foreign 

key. Depending on the complexity of these tables, ItemID 

may link directly from feature classes to particular tables on a 

class-by-class basis, or indirectly from feature classes through 

an intermediary “dispatch table” to any number of tables 

concurrently. The built-in Item table is designed for the latter 

purpose. Taken altogether, these first six feature attributes 

are sufficient to record, symbolize, and label the features in 

a geologic map, and to arrange further description of these 

features as desired.

Table 2. Common feature attributes for all feature classes.

Attribute Description

Kind Top-level category of geologic features, e.g. Rock, Alteration and other 

(Short Int: Coded Text*, Global Domain) Overprints, etc. Several geologic Kinds may be present in GeoPoints, 

GeoLines and GeoPolys concurrently. Thus new Kinds (e.g. Soils) can be 

defined and added to the underlying domain, if needed, without creating 

additional feature classes. (*Coded Text denotes a text field automatically 

derived from a numeric code via an ArcGIS domain.)

Type Sub-category of feature, e.g. Contact, Fault, Attitude measurement, etc. 

(Short Int: Subtype selector) Types can be adjusted by editing the underlying subtype lists for GeoPoints, 

GeoLines and GeoPolys as needed. By convention, the zero subtype is 

always available, generally as “not applicable” (N/A) catch-all.

Style More-specific term for a feature within its Type, e.g. Contact, Certain; Nor-

(Long Int: Coded Text, Domain per Type) mal Fault, Concealed; Sedimentary Bedding Attitude. As for Kind, Style 

terms are maintained in an underlying domain; however, these terms also 

interface through the ESRI Style Manager with standard symbology, which 

must be updated concurrently. 

Symbol Mnemonic assigned to support cartographic representation of individual fea-

(Free Text, 20-character max.) tures, e.g. dip amounts, sample numbers, fault names, and notably the geologic unit codes for GeoPolys. The latter codes are typically not managed 

through Styles, because they vary greatly across mapping projects. Symbols 

in addition to Styles may be used with any feature class; for example, to 

import pre-existing line symbology coded as text.

Symval Numeric value providing additional cartographic detail or control, e.g. ra-

(Floating-Pt) diometric age, strike/plunge direction for attitude symbols, etc.

ItemID Per feature link to rows of related table(s), optionally providing extended 

(Long Int) descriptions for documentation or analysis, over and above the symbolization and labeling of features on the map.

Selected Persistent control (True/False=0) on selection of individual features and 

(Boolean, as Short Int) their participation in various operations, especially polygon construction.
Proposal for an ArcGeology Version 1 63

The final field, Selected, is used to persistently mark individual features for inclusion or exclusion in various procedural 

steps, particularly polygon construction (see below). For 

example, it is often desirable to exclude intraformational contacts and faults, so that the associated map-unit polygons are 

not “broken” by these lines. Similarly, it may be desirable to 

include some but not all strike-and-dip symbols within some 

“busy” portions of a map.

A GMDB inherently involves deep integration of spatial 

features and aspatial tabular data, beyond that required for 

map production. Even using databases, this integration can 

become technically complex. In AG1, the linkage between 

features and tabular data is effected via the single field, 

ItemID, leaving the spatial and tabular aspects otherwise 

free-standing. In general, two sets of relationship classes are 

involved: first, the spatial features “link in” to a central Item 

table, built-in to the geodatabase; from here, the Item entries 

“link out” again (are dispatched) to the aspatial, user-supplied 

tables, which can vary by map author and across maps of different areas or emphases. For details, refer to Appendix B.

A sample tabular data schema for the UNRCampus.mdb 

prototype is included in Appendix B. The tables and attributes shown in this prototype are intended only to demonstrate 

the capabilities of the AG1 design; they are not a formal 

recommendation. Other organizations of tabular data for 

geologic maps are presented in the NADMSC “C1.0” specification (2004), Brodaric and Hastings (2002), and Johnson and 

others (1999).

The doubly linked approach to extended descriptions 

(Figure 2, solid lines) provides the greatest flexibility both 

in the design of the user-supplied tables and in the timing of 

relationships (implying persistence of categorization). Each 

feature is linkable to and through a unique row in the Item 

table to any number of other tables, which themselves can 

have any desired (or pre-existing) organization. If several 

features link to the same Item row, then a group description 

results, e.g. multiple pieces of a named fault, all occurrences 

of a particular map unit. By repeating columns in the Item 

table, a single feature can have both individual and group 

descriptions, e.g. an outcrop of a generalized map unit that 

Table 3. Examples of Kind, Type, and Style attributes.

[Free text entries are shown in quotes for clarity; the quotes are not included in the database. Type and Style fields in GeoPolys are set to zero during polygon 

construction (from GeoPoints); these fields may be deleted after construction (see Appendix A, footnote), but are shown here for completeness]

Kind 

Type Type Type (Deletable after construction)

 Style Style Style (Deletable as above)

 "Symbol" , Symval "Symbol" , Symval "Symbol" , Symval

 GeoPoints GeoLines GeoPolys

Rock

Label Contact 0

N/A Contact, Certain 0

 "Kd" Contact, Approximate "Kd"

 "Jg" Fault "Jg"

 Normal Fault, Certain 

Station Thrust Fault, Buried

Attitude Rock

 "<10", 60 Dike 

Fossil “Td”

 "#2006-01" Fold

RadioAge Anticline

 "2.1 mA", 2.1 , 10

Alter 

Label Contact 0

 N/A Contact, Inferred 0

 "argillic" Fault "argillic"

 "potassic" Fault, Inferred “potassic”
64 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

has a more detailed individual description. As an example of 

persistence, in a geodatabase comprising multiple maps, the 

Item table can be used to enumerate the distinctly identifiable 

features across all maps; this can be completed even before the 

first map is started.

Alternatively, in a singly linked approach (Figure 2, 

dashed lines), each feature is linkable directly to a single row 

in one other table, as is customary with ArcGIS joins. Multiple features that link to the same row will share a group definition, as above; however, each feature can have at most one 

description. Using the current ArcGIS utilities, singly linked 

tables are required in preparing shapefile exports for ArcPad.

In either approach, definition queries allow ramification 

of the linkage from a single feature class to various descriptive 

tables according to Kind, e.g. Rock and Alteration to separate tables. The only requirement is that primary keys in all 

tables be integers.

The sample tabular data in Appendix B demonstrate both

approaches simultaneously, because of the way the IDs have 

been assigned. Specifically, the descriptive table Unit can be 

linked either directly to GeoPolys or indirectly through Item.

Operational Concepts

At the outset of a new mapping project, both a geodatabase and a map document must be established. The 

ArcGeology1.xml schema is used to populate an empty AG1 

geodatabase for a new geologic map. Importing this schema 

(in ArcGIS, a “workspace document”) creates all the geodatabase feature datasets, feature classes, and associated tables 

(Appendix A), together with relationship classes among 

them, and also populates their domains. At the same time, 

“stock” metadata (below) for the feature datasets and feature 

classes are created. Although empty, the geodatabase is fully 

functional after coordinate systems have been specified for the 

feature datasets.

The companion ArcGeology1.mxt template, shown schematically in Figure 3, can be used to create an AG1 map document that incorporates the USGS-style map layout depicted in 

Figure 1; this is easily adaptable to other layouts. Hierarchical layer (.lyr) files also are provided for flexibility: the geology.lyr file for the Geologic Map data frame, which embeds a 

single Cross-Section A; a stand-alone CrossSection.lyr file for 

additional Cross-Section data frames; and similarly a generic 

LegendGraphic.lyr file for Legend-Graphic data frames.

The arrangement of data frames and data layers produced 

in ArcMap by these .mxt and .lyr files reflect just one of many 

possible ways that a geologic map can be “laid out”. Map 

layout and cartography are not currently specified in AG1; 

however, increased standardization of maps in these regards 

would be beneficial, both to facilitate understanding of geologic maps by non-geologists and to simplify development of 

software tools for map-making.

The geospatial features of a GMDB are assembled 

based on field work and/or transcribed from existing paper 

maps. In either case, the majority of map-unit polygons, 

GeoPolys, are constructed from other features, GeoFrame, 

GeoLines, and optionally GeoPoints, using various ArcGIS 

utilities and tools (below). With the exception of areal outcrops (directly entered into GeoPolys), and GeoFrame (used 

as the study-area perimeter), polygons are not directly edited 

in AG1.

Figure 4 shows the fundamental polygon construction 

process schematically. GeoLines (Lx) and optionally GeoPoints (Pn

) features are drawn, digitized, or otherwise obtained 

within the GeoFrame (F). From the combination of these 

inputs, GeoPolys (Pn) are constructed as an output using either 

the ArcCatalog Polygons from Lines utility or the ArcToolbox Feature to Polygon tool (ArcInfo-level license). The 

latter is preferred because it honors feature selections in 

GeoLines and GeoPoints, set in ArcMap. In either case, the 

attributes from GeoPoints are automatically copied to GeoPolys. If some GeoPolys already exist, for example from 

Figure 2. Inter-linkage between 

features and attribute tables.
Proposal for an ArcGeology Version 1 65

Figure 3. Sample geologic map table of contents. This organization of the map document provides a logical grouping of the map 

feature classes by layers. Each of the three top-level data frames, far left, indicated in large bold font, can be added via a separate 

layer (.lyr) file; within these, group layers are indicated in bold italics. Regular text denotes the actual layer content, i.e. feature 

classes. Definition Queries based on Kind and Type, extract specific data from generic feature classes. All entries in the Basemap 

feature dataset are optional.

outcrop mapping, they may used as an additional input to the 

construction. Previously constructed GeoPolys can re-appear 

as inputs because duplicate output features are automatically 

suppressed. Also, GeoPolys can be reconstructed “in place”, 

i.e. with new GeoPolys overwriting old GeoPolys, if the geoprocessing option (ArcMap Options menu) is set to allow this 

behavior. Completely reconstructing a geologic map from 

several thousand lines and points takes only a few seconds.

The routine reconstruction of GeoPolys is particularly 

advantageous for field mapping, in which the boundaries of 

geologic map units often emerge incrementally over a period 

of days or weeks. In such cases, it may be desirable to focus/

restrict reconstruction to a particular subset of features that can 

be quickly reselected. The Selected attribute in GeoLines 

and GeoPoints persists control of selection at the individual 

feature level; for example, deselecting intraformational contacts. Another use of Selected is to suppress features from 

particular sources and/or prior drafts, without removing them 

physically from the geodatabase.

As indicated in Table 3, GeoPolys, GeoLines, and GeoPoints are generic feature classes that may contain multiple 

tiers of geology, viz. Rocks, or Alteration and other overprints. The features in a particular tier have the same Kind 

and are separated out as needed using ArcMap Definition 

Querys (in layer Properties).

Because the semantics of GeoLines and GeoPoints are 

controlled via fixed domains and subtypes, the construction 

of GeoPolys is technically straightforward. Nonetheless, 

the geologist is presented with many subtle choices during 

map construction. Some lines (e.g. ordinary contacts and 
66 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 4. Polygon reconstruction from lines and points. F is 

the study area, entered in GeoFrame; LC

 is a contact and LF is a 

fault, entered in GeoLines; P1

, P2, P3 and P4 are unit labels, entered 

in GeoPoints; P1

, P2, and P3 are resulting polygons, constructed in 

GeoPolys.

through-going faults) dissect polygons, while others (intraformational contacts, faults that die out, fold axes, etc.) do 

not. Confidence in the type/description and even the existence of some lines comes into question. Multiple labels 

may be proposed over time within large polygons (cf. P1 and 

P4 in Figure 4), and conversely label-points may be missed 

out of small polygons. (The polygon construction process 

chooses the chronologically first-entered label-point to assign 

GeoPolys attributes.) Getting the map “right” requires that 

the geologist be directly engaged throughout the construction 

process, which implies familiarity with the ArcGIS software. Then, ArcMap’s on-screen map display is at once a 

cartographic product and an emerging proof-of-correctness of 

the underlying geodatabase. 

Metadata

Metadata within an AG1 geodatabase is hierarchically 

organized and stored, mirroring the overall structure at three 

main levels: the geodatabase (project level), the feature dataset 

(geometric structural level), and the feature class (thematic 

level). Only basic metadata is carried at the geodatabase 

level, with progressively more detail at the feature dataset and 

feature class levels. This approach addresses a hierarchy 

of user needs with GMDBs, providing enough project-level 

metadata to support general search, and more detailed metadata for technical work as needed. 

The metadata hierarchy can be extended upwards, 

too. When managing several related geodatabases in a common folder, it is useful to consider additional “collection level” 

metadata for the folder, in effect a card-catalog for its contents. 

At the outset of work on a new map, the following 

metadata should be entered at the project level using ArcCatalog: abstract, purpose, contact, citation, timeframe, status, 

constraints, completeness, logical consistency tests performed, 

keywords, and spatial extent specific to the project. These 

project-level metadata are designed to answer the basic 

questions that users commonly ask when deciding whether a 

geodatabase is of interest for their purposes. Once the map 

projection is defined, ArcCatalog fills in the spatial reference 

system metadata automatically.

Below the project level, “stock” metadata for all the 

feature datasets and feature classes listed in Table 1, plus 

the seven basic feature attributes in Table 2, are built-in to 

AG1. These metadata will not normally require modification except when additional feature attributes or user-specific 

attribute values are added; if so, they should be described in 

the affected feature classes. 

The AG1 metadata design meets the minimum requirements of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (1998 

et seq.) as implemented in ArcCatalog. The design also 

includes overviews of the feature datasets from the project 

level as well as feature classes from the thematic level, which 

are important to geodatabase users. Further, Enclosures (on 

Metadata toolbar, ) can be used to enclose “metadata-like” 

items that are not by default tabularized in a geodatabase, such 

as .mxd, .lyr and .style files, so that the whole project is selfcontained. Thumbnails of the map and feature classes along 

with the customizable metadata stylesheets implemented in 

ArcGIS can be used to view the different levels of metadata in 

a variety of user-friendly ways.

SUGGESTED WORKFLOW

Following is a suggested workflow to create an AG1 

geodatabase for a new, single-map project, suitable for 

work in the office using ArcGIS and/or in the field using 

ArcPad. Depending on project requirements, local conventions, and personal preferences, many other workflows are 

possible. Additional considerations, particularly regarding 

domains and key fields, apply when dealing with a multi-map 

database, e.g. a compilation; these are not addressed in the 

current design.

This workflow also shows one of many possible organizations of the map document used to visualize the geodatabase. As noted above, AG1 does not impose a specific 

organization on the map document or specific naming conventions on its layers (distinct from features in the geodatabase); 

these can all be adapted to meet the needs and preferences of 

map makers and map users.
Proposal for an ArcGeology Version 1 67

Setup

1. Establish a working folder for the project. The name of 

this folder is arbitrary, adaptable to the user’s map-naming 

conventions, viz. UNRCampus

2. Within the working folder:

a. Create a simple shapefile, StudyArea, with polygon(s) 

depicting the study area boundaries and apply the 

appropriate map projection to it. Water bodies, 

excluded areas, etc. appearing within StudyArea

should be detailed as “NoData” areas. (Note: For 

use with ArcPad, spatial data must be in projected 

units.)

b. Optionally, use StudyArea to clip other framework 

layers of interest.

3. Then, using ArcCatalog:

a. Create a new empty geodatabase for the project; 

rename this as desired. A recommended convention is to name the geodatabase in parallel with the 

enclosing folder name, viz. UNRCampus\UNRCampus.mdb

b. Use Import | XML Workspace Document (geodatabase context menu) to set up the new geodatabase 

according to the ArcGeology1.xml schema.

c. Import (feature dataset context menu) the StudyArea

shapefile into a StudyArea feature class within the 

Basemap geodatabase feature dataset. This step 

establishes the spatial reference system for Basemap.

d. Import (feature dataset context menu) other desired 

framework/ reference data into Basemap. Note that 

images and rasters will appear as stand-alone objects 

in a personal geodatabase, outside any feature dataset.

e. Use Load Data (feature class context menu) to 

load the StudyArea feature class (from 3c) into the 

empty GeoFrame feature class in the Geology feature 

dataset. This step establishes the spatial reference 

system for Geology.

f. Import (feature dataset Properties | XY Coordinate 

System) the coordinate system from the Geology feature dataset, established via the loading operation (3e 

above) to the CrossSectionA feature dataset, to ensure 

that their spatial reference systems are the same.

g. Enter the project-level metadata for the map. Optionally, enter any feature-level metadata regarding modified Styles, Symbols and Symvals, etc.

4. Finally, using ArcMap:

a. Create a new empty map document for the project; 

rename this as desired. A recommended convention is to name the map document in parallel with 

the enclosing folder name, viz. UNRCampus\

UNRCampus.mxd. If the map document is based on 

a template, proceed to step 4e. 

b. Rename the default data frame from “Layers” to 

“Geologic Map”; add the GeologicMap.lyr file to this 

data frame, and rename the added layer to reflect the 

study area. This step will define a grouped layer 

structure (“table of contents”) for the main map, 

although the layers themselves will be flagged with a 

red exclamation mark, indicating that they are not yet 

connected to geospatial data. 

c. If the project involves cross-section(s), for each of 

them insert a “Cross Section $” data frame (where $ 

is A, B, C, etc.); add the CrossSection.lyr file to each 

inserted data frame and rename the layer as appropriate. Alternatively, the “Cross Section A” group 

layer from the Geologic Map data frame can be cutand-pasted into the stand-alone data frame(s). Note 

that the .lyr files should be made with relative paths.

d. If the project involves legend-graphic(s), for each of 

them insert a “Legend Graphic #” data frame (where 

# is 1, 2, 3, etc.); add the LegendGraphic.lyr file to 

each inserted data frame and rename the layer as 

appropriate.

e. Finally, if any feature class has a red exclamation 

mark following it, double-click on that mark and 

navigate to the corresponding feature class in the geodatabase (e.g. GeoFrame layer to GeoFrame feature 

class). Doing this will automatically reconnect all 

the feature classes in the data frame, so the red flags 

will disappear.

Data Development

In a typical workflow, ArcMap is used to edit incremental 

sets of GeoLines and GeoPoints, after which GeoPolys are 

reconstructed on demand. GeoLines and GeoPoints contain, 

respectively, the raw “line work” and “point data” of the map, 

which can be input directly on-screen (heads-up digitizing), 

transcribed from paper maps using ArcScan, or captured in the 

field via ArcPad. Regardless of origin, the fundamental AG1 

map construction process is as follows: 

• Sketch, digitize, download or otherwise obtain an 

increment of GeoLines and, optionally, GeoPolys (outcrops) and GeoPoints (label-points) for the map.
68 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

• Review the Kind, Type and associated Style terms for 

all new features, according to the guidelines below:

◦ The Kind of primary interest in a geologic map, for 

all feature classes, is Rock; this is the default. Other 

Types include Alteration and a generic Overprint.

◦ The Type of primary interest for GeoLines is 

Structure: a Contact, Fault, or Rock Body, e.g. dike 

or marker bed; Contact is the default. Other Types 

are Folds, Geomorphics (lineaments, slickensides, 

etc), and Miscellaneous non-geologic lines, such as 

lines of section. By default, Contacts, Faults, and 

RockBodies are marked as Selected.

◦ Types of interest for GeoPoints are Labels (for 

label-points to be constructed into map-unit polygons) and Stations (for field measurements and 

observations); Label is the default. Both Labels and 

Stations are marked as Selected.

• Optionally, set/clear the Selected attribute to indicate 

features that should be included/excluded in construction of polygons, e.g. features newly acquired from 

a field system or features to be omitted from polygon 

construction.

• Construct GeoPolys from the selected GeoLines and 

optionally GeoPolys (outcrops) and GeoPoints (labelpoints only) together with GeoFrame, preferably using 

the ArcToolbox Feature to Polygon tool. Polygons 

constructed around label-points will have attributes 

from them transferred automatically; polygons without 

label-points must be attributed manually.

• Repeat as necessary, augmenting GeoLines and 

GeoPoints until all GeoPolys have been constructed, 

filling the GeoFrame. Each successive set of polygons is, by construction, topologically consistent with 

the then-current lines and points and no slivering 

occurs. Also, duplicate polygons are automatically 

suppressed. Because label-point attributes are automatically transferred to polygons, rework is negligible.

For polygons that are constructed around label-points, 

in addition to the label-point attributes, their metadata also is 

transferred, which is erroneous. After the map is completed, 

importing the supplied GeoPolys.xml metadata document into 

GeoPolys will correct this error.

When the Geology feature classes include multiple Kinds 

of data, e.g. Alteration and Rock tiers, the above procedures 

must be limited to pre-selections (usually established via Definition Querys) of features, so that only one Kind is processed 

at a time. Repeated processing with different selections 

builds up the complete Geology feature dataset. See Appendix C for a known problem with ArcGIS Definition Queries.

Cross-section(s) are treated in the same manner as 

Geology, but using XS$Points and XS$Lines to construct 

XS$Polys. Cross-section(s) also may include multiple 

Kinds of data, as for Geology. An important difference from 

Geology is that XS$Frame has for its base the line of section 

and for its top the section’s topographic profile, connected by 

vertical sides left and right. The authors are developing a 

geoprocessing tool that will automate extraction of XS$Frame.

Legend-graphic(s) too are treated in the same manner 

as Geology, but using LG#Points and LG#Lines to construct 

LG#Polys. Sets of intersecting horizontal and vertical lines 

can be used to define rectangular polygons in the desired configuration; alternatively, a prototypical polygon can be drawn, 

then repeatedly copied/moved as needed. A LG#Frame is 

optional. Finished Legend-graphic “units” are parallel to 

the Geology units in the main figure, just abstracted in shape 

and usually arranged in some temporal way. The authors are 

developing a geoprocessing tool that will automate the process 

of defining the LG#Lines and/or LG#Polys.

Symbolization

A combination of layer (.lyr) and style (.style) files are 

used to achieve consistent map symbolization in AG1. The 

convention is to symbolize feature attributes controlled by 

domains and subtypes using styles, and to symbolize other, 

user-defined feature attributes using layers. In particular, the 

symbolization of geological units, GeoPolys, is generally mapspecific, based on Symbol. To achieve consistency across 

the Geologic Map, Cross Section, and Legend Graphic data 

frames, the GeoPolys symbolization can be easily imported 

between layers. The completed map symbolization, for 

all feature geometries and symbolization methods, can be 

re-exported to a map-specific .style file, if desired. Moyer 

and others (2005) provide a detailed discussion of style-based 

symbolization for geologic maps.

Currently, the built-in terminology for GeoLines and 

GeoPoints matches the U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 95-525 (USGS, 1995), which also forms the basis of 

ArcGIS’ Geology24K style. (The symbols in that report, 

with modifications, formed the basis for the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s recently-published standard for 

geologic map symbolization (FGDC, 2006), which could 

be supported in future.) As supplied in the ArcGeology.xml

schema, GeoLines and GeoPoints domains are predefined in 

conformance with USGS 95-525 styles, so that the Match 

Features in a Style tool works using the Geology24K style 

“out of the box”. If additional GeoLines or GeoPoints 

symbols are desired, the changes should be made to a copy

of the Geology24K style and substituted for it, after which 

corresponding changes will need to be made in various 

domains. See Appendix C for a known problem with ArcGIS 

symbolization.

Layout Template

An ArcMap template (.mxt) file provides a convenient 

way to assemble geospatial features in a standard map layout 
Proposal for an ArcGeology Version 1 69

with marginalia suitable for printing a paper map. The 

supplied template, ArcGeology1.mxt, which follows USGS 

publication conventions, is designed so that each data frame 

corresponds to a geodatabase feature dataset; for example, the 

Legend Graphic data frame displays the data for the LegendGraphic1 feature dataset. To use this template, open it in 

ArcMap, apply the proper page and print settings (e.g. 11 x17 

in., landscape), then Save an appropriately named map document. Click on one of the red exclamation points (adjacent to 

a layer) and navigate to the corresponding geodatabase feature 

class to set the data source path for all the layers in the Data 

Frame.

Alternatively, if starting from an existing layout, select 

Change Layout (Layout toolbar, ), browse to and select 

the ArcGeology1.mxt template; afterward, it may also be necessary to re-order for the data frames in the dialog box. Either 

method will likely require further adjustment to map elements 

(scalebar, graticule, legend, text box, font size, etc.) in order 

to achieve the best use of space while maintaining the visual 

emphasis on the most important elements of the map, usually 

the main figure and cross section(s). 

SUMMARY

AG1 is a simple but flexible system for producing digital 

geologic map-databases using ESRI ArcGIS and ArcPad software. By taking advantage of the many ArcGIS utilities and 

tools, AG1 avoids custom programming while simultaneously 

fostering user skill with the ESRI products. Further, AG1 

strongly encourages standardization of basic geologic map terminology through its integrated system of subtypes, domains, 

and styles. These design choices facilitate the “migratability” of AG1-formatted datasets to future versions of ArcGIS 

and their “sharability” with other GIS software systems.

Development of an AG2 should, we feel, concentrate in 

two areas: 1) design and integration of comprehensive “standard” descriptive data attributes, based on the NADMSC and 

GeoSciML recommendations; and 2) collateral integration of 

the FGDC 2006 standard for cartographic representation. 

If, ultimately, some AGx becomes widely adopted, full 

documentation of its design, implementation, and operational 

use will be needed for use by the general geologist. The 

present document is a bare sketch of these topics. The 

authors heartily encourage comments and suggestions for 

improvement of these ideas.

REFERENCES

Bain, K.A., and Giles, J.R.A., 1997, A standard model for storage of geologic map data: Computers and Geosciences, v. 

23, no. 6, p. 613-620.

Brodaric, Boyan, and Hastings, Jordan, 2002, An object 

model for geologic map information, in Richardson, D., and 

van Oosterom, P., eds., Advances in Spatial Data Handling, 

10th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling: 

Springer-Verlag, p.55-68.

Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1998, Content standard for digital geospatial metadata: Reston, Va., Federal 

Geographic Data Committee Document Number FGDCSTD-001-1998, available at http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/

projects/FGDC-standards-projects/metadata/basemetadata/.

Federal Geographic Data Committee [prepared for the 

Federal Geographic Data Committee by the U.S. Geological Survey], 2006, FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard 

for Geologic Map Symbolization: Reston, Va., Federal 

Geographic Data Committee Document Number FGDCSTD-013-2006, 290 p., 2 plates, available at http://ngmdb.

usgs.gov/fgdc_gds/.

Johnson, B.R., Brodaric, B., Raines, G.L., Hastings, J.T., and 

Wahl, Ron, 1999, Digital Geologic Map Data Model, v4.3: 

AASG/USGS Data Model Working Group report, accessed 

at http://www.nadm-geo.org/dmdt/Model43a.pdf.

Moyer, L.A., Hastings, J.T., and Raines, G.L., 2005, Methods 

to create ArcMap styles with examples for lithology and 

time: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2005-1314, 

21 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1314/.

NADMSC [North American Geologic Map Data Model 

(NADM) Steering Committee] Data Model Design Team 

(2004) NADM conceptual model 1.0 – A conceptual model 

for geologic map information: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-file Report 2004-1334, 60 p., available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2004/1334/.

Richard, S.M., 2003, Geologic map database implementation 

in the ESRI Geodatabase environment, in Soller, D.R., ed., 

Digital Mapping Techniques ’03 – Workshop Proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 03-471, p. 169-

183, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-471/

richard2/.

Richard, S.M., Craigue, J.A., and Soller, D.R., 2004, Imple ichard, S.M., Craigue, J.A., and Soller, D.R., 2004, Implementing NADM C1 for the National Geologic Map Database, in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ‘04 

– Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file 

Report 2004-1451, p. 111-144, available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2004/1451/richard/.

Richard, S.M., Craigue, J.A., and Soller, D.R., 2005, NGMDB 

Geologic Map Feature Class Model, in Soller, D.R., ed., 

Digital Mapping Techniques ‘05 – Workshop Proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2005-1428, p. 

143-158, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1428/

richard/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1995, Cartographic and digital stan- .S. Geological Survey, 1995, Cartographic and digital standard for geologic map information: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-file Report 1995-525, 257 p.
70 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Appendix A. Geospatial feature schema

The core AG1 geospatial feature schema, minus the Item table and its relationship classes, appears below. Data elements 

defined by ArcGIS are shown in italics.

Geology

GeoFrame (OID, Shape, Symbol, ItemID, Shape_Length, Shape_Area)

GeoPoints (OID, Shape, Kind, Type →, Style, Symbol, Symval, ItemID, Selected)

GeoLines (OID, Shape, Kind, Type →, Style, Symbol, Symval, ItemID, Selected, Shape_Length)

GeoPolys (OID, Shape, Kind, Symbol, Symval, ItemID, Shape_Length, Shape_Area) †

CrossSection$

XsAFrame (OID, Shape, Symbol, ItemID, Shape_Length, Shape_Area)

XsAPoints (OID, Shape, Kind, Type →, Style, Symbol, Symval, ItemID, Selected)

XsALines (OID, Shape, Kind, Type →, Style, Symbol, Symval, ItemID, Selected, Shape_Length)

XsAPolys (OID, Shape, Kind, Symbol, Symval, ItemID, Shape_Length, Shape_Area) †

LegendGraphic#

LGFrame (OID, Shape, Symbol, ItemID, Shape_Length, Shape_Area)

LGPoints (OID, Shape, Kind, Type →, Style, Symbol, Symval, ItemID, Selected)

LGLines (OID, Shape, Kind, Type →, Style, Symbol, Symval, ItemID, Selected, Shape_Length) 

LGPolys (OID, Shape, Kind, Symbol, Symval, ItemID, Shape_Length, Shape_Area) †

Basemap (All optional contents; but with consistent spatial reference imposed.) 

MapTics (OID, Shape, Label)

StudyArea (OID, Shape, Symbol, ItemID)

topoquad-DLG

etc.

topoquad-DRG

imagery

Explanation: 

name : feature dataset OID, Shape, Shape_Length, Shape_Area: ESRI reserved attributes

name : feature class name → subtyped; name domain-controlled

† After construction using Feature to Polygon tool, the “Polys” feature class will contain three extra attributes – Type, Style, 

and Selected – from the associated “Points” feature class; if unused, these attributes can be simply deleted.
Proposal for an ArcGeology Version 1 71

Appendix B. Tabular Data Schema (Sample)

The sample tabular data schema for extended descriptions, which appears in UML below (Figure B-1), is intentionally 

simplistic. Its main purpose is to show how additional tables – here map sources and basic map-unit descriptions – are linked 

to the geospatial features via the Item relationship classes built-in to AG1. Also utilizing these linkages, the ArcGIS Identify 

and Attributes tools are immediately useful for feature identification, attribute data entry/editing, and relationship-tracking.

The UNRCampus.mdb demonstration contains data in this sample schema. Numerous other table structures could be created and connected via the Item table.

Figure B–1. Sample tabular schema, showing Item lineage.

Item (ID, SourceID, UnitID, ...)

- linkage from spatial data (implemented as ArcGIS relationship class)

Source (ID, Title, Authors, Year, Citation, Webref)

- citable source reference

Unit (ID, SourceID, UnitName, AgeType, MinAgeCode, MaxAgeCode, ThickWid, Remarks)

- summary attributes for a geologic unit (applies to any geometry)

UnitComp (UnitID,SeqNo, Lithtype → Lithcode, LithName, VolPct, VolQual, Remarks)

- detailed attributes for lithologic components of a geologic unit.

Explanation:

ID: primary key otherID: foreign key type: domain-controlled : sub-typed

 subclassing association (m:1) aggregation (m:1)

→
72 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Appendix C: Known Problems

1. Feature construction: Using the ArcToolbox Feature to Polygon tool, but not the ArcCatalog Features 

from Lines utility, if the (optional) point feature class 

is supplied, its metadata is transferred onto the newly 

constructed polygons. This transfer occurs even if the 

polygons are being reconstructed. The workaround is to 

import the supplied GeoPolys.xml metadata document into 

GeoPolys after all construction is completed.

2. Definition queries: The existence of a Definition Query

interferes with the reconstruction of polygons from lines 

and (other) polygons. Specifically, it is not possible to 

use the ArcToolbox Feature to Polygon tool to reconstruct GeoPolys in a feature class that has such a query in 

place, e.g. for Kind (Rock, Alteration, etc.). Removing 

the query temporarily allows the reconstruction, but also 

results in all contents of GeoPolys being overwritten, not 

just the features of the chosen Kind. The workaround is 

to always construct into a new feature class (GeoPolys1, 

GeoPolys2, etc.), and when satisfactory, delete/re-merge 

them into GeoPolys. GeoPolys itself should not be 

deleted; doing so will also delete its relationship classes 

and destroy its metadata.

3. Matching to styles: When a feature class is symbolized 

using Match to Symbols in a Style, all of the symbols in 

the style are added to the map table of contents, whereas 

when the feature class is symbolized directly, only symbols for the features that are actually present appear. The 

workaround is to delete unwanted entries from the map 

table of contents after the feature class has been symbolized.
Exchanging Observations and Measurements: a Generic 

Model and Encoding

By Simon J. D. Cox

CSIRO Exploration and Mining

PO Box 1130

Bentley, WA 6102

Australia

Telephone: +61 8 6436 8639

Fax: +61 8 6436 8555

email: Simon.Cox@csiro.au

INTRODUCTION

Much of the information concerning the natural world 

that is transferred or otherwise shared is based on Observations and Sampling. These provide the evidence that 

forms the basis for the description of features, interpretations and models. In many cases, the detail of how the 

observations were actually made is of little interest, and it is 

sufficient to embed the results in the description of a feature instance. However, in other cases, more information 

is needed. It turns out that the kinds of information that 

are associated with the report of an act of observation are 

common, across all disciplines, when classified appropriately. Consider the following statements: 

• The 7th banana weighed 270gm on the kitchen scales 

this morning

• The attitude of the foliation at outcrop 321 of the 

Leederville Formation was 63/085, measured using a 

Brunton on 2006-08-08

• Specimen H69 was determined on 1999-01-14 by Amy 

Bachrach to be of the species Eucalyptus Caesia

• IR image ASgh67c of Camp Iota was obtained by Aster 

in 2003

• Sample WMC997t collected at Empire Dam on 1996-

03-30 was found to have 5.6 g/T Au as measured by 

ICPMS at ABC Labs on 1996-05-31

• The X-Z Geobarometer determined that the ore-body 

was at depth 3.5 km at 1.75 Ga

• The simulation run on 2004-09-09 indicated a pressure 

reduction of 4 MPa in geologic unit Q at 600 Ma.

All of these sentences contain the same kinds of information, though not in the same order. Recognizing this, we 

may encode the descriptions of observations and their results 

in a common way. This will allow observational data to be 

shared across discipline boundaries, satisfying a common 

requirement in applications concerning natural resources and 

the environment. It will also encourage the development of 

standard interfaces for observational data, and common processing and visualization systems.

Figure 1 represents the information provided in the sentences above using the formal notation of Unified Modeling 

Language (UML) Object Diagrams. (UML is an OMG and 

ISO standard. There are many introductory books and websites for the uninitiated.) The key point is that all Observations can be described in terms of the same set of properties: a 

feature-of-interest, observed-property, sampling-time, procedure, and result. The information may be described by a 

common model or schema. 

In some cases some additional details are provided. For 

example, two of the examples include a result-time (i.e. 

the time that the procedure was completed) that is different than the sampling time (the time of interaction with the 

real-world). The descriptions of the objects related to the 

Observation may also be elaborated. For example, the 

feature-of-interest may have an associated sampled-feature, 

and the location of the procedure (laboratory) may be provided. The latter pattern is supported by the object-oriented 

analysis, which focuses on encapsulation of the information in 

suitable classes. 

INFORMATION MODEL

Based on the analysis above, we have developed a standard model for Observations, and an associated model for the 
74 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

description of Sampling Features, such as specimens, sections, traverses, outcrops, boreholes, etc, as shown in Figures 

2-5. The details of these models are provided in two Open 

Geospatial Consortium standards (Cox, 2007a, b).

Perhaps the key aspect of the observation model, which 

lends it the flexibility to be useful across such a wide array 

of applications, is the notion of the feature-of-interest. This 

general pattern was first introduced by Fowler and Odell, 

based on work in the medical sector (Fowler, 1998). The 

feature-of-interest externalizes the description of the details of 

the observation target, separating this from the description of 

the observation procedure, thus allowing both remote and insitu observations to be described using the same structure.

The addition of the Sampling Feature concept allows a 

sampling artifact to be interposed, which also supports the 

description of ex-situ observations – i.e. where a specimen is 

removed from the ultimate feature of interest, and analyzed in 

a laboratory remote from the real-world location. For some 

more elaborate applications of the Sampling Features model, 

in particular showing the usefulness of the “related sampling 

feature” association, see https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/

bin/view/AppSchemas/ObservationsAndSampling.

The Observations and Sampling models are imported 

and used in the GeoSciML information model that has been 

developed by the Interoperability Working Group of the IUGS 

Commission for Geoscience Information (Simons et al., 2006; 

Laxton and Wyborn, 2007) and is to be used in the OneGeology project (Jackson and Wyborn, 2007).

These standards (Cox, 2007a, b) also provide an XML 

encoding that may be used for transfer of observational 

data. The encoding is provided as a GML-conformant (Cox 

et al., 2001; Cox et al., 2003; Portele, 2007) XML Schema, 

which makes it compatible with the OGC-WFS service interface (Vretanos, 2004). The OGC Sensor Observation Service 

interface is specifically designed to provide access to collections of observations (Priest and Na, 2007).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work described in this paper was developed over 

several years, starting in the XMML project (https://www.

seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/Xmml/WebHome) which was 

supported by Fractal Graphics, MERIWA, GGIPAC, WMC, 

Snowdens, BGS, Placer-Dome, and continuing under several 

OGC Interoperability Program projects supported by a variety 

of sponsors, with later work supported by CSIRO under the 

WRON and Auscope projects, and by Geoscience Australia. 

REFERENCES

Cox, S.J.D., 2007a, Observations and Measurements – Part 1 

– Observation schema, OpenGIS® Implementation Standard, OGC document 07-022r1, available at http://portal.

opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=22466.

Cox, S.J.D., 2007b, Observations and Measurements – Part 

2 – Sampling features, OpenGIS® Implementation Standard, OGC document 07-002r3, available at http://portal.

opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=22467.

Cox, S.J.D., Cuthbert, Adrian, Lake, Ron, and Martell, 

Richard, 2001, Geography Markup Language (GML) 2.0, 

OpenGIS® Implementation Standard, available at http://

www.opengeospatial.org/standards/gml.

Cox, S.J.D., Daisey, P.W., Lake, Ron, Portele, Clemens, and 

Whiteside, Arliss, 2003, Geography Markup Language 

(GML) 3.00, OpenGIS® Implementation Standard, available at http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/gml.

Fowler, Martin, 1997, Analysis Patterns: reusable object models: Menlo Park, CA, Addison-Wesley, 357 p. 

Jackson, Ian, and Wyborn, Lesley, 2007, One planet: OneGeology? The Google Earth revolution and the geological data 

deficit, in International viewpoint and news: Environmental 

Geology, v. 53, no. 6, p. 1377-1380, DOI 10.1007/s00254-

007-1085-z, available at http://www.springerlink.com/

content/v7r17962365074h8/.

Laxton, J.L., and Wyborn, Lesley, 2007, The GeoSciML Logical Model [abs.]: Eos Trans., AGU Fall Meeting Supplement, v. 88, no. 52, abstract IN53A-0949, December 10-14, 

2007, San Francisco, CA.

Portele, Clemens, 2007, Geography Markup Language, 

3.2.1 OpenGIS® Implementation Standard, OGC document 07-036, available at http://portal.opengeospatial.org/

files/?artifact_id=20509.

Priest, Mark, and Na, Arthur, 2007, Sensor Observation Service, OpenGIS® Implementation Standard, OGC document 

06-009r5, available at http://portal.opengeospatial.org/

files/?artifact_id=20472&version=1.

Simons, Bruce, Boisvert, Eric, Brodaric, Boyan, Cox, S.J.D., 

Duffy, T.R., Johnson, B.R., Laxton, J.L., and Richard, S.M., 

2006, GeoSciML: Enabling the Exchange of Geological 

Map Data [abs.]: Australian Earth Sciences Convention 

2006, July 2-6, 2006, Melbourne.

Vretanos, Peter, 2004, Web Feature Service (WFS), version 

1.1 OpenGIS® Implementation Standard, OGC document 04-094, available at http://portal.opengeospatial.org/

files/?artifact_id=8339.
Exchanging Observations and Measurements 75

Figure 1. A-G. UML Object Diagrams for the observation examples. 

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.
76 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 2. UML Static Class Diagram for the Observation Model (from Cox, 2007a).

Figure 3. UML Static Class Diagram for the base Sampling Feature model (from Cox, 2007b).
Exchanging Observations and Measurements 77

Figure 4. UML Static Class Diagram for Sampling Manifolds, showing various domain-related specializations (from Cox 2007b).
78 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 5. UML Static Class Diagram for Specimens (from Cox 2007b).
Idaho Geologic Map Data in a Statewide Geodatabase

By Loudon R. Stanford1 and Steve Mulberry2

1

Idaho Geological Survey

University of Idaho

Moscow, ID 83844-3014

Telephone: (208) 885-7479

Fax: (208) 885-5826

email: stanford@uidaho.edu 2

ESRI, Atlanta, GA

email: smulberry@esri.com

INTRODUCTION

The Idaho Geological Survey has created a statewide 

ESRI Geodatabase for storing, managing, and distributing Idaho geologic map data. The model for this design 

resulted from work done by the Idaho Survey over the past 8 

years. The work flow strategy around the implementation 

of the geodatabase improves the productivity of the survey by 

capturing map data using existing procedures and automating 

the migration processing of data tiles into feature classes in the 

statewide geodatabase.

HISTORY

Idaho has been collecting geologic map data in GIS 

format for 15 years. In 2003, six data sets were released in 

ArcInfo coverage and ArcView formats using Idaho’s data 

model v2.1 (Stanford and MacKubbin, 2000). The methods 

currently used for geologic map data capture have been in 

place for more than 10 years (Freed and Stanford, 2005).

GEODATABASE DESIGN HIGHLIGHTS

The Idaho Statewide Geologic Map Geodatabase 

(ISGMG) follows the physical design of the Idaho Geologic 

Map Data Model v3.1, which evolved from the earlier Idaho 

model v2.1 (http://www.idahogeology.org/Lab/datamodel.

htm). Key changes made to 2.1 allow data to be stored in one 

statewide database. The following are some of the highlight 

features of the ISGMG:

• The design is composed of four data groupings: Spatial, map unit, earth materials, and metadata.

• The design of the database allows for two levels of map 

object tracking or coding, by 30’ x 60’ tile or statewide. 

• All contacts (poly boundaries) of a particular polygon 

are linked to the polygon.

• Additions and changes to earth materials section based 

on work done by the North American Data Model’s 

Science Language Technical Team (SLTT) have been 

incorporated into the design (NADM-SLTT, 2004a, b).

• Descriptions from referenced geologic sources can be 

stored as well as URL links to IGS online PDF maps.

• Map unit history and changes are tracked.

• Object-level attribution including geologic source 

reference, line type, and feature name.

WORK FLOW AND THE GEODATABASE

Data Capture 

The methods that the Idaho Geological Survey uses to 

capture geologic map data have been previously described 

(Freed and Stanford, 2005). One of the salient features of 

this data capture is the object-level (feature) attributing. This 

attributing is designed to facilitate the eventual compilation of 

1:24,000-scale geologic map data (from 7.5-minute quadrangles) into 30 x 60 minute tiles of map data at 1:100,000 

scale. These tiles then become the basic spatial-data building 

blocks for the Survey’s mapping program and the statewide 

database. Publication as a traditional geologic map occurs 

for many of the 1:24,000 maps and for all of the 1:100,000-

scale maps. However, the database behind these publications 
80 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

is considered of primary importance. Simplification of map 

data may be done for map publication, but all original spatial 

data are maintained in the database for each tile.

GIS Processing, Quality Control, and Data 

Migrations

Map data are migrated to the statewide geodatabase via 

software tools where data processing, quality-control, and 

finally, migration of the 30 x 60 minute tiles into the statewide 

database occurs. There are tools for each geologic layer in 

the geodatabase. Currently, layers include the following:

• Map units (contacts and polygons)

• Faults 

• Folds 

• Measurements (e.g., strike and dip)

• Miscellaneous line symbols

• Miscellaneous point symbols

• Miscellaneous polygon overlays (for example, loess).

New layer types can be added and do not necessarily need to 

cover the entire state.

During the migration process, the software tool creates fields as needed to conform and merge the tile data to 

the ISGMG. Part of the quality control processing includes 

checking the attributes on new data against existing controlled 

vocabularies in the geodatabase. If attributes are missing in 

the geodatabase, either the new data must be changed or the 

necessary attributes must be added to the correct ISGMG pick 

lists.

During the migration, each tool checks to see if the tile 

layer being migrated already exists in the database. If a tile 

layer is present it is deleted before the new data are migrated.

Descriptive Data Capture 

The descriptive information about geologic map data 

are captured using MS Access forms created for this purpose. Currently there are two major categories for descriptive data capture: map unit description and earth material 

description. 

Map unit descriptions are provided by the geologist 

who compiled the map tile. Descriptions are parsed into the 

appropriate data fields, where possible. Entire text versions 

of map unit descriptions are also captured. Entire descriptions from geologic sources used in the compilation can also 

be entered.

Each map unit can have many earth materials associated with it, and each earth material can have many attributes. Where possible, controlled vocabularies are being 

compiled or exist for various attributes stored.

Geologic Reference Attributes and Other Pick 

Lists

The reference for the geologic source of every map object 

is stored in the database. The reference listing is updated 

as map capture proceeds. These bibliographic sources 

can be used both for query and metadata purposes by the 

user. Other pick lists include geologic structures, line types, 

symbols, and special feature names.

FGDC Metadata

The Idaho Survey collects FGDC-compliant metadata 

for these data. A combination of ESRI built-in tools and 

3rd -party plug-in tools are used (http://www.insideidaho.org/

whatsnew/whatsnew.htm#News).

SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR MIGRATING 

DATA INTO THE STATEWIDE 

GEODATABASE

The IGS software tool set is a series of ETL scripts 

(Extract Transfer and Load). These scripts are used to 

manipulate and load 1:24,000-scale geological data into the 

Idaho state wide geological database. The tools were built 

using ArcGIS 9.2 SP1 model builder inside ArcCatalog. 

ModelBuilder provides a graphical modeling framework for 

designing and implementing geoprocessing models that can 

include system tools, scripts, models, and data. ModelBuilder helps make geoprocessing tasks more streamlined and 

efficient. In the example shown in Figures 1-3, the IMP_FC 

object holds the logic for processing the information. This 

logic is VB Script produced by ModelBuilder. The model 

accepts inputs from the user and executes the code. Tools are 

grouped together for logical execution.

SUMMARY

The Idaho Geological Survey captures geologic mapping data in a standardized format. Tiles of map data are 

migrated to a statewide geodatabase using tools developed in 

ModelBuilder. Centralizing data from separate tile or data 

sets allows the Idaho Survey to efficiently manage, update, 

and distribute one uniform set of data. The geodatabase can 

easily be used for online map data delivery services.
Idaho Geologic Map Data in a Statewide Geodatabase 81

Figure 1. The IGS Tool Set as represented in ArcCatalog. Each 

model is associated with a VB Script which holds the logic. In 

this figure, the model “Contact Processing” uses the script 

“IMP_CNTS” to process the geologic contacts. Each model is 

responsible for extracting 24K geological data stored in ArcInfo 

coverage format, performing several data transformations, loading 

the information into a statewide geodatabase.

Figure 2. A. Input form for the Contact Processing model. The model expects user input for: the input coverage name, output 

location in the State Wide Geodatabase, and the tile number associated with the coverage area. The model creates a scratch 

workspace while performing the transformation, and loads the geologic contacts into the statewide Geodatabase. B. Diagram of the 

Contact Processing model.

A

B
82 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 3. A sample of code within the VB Script object IMP_CNTS.

REFERENCES

Freed, J.S. and Stanford, L.R., 2005, Map Production and Data 

Distribution the Idaho Way: An Update, in Soller, D.R., ed., 

Digital Mapping Techniques ’05—Workshop Proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1428, p. 

55-59, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1428/freed/

index.html.

North American Geologic-Map Data Model Science Language 

Technical Team, 2004a, Report on progress to develop 

a North American science-language standard for digital 

geologic-map databases; Appendix B – Classification of 

metamorphic and other composite-genesis rocks, including 

hydrothermally altered, impact-metamorphic, mylonitic, 

and cataclastic rocks, Version 1.0 (12/18/2004), in Soller, 

D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’04—Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-

1451, 56 p. Appendix B available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2004/1451/sltt/appendixB/.

North American Geologic-Map Data Model Science Language 

Technical Team, 2004b, Report on progress to develop 

a North American science-language standard for digital 

geologic-map databases; Appendix C1 – Sedimentary materials: Science language for their classification, description, 

and interpretation in digital geologic-map databases; Version 1.0 (12/18/2004), in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping 

Techniques ’04—Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2004-1451, 595 p. Appendix 

C1 available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1451/sltt/

appendixC/appendixC_pdf.zip.

Stanford, L.R. and MacKubbin, V.T., 2000, Application of 

a Digital Geologic Map Data Model in ArcView GIS, in

Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’00—Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 00-325, p. 55-56, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2000/of00-325/stanford.html.
Alaska Mapper: A Web-based Tool to Access Land 

Ownership and Other State-wide Geospatial Data

By Kenneth R. Papp1 and Peter Parker2

1

Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys

3354 College Rd.

Fairbanks, AK 99709-3707

Telephone: (907) 451-5039

Fax: (907) 451-5050

email: ken.papp@alaska.gov 2

Alaska Land Records Information Section

550 W. 7th Ave. Ste. 706

Anchorage, AK 99501

Telephone: (907) 269-8844

email: peter.parker@alaska.gov

INTRODUCTION

Users of the Internet are currently witnessing a revolutionary period of communication and data search capabilities. In the past several years, several research and technology corporations, like Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft have 

released a number of Application Programming Interfaces 

(APIs) and online interactive search tools. These web applications allow users to perform a number of complex searches, 

with the results being displayed spatially, in an organized 

arrangement of layers, polygons, symbols, labels, photos, 

news, web links and text (Neches et al., 2001). Applications 

such as Google Earth (http://earth.google.com) Microsoft’s 

Virtual Earth (http://www.microsoft.com/virtualearth) and 

NASA’s World Wind (http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov) have 

become the standard tools for curious users to discover the 

world, learn about far-away cities, and acquire information 

without leaving their desk chairs.

The accepted use of these online tools has been influenced by the media (Scharl, 2004). Scharl points out that 

although Google Earth was released in 2005, by the end of 

2006 it had received 83% of the media coverage amongst all 

of the 3-D geospatial search tools. As a result, the power of 

searching and viewing thematic information in a 3-D, geospatial interface has started to draw attention away from mainstream search engines and 2-D, online map tools (Scharl and 

Tochtermann, 2007). Furthermore, approximately 20% of 

web pages currently contain distinguishable and clear geographic identifiers (Delboni et al., 2005). The number of web 

sites that provide these identifiers will no doubt continue to 

increase, as users quickly realize the potential and advantages 

of integrating thematic, temporal and contextual data with an 

interactive geospatial engine, called the geobrowser.

Alaska Mapper, developed by the Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources’ (DNR) Land Records Information Section 

(LRIS), is one such geobrowser that provides access to the 

Alaska DNR’s Land Administration System (LAS) and other 

statewide geospatial data (Figure 1). Much of the information displayed in Alaska Mapper is also used to easily access 

the State status plats, an index by township to the public land 

record and the department’s case files (Figure 2). Although 

status plats have been accessible through the Alaska Land 

Records web site (http://plats.landrecords.info) since 1999, 

these are not interactive. With the Alaska Mapper, users can 

zoom to an area of interest, turn data layers on and off, make 

live queries to the database of records, view each layer’s metadata and download selected data for use in a GIS. To access 

Alaska Mapper and its documentation, see http://mapper.

landrecords.info.

SEEING ALASKA FROM A BIRD’S EYE 

VIEW

The LRIS Status Graphics Unit (SGU) uses a custombuilt ESRI application to edit DNR’s land record status 

data. The application, written in ArcDesktop and Visual 

Basic, is highly sophisticated and customized to the status plat 

production. The data are then transformed from the ESRI 

feature datasets to Oracle Spatial (http://www.oracle.com) 
84 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 1. The Alaska Mapper geobrowser (http://mapper.landrecords.info), showing oil and gas fields and active volcanoes.

geometry objects using ArcSDE (http://www.esri.com) and 

then out to MapInfo TAB files from an Oracle materialized 

view (a cached, virtual table representing the result of a complex, database query) for the Alaska Mapper. Less complex 

datasets are accessed directly from an Oracle table by Alaska 

Mapper without being converted to TAB files. Much of this 

work can now be automated, which will eventually permit the 

data available to the public to be as current as 24 hours from 

the time of data-entry.

Alaska Mapper is 100% Java-based, using MapInfo’s 

MapXtreme (http://extranet.mapinfo.com) for Java at its rendering core. The original intent was to use an Oracle database to directly “feed” the system, but this work flow offered 

substandard performance. Instead, the data are exported to 

MapInfo TAB files on a regular basis. The data are stored in 

Oracle Spatial and is registered via SDE which allows ESRI 

clients to manipulate it. A two node, SUN Intel x86 cluster, 

running Solaris and Apache, serves the application with four, 

active implementations of Apache Tomcat to distribute the 

processing load. This architecture was crucial in achieving 

the system’s current optimal performance.

Similar to the other popular geobrowsers, Alaska Mapper 

was designed with navigation functions, layer management 

features, and query tools with which people are now quite 

familiar. Although innovation is at the forefront of every 

developer’s mind, it is also desirable to maintain a similar 

look and feel to existing complex APIs in order to maintain 

usability and a certain user “comfort level” with the program 

(Kendall, 2005). There are advantages to being “first out the 

gate,” however. As Shapiro and Varian (1999) point out, the 

original design often becomes the standard and increases the 

likelihood of user lock-in.

Advantages of the Alaska Mapper geobrowser include (1) 

integrating energy resources data, for example, with existing 

statewide data and infrastructure in ways that were not previously possible, (2) accessing data that is updated on a regular 

basis, including land status, ownership, and water rights, (3) 

not having to install any programs or download data to use the 
Alaska Mapper 85

Figure 2. The status plats give a composite view of the activity on state-owned land and provide detailed information on property 

issues affecting state land and resources. Please see the Alaska DNR Land Records Information Section Land Records page, 

available at http://plats.landrecords.info/, for more information.

service, and (4) having the option to download the source data 

to use locally on your computer. It is the latter advantage of 

Alaska Mapper that makes the geobrowser so useful. Not 

only is it possible to extract all the data (see the next section) for a given dataset, but a user can also view the dataset’s 

metadata, which answers the crucial “who, what, when, where, 

why, and how?” about the data. With so many users having access to the data, it is imperative to provide metadata in 

order to avoid misuse of the data (Browne et al., 2003) and to 

prevent spending valuable resources on updating legacy data 

many years later (McCurley, 2001). 

A VIRTUAL STATE OF DATA AT YOUR 

FINGERTIPS

Alaska Mapper was originally designed to be the 

visual interface into DNR’s Land Administration System, 

providing visual, interactive access to case-file data from 

status plats and links to land case file summaries, details, and 

abstracts. Over time, however, user needs have influenced 

additional features and the data capable of being displayed in 

the geobrowser. New features in the latest version (2.0.4, 

released on August 28, 2007) include (1) a new look and feel 

for improved operability, (2) the incorporation of satellite and 

ortho-images from the Geographic Information Network of 

Alaska (GINA), (3) the addition of tooltips, (4) user input of 

radius length for the “Query by Radius” tool, and (5) a core 

mapping software upgrade to MapInfo MapXtreme 4.8.1.

Status plats are maintained by the SGU, while DNR case 

file data are maintained by other DNR staff. It is important 

to note that since the Alaska Mapper is a representation of 

LAS, it’s only as current and complete as the records maintained in LAS. For features that are related to LAS, the case 

file type and file number are displayed as feature attributes 

in the application. When the LAS case report submit action 

button is clicked, the attributes are forwarded to another 
86 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

web application that displays that case’s complete case 

abstract. The advent of the Alaska Mapper, however, does 

not change the fact that land ownership issues are complicated and require training and experience to understand. It 

can only help the user answer the question, “Who owns the 

land?” In addition to status plats and land record information, Alaska Mapper is also capable of displaying geospatial 

information related to biology, Alaska culture, environmental 

observations, geology and geophysics, natural resources, physical features, transportation, and state infrastructure. Predefined mashups, or common groups of layers from multiple 

sources providing an integrated experience, have been generated by the LRIS team, such as Mineral Estate and Land Ownership maps (Table 1). The mashups are defined on the application’s entry page and the user can choose a mashup from a 

simple drop-down list or by clicking on the mashup’s name. 

These mashups are extremely useful for less savvy users, and 

for those users who want to find information quickly but may 

not have the time to browse through and select multiple layers 

to answer a common question about the data.

The Alaska Mapper login page presents users with two 

login account types. The public account may be used by 

anyone who wants to view or create maps, but does not need 

to save a map. Registered user accounts are currently only 

available to State of Alaska employees. These accounts do 

not provide access to additional layers; they only allow a user 

to save maps (including public maps) to a database that can be 

recalled later. Alaska DNR is considering a policy that will 

permit non-state employees to have registered user accounts.

Like other popular geobrowsers, users can query the 

layer data in Alaska Mapper using a number of familiar techniques. A query is based on a user-specified boundary, which 

can be a point, rectangle, radius, or even a geographic feature 

itself. After a query is performed, the total number of features (from each “active” layer) is displayed in the program’s 

“Status Area.” A new browser window opens to display 

the attributes of the features selected in the query, which are 

grouped by layer.

One useful feature of Alaska Mapper is the option to 

download an entire layer or a selection of features within a 

layer or layers to ESRI’s shape file format. If the selected 

dataset contains multiple feature types (e.g., points, lines, 

or polygons), a shape file is present for each type. After 

the user initiates a download request, an email is sent to the 

address specified. The email contains a link to a compressed 

file containing all the files, including metadata, that make up 

the requested dataset.

CROSSING THE 180° GREAT CIRCLE

The issue of cartography will certainly arise as geobrowsers provide more complex information in the spatial, 

semantic, and temporal dimensions (Scharl and Tochtermann, 

2007). Alaska’s size (1,477,277 km2) and 54,720 km of tidal 

shoreline, spanning 130o W longitude, across the 180o great 

circle (meridian) to 172o

 E longitude, often creates cartographic hurdles for map makers, GIS managers and geospatial 

data web-portals and complicates standard queries using polygon boundaries. The sheer number of small islands, streams, 

rivers and lakes as well as the intricate shorelines of Southeast 

Alaska and the Aleutian Islands make data managers pause, 

as they contemplate zoom levels and cartographic decisions 

involving the display of base map information, data attributes 

and physical features.

The advent of seemingly unlimited mashups integrates 

datasets that were once viewed as unrelated. However, 

data managers now have to deal with the organization and 

display of hundreds of “stackable” layers, points, lines and 

Table 1. Alaska Mapper’s predefined mashups.

Map Name Purpose

Ownership Map This map displays current state land ownership and the availability of those lands for use under specific rules 

and regulations of the State of Alaska.

Surface Classification Map This map displays how state land may be used as a result of an area plan or site specific classification.

Land Estate Map This is a surface-use map that displays DNR authorizations or disposal of state uplands and tidelands to third 

party interests, such as individuals, businesses, municipalities, boroughs, or other state agencies.

Mineral Estate Map This is a subsurface-use map that displays current oil and gas, mining, and other subsurface resource uses on 

state uplands and tidelands. This map describes state lands as open or closed to mineral entry.

Water Estate Map This map displays the statewide location for water rights, water authorizations, reservations, and water management areas for surface and subsurface water sources.

Base Map This map contains just the basic layers that are common to the above-mentioned maps. Common layers would 

include hydrography, township and section grids, state outlines, roads, pipelines, etc. It is a good map to start 

with when designing your own map.
Alaska Mapper 87

polygons, all within the 1280x1024-pixel viewport of a web 

browser. Making the situation more complex still is the 

possibility that the data has a temporal dimension rather than 

simply a temporal attribute, such as showing the diffusion of 

volcanic ash particles or the duration of an earthquake swarm 

(Johnson, 2004). Publication of maps in digital format has 

forced GIS experts and cartographers to also become knowledgeable in web semantics, design, Cascading Style Sheets 

(CSS), and programming and database components such as 

Ajax (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML), MySQL and PHP 

(Kraak and Brown, 2001; Mitchell, 2005). Utilizing these 

recent combinations of components has allowed groups like 

the Alaska LRIS to solve complex spatial problems and provide the general public with the ability to easily interact with 

searchable data.

PUTTING YOUR FINGER ON A 

SPINNING GLOBE

It is safe to say that geobrowsers are here to stay, as 

the effect of geobrowsers, virtual spaces, and interacting 

with actual data heightens our learning experiences (Roush, 

2005). As computers become the media and information 

centers of our homes, users will continue to expect more from 

the Internet, both in content and ease of use. Combining 

technologies, programming platforms and technical skills, 

such as GIS, database and web design, cartography and GPS, 

have proven advantages in distributing and displaying spatial 

data to any interested user. Moreover, the utilization of opensource software and protocols in this process promotes innovation and does not restrict data flow via proprietary formats 

(Shapiro and Varian, 1999). The Alaska DNR, for example, 

is also working with, but has not yet implemented, another 

means of distributing the data through open-source protocols such as Web Map Service (http://www.opengeospatial.

org/standards/wms) and Web Feature Service (http://www.

opengeospatial.org/standards/wfs), implemented by the OpenGIS Consortium. This would allow efficient distribution of 

the data and leave the choice of client to the user for viewing 

the data (e.g. Google Earth, Alaska Mapper, or ESRI Desktop).

The next major step for Alaska is being taken by the 

Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative (SDMI, http://www.

alaskamapped.org). Because the State of Alaska does not 

have an adequate digital base map, the Alaska SDMI will ultimately provide an accurate, current, seamless, single source, 

statewide base map to be available over the Internet, through 

open standards, free of charge. This is a cooperative state 

program endorsed by the Governor and implemented by the 

Department of Natural Resources, Department of Military and 

Veteran’s Affairs and the University of Alaska. The Alaska 

LRIS will play a major role in this initiative and, as a result, 

end users will have access to new and more accurate map data 

via Alaska Mapper.

REFERENCES

Browne, C.L., Freeman, L.K., and Graham, G.R.C., 2003, 

The Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Survey’s Metadata Policy Development and Implementation, 

in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques 2003 – 

Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 03-471, p. 201-208, available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2003/of03-471/browne/index.html.

Delboni, T.M., Borges, K.A.V., and Laender, A.H.F., 2005, 

Geographic Web Search Based on Positioning Expressions: 

2nd International Workshop on Geographic Information 

Retrieval (GIR-2005), Bremen, Germany, p. 61-64.

Johnson, Ian, 2004, Putting Time on the Map: Using TimeMap 

for Map Animation and Web Delivery: GeoInformatics, v. 

7, no. 5, p. 26-29, available at http://www.timemap.net/tm/

documents/publications/200408_geoinformatics.pdf.

Kendall, J.E., 2005, Satellite Mapping and its Potential in 

Ecommerce: Why We Need Directions to Follow Our New 

Maps: Decision Line, v. 36, no. 5, p. 11-14.

Kraak, Menno-Jan, and Brown, Allan, eds., 2001, Web Cartography: Developments and Prospects: London, Taylor & 

Francis, Inc., 224 p.

McCurley, K.S., 2001, Geospatial Mapping and Navigation of the Web, in Proceedings of the Tenth International 

World Wide Web Conference (WWW-2001): ACM Press, 

Hong Kong, May 1-5, 2001, p. 221-229, available at http://

www10.org/cdrom/start.htm.

Mitchell, Tyler, 2005, Web Mapping Illustrated: Sebastopol, 

CA, O’Reilly Media, Inc., 367 p.

Neches, Robert, Yao, Ke-Thia, Ko, In-Young, Bugacov, Alejandro, Kumar, Vished, and Eleish, Ragy, 2001, GeoWorlds: 

Integrating GIS and Digital Libraries for Situation Understanding and Management: New Review of Hypermedia and 

Multimedia, v. 7, p. 127-152.

Roush, Wade, 2005, Killer Maps: Technology Review, v. 108, 

no. 10, p. 54-60, available at http://www.technologyreview.

com/communications/14825/?a=f.

Scharl, Arno, 2004, Web Coverage of Renewable Energy, 

Chap. 4, in Scharl, Arno, ed., Environmental Online Communication: London, Springer, p. 25-34.

Scharl, Arno, and Tochtermann, Klaus, eds., 2007, The 

Geospatial Web: How Geobrowsers, Social Software and 

the Web 2.0 are Shaping the Network Society: London, 

Springer, 282 p.

Shapiro, Carl, and Varian, H.R., 1999, The Art of Standards 

War: California Management Review, v. 41, no. 2, p. 8-32.

Seamless Digital Geological Map of Japan 1:200,000,

and its Application

By Toshie Igawa, Koji Wakita, and Shinji Takarada

Geological Survey of Japan, AIST

Centeral 7, 1-1-1 Higashi,

Tsukuba, Ibaraki

305-8567 Japan

Telephone: +81-29-861-3663

Fax: +81-29-861-3742

email: toshi-igawa@aist.go.jp, koji-wakita@aist.go.jp, s-takarada@aist.go.jp

INTRODUCTION

Geological Survey of Japan, AIST (GSJ/AIST) has compiled geological quadrangle maps of Japan at 1:200,000-scale 

since the 1950’s. However, as differences in year of compilation and progress in geological science have resulted in 

changes in interpretations, there was much discordance regarding classification of stratum or geological period in neighboring quadrangles, as well as misalignments in geological 

features such as contacts. The Seamless Digital Geological 

Map of Japan 1:200,000 (Figure 1) was compiled as a solution 

to this problem, to serve as a more comprehensible and accessible geological map.

 This mapping project started in 2002 and will be finished 

in 2011. This map is the first geological map at the scale 

of 1:200,000 covering the whole country with the universal 

national legend.

SEAMLESS GEOLOGICAL MAP

The seamless geological map is based on the 1:200,000-

scale quadrangle geological sheet maps published by GSJ/

AIST, and also uses the engineering geological map and other 

geological maps published by the local governments. The 

universal national legend (Figure 2) for this seamless geological map is classified based on the rock types and ages. This 

legend is a refinement of the legend for the Geological Map of 

Japan at 1:1,000,000-scale (Geological Survey of Japan/AIST, 

2003).

The process to produce the seamless geological map is 

as follows (Figure 3). 1. Geological maps are digitized into 

vector format. 2. Each geological attribute of the map is 

correlated to its closest equivalent in the universal national 

legend. 3. Discontinuous geological boundaries between 

neighboring maps are harmonized with each other in the 

Geographic Information System (GIS). If we are obliged to 

use outdated geological source maps for the seamless geological map, the newest interpretation and geologic attributes are 

used with these maps. Thus the seamless geological map may 

include the newest geological information.

APPLICATION

The seamless geological map is released on the AIST 

website (http://riodb02.ibase.aist.go.jp/db084/) as Research 

Information Database (RIO-DB). At this site, the public can 

view the seamless geological map with continuous zoom, 

and can download raster images of the map. This map on 

the web is shown with a shaded DEM and road map based on 

data from the Geographical Survey Institute, in order to more 

clearly indicate the location of the mapped area.

The map is simply drawn with the universal national 

legend, so it is easier for people without special knowledge of 

geology to understand the information on the map. In addition, people can change the scale of this digital map quickly, 

and clip any parts of the map wherever they like. The map is 

intended to be used for many purposes, especially in education 

and popularization of geology, and in interdisciplinary studies 

of earthquakes and geochemistry.

The seamless geological map will be updated frequently 

to provide the newest geoinformation. This map has been 

accessed 600,000 times in one year of 2006 on the internet. 

We aim to improve the quality of the map for society.
90 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 1. Seamless Digital Geological Map of Japan 1:200,000 and its website (http://riodb02.ibase.aist.go.jp/db084/).
Seamless Digital Geological Map of Japan 91

Figure 2. Universal national legend.

Figure 3. Process to produce the seamless geological map.

REFERENCE

Geological Survey of Japan/AIST, 2003, Geological Map of Japan 1:1,000,000, 3rd Edition, 2nd CD-ROM Version.

Integrated Geological Map Database and Geological 

Information Index

By Koji Wakita, Shinji Takarada, and Yasuaki Murata

Geological Survey of Japan, AIST

Tsukuba Center No. 7

1-1-1 Higashi Tsukuba

Ibaraki, 305-8567 Japan

Telephone: +81 (29) 861-2469

Fax: +81(29) 861-3742

email: koji-wakita@aist.go.jp

INTRODUCTION TO GeoMapDB AND 

G-Index IN JAPAN

Geological Survey of Japan (GSJ), a branch of the 

National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and 

Technology (AIST), recently began offering geologic 

information in digital format to the general public through 

the internet and CD-ROM. To provide easy access to the 

data, GSJ has been developing a digital geologic database and 

geologic information index. GSJ completed the construction 

of the database and the index system in 2006, and it was 

opened to the general public soon thereafter. This paper 

describes the database and the index system.

INTEGRATED GEOLOGICAL MAP 

DATABASE (GeoMapDB)

Geological Survey of Japan, AIST recently developed the 

Integrated Geological Map Database, called GeoMapDB. The 

database was launched online on September 29, 2006. The 

URL is http://iggis1.muse.aist.go.jp/en/top.htm. The design 

of this database aims to make many kinds of geological maps 

published by GSJ easily accessible to the general public.

GeoMapDB database is based on WebGIS (ArcIMS) 

technology, and will include most of the geological maps 

and related geoinformation produced and compiled by the 

Geological Survey of Japan (Figure 1). However, it is 

presently still in the initial stages of development. The 

current contents of the database include the geologic maps of 

Japan at 1:2,000,000, 1:1,000,000, 1:200,000, 1:50,000 and 

1:25,000 scales.

At the GeoMapDB home page, you view the entire map 

of Japan and select the area you want to view. The system 

then zooms into your selected area and displays the selected 

geological maps of Japan,which is the essential data in the 

GeoMapDB database (Figure 2). From this point, you can 

choose the maps and data you want to view, by clicking the 

boxes in the right side column. For each map, you can select 

the degree of transparency and the presence or absence of 

text. If you are visiting the site for the first time, the help 

page is very useful. You can choose the maps by checking 

the visible boxes and change the transparency and the text 

information by checking the active boxes in the layer-control 

column. 

Useful search tools and 3D display are also available 

from function buttons above the map. The processes 

require the user to have a VRML plug-in for viewing 3D 

WebGIS. You can create the Bird’s-eye view using digital 

geologic map and digital elevation model (DEM) (Figure 

3). If you download the semi-transparent geologic map data 

from the site, you can easily display the map in Google Earth.

GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION INDEX 

(G-Index)

Geological Survey of Japan, AIST has been developing 

a geologic information system since 2002. The system, 

called G-Index, was finalized and launched online in 2006. 

The G-Index URL is http://www.aist.go.jp/RIODB/GINDEX/
94 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

GSJ_E/index.html (see Figure 4). The system combines 

various types of geologic information employing G-XML 

(Japanese Industrial Standard, JIS X 7199, http://www.jisc.

go.jp/eng/) as its base and operates WebGIS. 

G-XML is a format conforming to XML to handle 

geographic information. G-XML is developed as a new 

universally applicable format using XML technique. Data 

such as GIS contents and digital maps described in XML 

would become accessible and exchangeable. G-XML will be 

merged with GML as a single universal format in the near 

future.

For the current version of G-Index, we prepared geologic 

maps at the scales of 1:50,000, 1:200,000, 1:1,000,000, and 

2,000,000, an environmental geologic map, marine geologic 

map, sedimentological map, geothermal resources map, 

geothermal gradient and heat flow data, and gravity map and 

gravity data in G-XML format. At the moment, the system 

is to be used to browse and view major published geologic 

data. However, in the near future, we intend to include data 

download and analysis capabilities. A dynamic linkage to 

other databases would also be established. We prepared 

several software tools to exchange data format from CSV 

to G-XML, G-XML to JKG, and viewer program for JKG 

format.

Figure 1. Overall geoinformation system of the Geological Survey of Japan, AIST. IGGIS – Platform of the GeoMapDB. GIS Intra – 

Intra sharing server system based on Arc GIS Server. RIO-DB – Research Information Database.

SUMMARY

Geological Survey of Japan, AIST, has just started 

web-based services to provide digital geologic map data and 

other geological information produced by the survey. We 

started to convert the data to fit with the international 

standards to distribute them all over the world. For this 

purpose, Geological Survey of Japan, AIST will take the OGC 

and CGI activities into account for the interoperability of 

geoinformation.
Integrated Geological Map Database Index 95

Figure 2. Example of the geological map view of GeoMapDB.

Figure 3. Bird’s-eye view of Izu Peninsula using digital geologic 

map and DEM of GeoMapDB.

Figure 4. Top page of the G-Index.

Developing a Web Site to Provide Geologic Data and Map 

Products for Allen County, Indiana

By Robin F. Rupp, Jennifer Olejnik, Nancy R. Hasenmueller, Marni D. Karaffa,

A. Chris Walls, Prem Radhakrishnan, and Nathan K. Eaton

Indiana Geological Survey

Indiana University

611 North Walnut Grove

Bloomington, IN 47405

Telephone: (812) 855-7636

Fax: (812) 855-2862

email: rrupp@indiana.edu

INTRODUCTION

For more than a century, Indiana geologists have published their analyses and interpretations of geologic data 

in the form of static, printed maps. Such maps are useful, 

providing concise interpretations and fine cartographic detail 

in a compact, portable format. Recently, however, with the 

new technologies of digital maps and the Internet, geologists 

are able to present more information in the form of dynamic, 

versatile Web-based products to a variety of users, from those 

in government and industry to the general public. The Indiana 

Geological Survey (IGS) is currently using technologies such 

as Environmental Systems Research Institute Internet Map 

Server (ArcIMS©) and Spatial Data Engine (ArcSDE©), and 

Adobe® ColdFusion® to create a Web-based geologic data 

and map site for Allen County, Indiana, http://igs.indiana.edu/

AllenCoIndiana.

Figure 1. Allen County 

is located in northeastern 

Indiana. Fort Wayne, the 

county seat, is the secondlargest city in the state.

Allen County, located in northeastern Indiana (Figure 1), 

has an estimated 2005 population of 344,006 (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2007), which includes the population of Indiana’s 

second largest city, Fort Wayne. Interstates 69 and 469 are the 

dominant transportation corridors and connect the county to 

the rest of Indiana, as well as to Michigan. The high population density and major transportation corridors in the county 

make it a priority area for the IGS’s mapping and outreach 

programs. The Allen County Web site will disseminate both 

interpreted maps and primary geologic information for a 

region whose societal and economic needs exert increasing 

pressure on natural resources.

INTERPRETED GEOLOGY AND 

PRIMARY DATA

The Allen County Web site provides written discussions, 

maps, images, and databases of geologic information and 

includes an Internet Map Server (IMS) (Figure 2). The IMS 

site provides a front-end to the IGS enterprise geodatabase, 

which contains information used simultaneously for research 

and general viewing. The ArcSDE geodatabase allows for the 

efficient creation, management, and distribution of data and 

maps.

Within the Allen county Web site, the IMS includes 

regional base map layers such as digital elevation model 

(DEM) terrain and high-resolution aerial photos from Indiana’s 2005 Orthophotography Project. Landsat satellite 

imagery from the U.S. Geological Survey is also included. 

Additionally, the site provides interpreted maps from the IGS 

including surficial geology, drift thickness, bedrock topography, bedrock geology, and water-table elevation (from 
98 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Fleming, 1994), and a clay thickness (0 to 50 ft) map generated from the IGS-standardized lithologic water-well data. 

Primary data provided at this site consists of: (1) the natural 

gamma-ray geophysical log data collected by the IGS; (2) the 

iLITH database (Brown and others, 2000), which contains 

IGS-standardized lithologic information from water-well 

records of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Water; and (3) the stratigraphic test hole and 

petroleum-well records from the IGS Petroleum Database 

Management System (PDMS) (Indiana Geological Survey, 

2007a) (Figure 3).

Figure 2. The Allen County Web site (to left) and some images from the Interactive Web Viewer. A. Digital elevation model of the 

land surface of Allen County. B. Clay thickness of the upper 50 feet of unconsolidated sediments throughout the county. C. Landsat 

7 imagery of the Fort Wayne area. D. Map of the bedrock within Allen County, which is buried beneath varying thicknesses of 

unconsolidated sediments.

DATABASE INTEGRATION

The Allen County Internet Map Server is a GIS data 

portal that gives the user the capability to visually inspect and 

analyze the spatial data associated with the available geologic 

data sets. It also provides access to the attribute data. However, many types of information, such as well production histories or gamma-ray log data, cannot be stored efficiently in an 

attribute table associated with spatial features. A large amount 

of information can be associated with a single record and often 

this data can be more efficiently stored in a relational database containing multiple tables. Primary information can be 

attached as attributes of the record in the spatial data set, and 

additional information can be provided to users through links 

to an external relational database.

ColdFusion

ColdFusion® is a software package that can be used to 

query data from relational databases and display this information to the user via a Web browser (Figure 4). In this way, 

ColdFusion is similar to the ArcIMS© technology that is used 

to query and display spatial data. In the case of the Allen 

County Web site, ColdFusion is used to query the iLITH database, which contains the standardized water-well information. 

While the water well GIS data set contains the spatial location 

data, a Microsoft® Access® database contains more detailed 

information about the well location and other useful information, including lithology. The ArcIMS viewer displays the 

primary geographic data from the GIS data set by simply identifying a well, while ColdFusion uses a unique common identifier (well number) to query the Access database to retrieve all 

the information about that particular well and display it in a 

report format. This allows the user to access and display all 

the available information, whether it is contained in the spatial 

data set or an external database.

The PDMS provides a second example of using ColdFusion to link to an external relational database. The 

PDMS is an IGS Web application designed to distribute 
Developing a Web Site to Provide Geologic Data and Map Products for Allen County, Indiana 99

Figure 3. The Interactive Web Viewer provides geologic maps of the Allen County area as well as links to the gamma-ray log, waterwell, and petroleum data used to make these maps. The combination of primary data and interpreted maps allows users to make their 

own interpretations.

petroleum-related information. The PDMS database contains 

extensive information on more than 70,000 petroleum-related 

wells drilled in Indiana and several adjacent states. The Allen 

County IMS site uses a ColdFusion link from the petroleum 

well layer to connect directly to the existing PDMS database 

and display detailed records for more than 200 oil and gas 

wells in the county.

GammaPlot

Gamma-ray logs provide users with the primary data 

from which to make their own geologic interpretations 

(Bleuer, 2004). The Allen County Web site allows users to 

view and download more than 200 records of gamma-ray data 

in Portable Document Format (PDF) and Long ASCII Standard (LAS) format.

The PDF files provide a visual representation of numeric 

gamma-ray data collected digitally in the field and stored as 

tab-delimited text files. Gamma-log curves are plotted using 

an IGS-created program, Gammaplot. The program uses 

tabbed spreadsheets to graph the numeric data and retrieve 

header information from the Gamma-Log Database, an internal IGS relational database that stores location and description 

information. The tabbed spreadsheets are also used to modify 
100 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 4. System diagram showing the relationship between 

spatial and tabular databases that support the Allen County IMS 

site. ArcIMS provides maps and associated attribute information, 

while ColdFusion presents tabular reports from related databa

the appearance of the gamma-ray log graph. Once plotted, the 

gamma-ray logs are printed to a PDF file.

In addition to PDF format, the numeric gamma-ray data 

can be downloaded as an LAS file, a standard format used 

primarily in the petroleum industry for plotting geophysical 

logs, http://www.cwls.org/docs/LAS20_Standards.txt. A custom application was developed by IGS staff to extract header 

information from the Gamma-Log Database, merge it with the 

numeric data, and convert it to a comma-delimited LAS file.

The PDF and LAS files can be accessed by identifying a 

gamma-ray log point in the IMS viewer using the information 

tool. The unique gamma-ray log number appears with the spatial attribute data and provides a link to the downloadable file.

ARCIMS Application

The tabular, nonspatial databases and the digital maps 

on the Allen County Web site are integrated using a single 

ArcIMS application (Figure 4). The IMS site accesses a 

variety of geographic and geologic information stored within 

the larger IGS enterprise geodatabase. This enterprise geodatabase provides most of the GIS layers for the IGS mapping 

sites, including A GIS Atlas for Indiana (Indiana Geological Survey, 2007b), which serves as a template for the Allen 

County Web site.

All the capabilities of the GIS Atlas for Indiana are 

retained in the Allen County IMS by simply placing a county 

mask over the statewide data, thereby displaying only specific 

information for Allen County. The statewide data is behind 

the mask, but does not interfere with the efficiency of the site. 

The link between the Allen County IMS and the larger IGS 

enterprise geodatabase allows the Allen County site to stay 

current because any routine updates made to the GIS Atlas 

site and databases will be immediately available to the Allen 

County site.

The GIS Atlas for Indiana started with an out-of-the-box 

ArcIMS HTML viewer more than 6 years ago and has since 

been customized by IGS staff to allow for more versatility. 

Improvements and additions to the ArcIMS viewer are made 

regularly in order to maintain a robust, user-friendly site. The 

customization includes making many of the standard tools and 

menu items easier to use. Some of the customized features 

available on the GIS Atlas site and the Allen County IMS site 

include: draw tools, bookmarks, hyperlinks, custom legends, 

and map output options.

The draw menu contains tools that enable users to add 

custom text and geometric shapes to the map view for labeling 

and analysis of specific cross sections or areas of interest. The 

text tool adds points to the map and associates text or coordinates with that point (Figure 5). Lines, polygons, and circles 

can be drawn on-screen with predefined measurements or 

simply by pointing and clicking on the map (Figure 6). These 

are graphics that may represent areas or locations of interest 

on the map.

The legends in the interactive viewer are customized 

to allow viewing of individual layer symbology in the Table 

of Contents (TOC) rather than having to toggle between a 

specific layer and the TOC (Figure 7). The layer symbology is 

represented by GIF images linked to the associated layer in the 

TOC. This customization also allows the user to choose the 

legend elements to be included in the final map layout.

 Bookmarks and hyperlinks allow map users to create, 

save, and restore their own custom maps, as well as share 

them with colleagues. Bookmarks are saved in a Web browser 

and stored as cookies on the local computer. Hyperlinks are 

created in the map view from the Map menu and can be copied 

and pasted into an e-mail or other document, enabling an efficient transfer of data and ideas. Both links provide a means of 

“saving” a customized view of maps and data in the IMS. The 

links allow users to return to a custom view extent, with the 

predetermined layers turned on for viewing. Unfortunately, 

bookmarks and hyperlinks will not maintain the user-defined 

text or shapes shown in Figures 5 and 6. Users can, however, 

save their custom map, including text and shapes, as a JPG file 

for use in other applications such as a GIS. Once the image is 

saved, a dialog box appears with information to create a world 

file for georeferencing. This world file information can be 

copied to a TXT file and saved as a JGW file.
Developing a Web Site to Provide Geologic Data and Map Products for Allen County, Indiana 101

The print dialog gives users additional options for map 

output. It allows for layouts for standard printers, as well 

as custom layouts for large-format plotters. Once the print 

dimensions are defined, the layout is automatically adjusted 

to fit the page. The print dialog box also gives the option of 

which map elements to incorporate in the layout, including 

title and legend elements. This feature provides users with a 

high degree of flexibility in presenting their data.

Figure 5. The custom text and marker tool allows users to select from a variety of font styles and scales, as well as points with 

different shapes, sizes, and colors.

SUMMARY

The IGS created this Web site to provide maps, images, 

and databases of geologic information for Allen County, 

Indiana. Data included on the site are (1) digital elevation 

model (DEM) terrain, high-resolution aerial photos, and Landsat imagery, (2) geologic and hydrogeologic maps, and (3) 

primary data from geophysical log, water-well, and petroleumwell records.

Using enterprise GIS and database technologies- including an Internet Map Server, Microsoft SQL Server, and ColdFusion, the IGS is able to present data in the form of dynamic 

and versatile interpretive maps along with raw “primary” geologic information to an expanded group of users within Allen 

County, throughout the state of Indiana, and across the nation. 

The IMS site provides a front-end to the IGS enterprise 

geodatabase, which contains information used simultaneously 

for research and general viewing. The ArcSDE geodatabase 

allows for the efficient creation, management, and distribution of the data and maps. Through links to ColdFusion, the 

site also allows direct access to other IGS enterprise database 

systems containing petroleum well records, gamma-ray logs, 

and water well information. The combination of these spatial 

(geodatabase) and traditional database technologies allows 

users to access more information than ever before. By making 
102 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

primary geologic data such as well records and gamma-ray 

logs widely available on the Internet, the IGS is changing its 

paradigm for how we distribute geologic information to the 

public.

The IGS was able to use an existing ArcIMS template, 

the GIS Atlas for Indiana IMS site, and adapt it to create the 

Allen County site. All the capabilities of the GIS Atlas site are 

retained in the Allen County IMS by placing a county mask 

over the statewide data, thus displaying only specific information for Allen County. The link between the Allen County 

IMS and the larger IGS enterprise geodatabase allows the 

Allen County site to always be current because updates made 

to the GIS Atlas site are immediately available to the county 

site.

The ArcIMS HTML viewer used for the GIS Atlas and 

Allen County IMS sites has been customized by IGS staff 

to make many of the standard tools and menu items more 

user-friendly and versatile. Some of the customized features 

available on IMS sites include: draw tools, bookmarks, hyperlinks, custom legends, and map output options.

Figure 6. A variety of geometric shapes (i.e., lines and polygons) can be added to the map to define a cross

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The development of the Allen County Web site was 

funded by the Indiana Geological Survey and the Central 

Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition.

REFERENCES

Bleuer, N.K., 2004, Slow-logging subtle sequences–the 

gamma-ray log character of glacigenic and other unconsolidated sedimentary sequences: Indiana Geological Survey 

Special Report 65, 39 p.
Developing a Web Site to Provide Geologic Data and Map Products for Allen County, Indiana 103

Figure 7. The custom legend in the interactive viewer allows the user to simplify viewing by activating layers from within the TOC.

Brown, S.E., Bleuer, N.K., O’Neal, M.A., Olejnik, Jennifer, 

and Rupp, R.F., 2000, Glacial terrain explorer: Indiana Geological Survey Open-File Study 00-08, CD-ROM.

Fleming, A.H., 1994, The hydrogeology of Allen County, Indiana – a geologic and ground-water atlas: Indiana Geological 

Survey Special Report 57, 111 p.

Indiana Geological Survey, 2007a, Petroleum Database 

Management System: Indiana Geological Survey Web site, 

http://igs.indiana.edu/pdms/index.cfm, accessed, May 18, 

2007.

Indiana Geological Survey, 2007b, A GIS Atlas for Indiana: 

Indiana Geological Survey Web site, http://129.79.145.7/

arcims/statewide_mxd/index.html, accessed May 18, 2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, State & County Quickfacts – Allen 

County, Indiana: U.S. Census Bureau Web page, http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/18003.html, accessed 

March 27, 2007.

SOFTWARE CITED

ArcIMS, ArcSDE —Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc., 380 New York St., Redlands, CA, 92373-

8100 USA, (909) 793-2853, http://www.esri.com/.

ColdFusion—Adobe Systems Incorporated, http://www.adobe.

com/.

Microsoft Access, SQL Server—Microsoft Corporation, http://

www.microsoft.com/.

Glacial Striae Observations for Ireland Compiled from 

Historic Records

By Mike J. Smith, Jasper Knight, and Kenneth S. Field

School of Geography, Geology, and the Environment

Kingston University

Penrhyn Road

Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 2EE

Telephone: +44 (207) 099-2817

Fax: +44 (870) 063-3061

email: michael.smith@kingston.ac.uk

INTRODUCTION

Landform mapping has been a primary method of data 

collection across the spectrum of earth sciences. These 

include geology (e.g. Gold et al., 1973), glaciology (e.g. 

Wright, 1912), hydrology (e.g. Hooke et al., 1994), hillslope 

geomorphology (e.g. Evans, 1977), planetary geology (e.g. 

Baker, 1981), volcanology (e.g. Thouret, 1999), and coastal 

geomorphology (e.g. Chandler and Brunsden, 1995) amongst 

others. Landforms were originally mapped by hand directly 

in the field; however the advent of remote sensing technologies has meant that larger areas can be mapped by fewer 

people and in less time (e.g. Clark, 1997). In short, the economical and often accuracy advantage of mapping remotely 

has meant that, in some environments and for some purposes, 

it is the preferred technique.

Research programs employing remotely sensed data 

have often mapped landforms ranging from several hundreds 

of metres to several kilometres in length, such as drumlins, 

end and ribbed moraines, and eskers. Dynamical assumptions based upon landform dimensions and properties (e.g. 

Kleman and Borgström, 1996) allow tentative reconstructions 

of the extent and dynamics of former ice sheets (e.g. Clark and 

Meehan, 2001). In particular, it is possible to reconstruct ice 

flow direction and changes in flow regime (including subglacial thermal and hydrological conditions). Striae observations have previously been incorporated into palaeo-ice sheet 

reconstructions (Kleman, 1990), however observations are 

often fragmented with small areal coverage. In short, they 

are rarely used for reconstructions over large areas.

Much of the early work of the Geological Survey of 

Ireland (GSI) involved the mapping of both hard rock and 

surficial geologies. In particular, extensive suites of both erosional and depositional glacial landforms inspired detailed and 

extensive field mapping and observation, although this was 

not a mandatory requirement and was often ignored in some 

areas, depending on the mapper’s own interests. The results 

of this mapping were presented in the First Series (“1-inch” 

or 1:63,360) geological map sheets, published principally 

between 1860 and 1890. The geological memoirs accompanying the map sheets contained further detail and, in many 

instances, tabulated field observations such as striae.

This paper describes the compilation of over 4,400 

historic striae observations for the island of Ireland (covering 

~84,000 km2), principally based upon the memoirs accompanying the First Series geological map sheets, but also including published (peer-reviewed journal articles and reports) and 

unpublished (field notes, theses) observations.

METHOD

The principal data source for this research was tabulated 

striae observations contained within memoirs accompanying 

the First Series GSI map sheets. Memoirs that contain striae 

observations are not equally distributed around the island, in 

part due to the diligence and experience of individual field 

geologists. However it should also be noted that striae are 

most clearly recorded on bedrock substrates, which are generally more exposed in the west, with central and eastern regions 

having a thicker till cover. Opportunities for striae observations were therefore more limited in these latter areas. As 

a final note, some observations also record overprinting (or 

cross-cutting) of different striae sets, often noting the relative 

ages of different sets.

The information recorded in tables contained within 

memoirs varies, depending upon the individual geologist with, 

at least, the broad location, orientation and a brief description of the specific location listed. By 1837 the Ordnance 

Survey had completed First Series topographic mapping of 

the country at the Six Inch scale (1:10,560) and these maps 
106 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

were principally used by the field geologists to identify locations. Indeed many of the tables record the county, sheet 

number, quadrant, and townland that the observations fall 

within. However the map projections used were not consistent and varied between counties. The simplest and most 

effective method of transcribing the location of striae involved 

locating the observation on an original Six Inch map sheet and 

identifying the same point on a modern 1:50,000 Ordnance 

Survey of Ireland map sheet, and recording a 12 figure grid 

reference in Irish National Grid coordinates.

In transcribing striae, it was also evident that descriptions 

of locations had different levels of locational accuracy. A

subjective assessment of this accuracy was recorded on a scale 

from 1 to 5, ranging from the most accurate (where a full grid 

reference or precise identifiable location is given) to least 

accurate (where only a general area is known).

For the GSI memoirs, orientation was usually recorded 

with reference to cardinal points on a compass (rather than in 

degrees), generally to within 5o. Thus a value of 035o could 

be recorded as N35E in the memoirs, but the notation can be 

utilised with respect to each of the four cardinal points and so 

035o could also be refer to E55N. This has added some complexity to the interpretation of these original observations.

In addition to the GSI memoirs, striae were transcribed 

directly from the First Series geological maps. There is 

undoubtedly duplication between these two data sets; however 

there are fewer observations recorded on the maps and these 

are often in different locations. Both sets have therefore 

been included for completeness. Our database distinguishes 

between these data sources.

Striae observations taken directly from the published literature vary in presentation of results. Some articles provide 

full grid references (e.g. Meehan, 1999), whilst others just 

contain outline maps showing striae locations.

All striae observation information was collated in a relational database comprising:

• 12-figure Irish National Grid reference,

• the source of the record,

• orientation of striae,

• presence and orientation of any cross-cutting striae, and

• locational accuracy of the record.

RESULTS

Individual records were collated from (number in 

brackets):

• GSI memoirs (2,300),

• Geological survey maps (1,400), and

• Published and unpublished literature (700).

The database therefore totals over 4,400 individual striae 

measurements, although there is some duplication of individual records between sources. Smith et al (2007) presented 

the complete data set for Ireland showing the positions and 

orientations of striae that most likely date from the last (late 

Devensian) glaciation (c. 25,000-13,000 BP). The records 

were imported into ESRI ArcGIS for production of the final 

map. The base map was constructed from a relief-shaded 

digital elevation model (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission; 

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/), hydrographic data comprising lakes and rivers (Digital Chart of the World; http://www.

maproom.psu.edu/dcw/), and a coastal outline (University of 

Ulster, Coleraine, UK, unpub. data).

DISCUSSION

Striae observation coverage of Ireland is extensive, however it is far from uniform. Areas of dense observations are 

to be found in the west (Connemara), north-west (Donegal), 

and north-east (Down) regions of the island. Additional clusters can also be noted on mountain blocks in the east (Wicklow) and south-west (Kerry). All these regions are either 

bedrock scoured (Connemara) or mountainous and therefore 

have little surficial cover. Other areas with observations are 

predominantly coastal (e.g. River Shannon mouth). There 

is an almost complete lack of observations in the central and 

southern areas of the island. These data are currently being 

used to reconstruct ice flow patterns during the late Devensian, 

and will be reported upon separately.

It is important to note that there are limitations to the 

data:

• there are potential duplications of observations between 

different sources,

• the accuracy of striae location varies and is qualitatively assessed,

• some observations appear just offshore and likely fall 

within the inter-tidal zone,

• some observations fall on islands that are not recorded 

on the basemap, and

• base map data are of different provenance and, whilst 

fit for display purposes, are not representative of “best 

available” data.

CONCLUSIONS

• Research presented here represents one of the largest 

compilations of striae observations, comprising over 

4,400 individual observations.

• Striae observations have been collated using historic 

records dating from the 1850s onwards, and published 

(peer-reviewed) and unpublished literature.

• Striae observations are not uniformly distributed, being 

strongly clustered around mountainous (e.g. Mourne 
Glacial Striae Observations for Ireland 107

Mountains, Wicklow, Macgillicuddy’s Reeks) and 

coastal zones.

• These observations will form the basis of a reconstruction of former ice sheet flow.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Samantha Harrison (Kingston 

University), Robbie Meehan (independent consultant) and 

Steve Booth (British Geological Survey) for assistance in collating striae data.

REFERENCES

Baker, V.R., 1981, The geomorphology of Mars: Progress in 

Physical Geography, v. 5, p. 473-513.

Chandler, J.H., and Brunsden, D., 1995, Steady state behaviour of the Black Ven mudslide: The application of archival 

analytical photogrammetry to studies of landform change: 

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 20, p. 255-275.

Clark, C.D., 1997, Reconstructing the evolutionary dynamics 

of palaeo-ice sheets using multi-temporal evidence, remote 

sensing and GIS: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 16, p. 

1067-1092.

Clark, C.D., and Meehan, R.I., 2001, Subglacial bedform 

geomorphology of the Irish Ice Sheet reveals major configuration changes during growth and decay: Journal of Quaternary Science, v. 16, no. 5, p. 483-496.

Evans, I.S., 1977, World-wide variations in the direction and 

concentration of cirque and glacier aspects: Geografiska 

Annaler, v. 59A, p. 151-175.

Gold, D.P., Parizek, R.R., and Alexander, S.A., 1973, Analysis and application of ERTS-1 data for regional geological 

mapping, in Freden, S.C., Mercanti, E.P., and Becker, M.A., 

eds., Proceedings of the [First] Symposium of Significant 

Results obtained from the Earth Resources Technology Satellite-1: Greenbelt, Maryland, NASA Goddard Space Flight 

Center, SP-327, v. 1, section A, p. 231-246.

Hooke, J.M., Horton, B.P., Moore, J., and Taylor, M.P., 1994, 

Upper River Severn (Caersws) Channel Study: University 

of Portsmouth, unpublished report to the Countryside Council for Wales, 165 p.

Kleman, Johan, 1990, On the use of glacial striae for reconstruction of palaeo-ice sheet flow patterns: Geografiska 

Annaler, v. 72A, p. 217-236.

Kleman, Johan, and Borgström, Ingmar, 1996, Reconstruction 

of palaeo-ice sheets: The use of geomorphological data: 

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 21, p. 893-909.

Meehan, R.T., 1999, Directions of ice flow during the last 

glaciation in counties Meath, Westmeath and Cavan: Irish 

Geography, v. 32, no. 1, p. 26-51.

Smith, M.J., Knight, Jasper, and Field, K.S. 2007, Glacial 

striae observations for Ireland compiled from historic 

records: 27th Annual ESRI International User Conference, 

June, 2007. Presented in the ESRI Map Gallery.

Thouret, J.C., 1999, Volcanic geomorphology—an overview: 

Earth-Science Reviews, v. 47, p. 95-131.

Wright, W.B., 1912, The drumlin topography of south Donegal: Geological Magazine, v. 9, p. 153-159.

GIS Tools for 3-D Surficial Mapping in Ohio

By James McDonald, Richard R. Pavey, Erik R. Venteris, and Joseph G. Wells

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey

2045 Morse Road, Bldg C-1

Columbus, OH 43229-6693

Telephone: (614) 265-6601

Fax: (614) 447-1918

email: {jim.mcdonald, rick.pavey, erik.venteris, joseph.wells}@dnr.state.oh.us

ABSTRACT

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey is currently mapping the surficial geology 

of Ohio in three dimensions (3-D) using a modified version of 

the stack-mapping technique of Kempton (1981). The stackmapping technique depicts the geology for an area in 3-D by 

listing the unconsolidated (mostly glacial) geologic units from 

the surface to bedrock, the thickness of each unit, and the 

underlying bedrock unit. The new mapping of the surficial 

geology is intended to replace the older and smaller-scale 

mapping that was based upon generalized, two-dimensional 

mapping techniques.

Three ArcMap-based software applications were developed to assist with the stack-unit mapping program. The 

first software application uses the lithologies from water 

wells to create on-screen graphics representing the stratigraphic columns for each well record. These stratigraphic 

columns are interpreted by the geologist to assign a generalized stack unit for each polygon. The second software 

application consists of two tools used to attribute and label 

the stack-map polygons, which will capture the information 

in the GIS and for cartographic display. The first tool attributes a one-to-many relationship between a surficial-geology 

polygon and the lithology table. The second tool labels the 

surficial-geology polygons with the stack text for use in map 

publishing. The third application performs custom queries 

against the lithology table that can be used to create derivative 

mapping products, such as location and thickness of sand and 

gravel resources. These three applications allow the efficient 

creation of 3-D surficial-geology polygons and labels within a 

GIS database, and provide analysis tools to facilitate the use of 

the 3-D surficial geology maps for specific applications.

INTRODUCTION

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey (ODGS) is involved in a program, partially 

supported by the U.S. Geological Survey STATEMAP program, to map the unconsolidated-surficial sediments of Ohio 

in three dimensions (3-D). It is important to characterize and 

understand these surficial, mostly glacial, materials because 

more than two-thirds of Ohio is covered by them. Mapping 

of the surficial geology is conducted using the stack-mapping 

technique of Kempton (1981). In Ohio, this technique 

has been modified to depict the primary lithologies of the 

materials and their thickness. These 3-D maps will allow 

geoscientists and the public to more effectively use geologic 

information for land-use planning, resource exploration, 

hydrogeologic investigations, and geohazard identification 

(Swinford and others, 2007).

The mapping methodology is summarized below, while 

a more comprehensive description of the mapping methods 

used to create the stack maps is found in Swinford and others 

(2007) and Venteris (2007). There are a number of different 

data sources used to conduct the mapping, including maps of 

soil parent materials, drift thickness, bedrock geology, and 

legacy (previously published) glacial-geologic maps. In 

addition, boring data from water wells from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water (ODW) (Jones 

and Barrett, 2007), bridge borings from the Ohio Department 

of Transportation, engineering boring logs, maps, field notes, 

and seismic-refraction lines (Swinford and others, 2007), and 

boring data from environmental studies of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency are also used to help delineate the 

stack-unit polygons in the subsurface (Venteris, 2007). The 

delineation of the stack-unit polygons is generally a twostep process. First, the surface mapping units (lithologies) 

are derived from county-scale soils maps and digital elevation models (DEMs). The polygons of surface features are 

drawn by generalizing the parent material polygons from 

the soil surveys and interpreting geomorphic features on the 

DEMs. Second, subsurface polygons are delineated using 

the drift thickness maps and depths to bedrock from boring logs. These subsurface polygons delineate broad areas 

of like thicknesses. When the areas of like thicknesses are 

delineated, the stratigraphic model for that polygon is then 

assigned a stack sequence using borehole information from 
110 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

bridge borings and environmental site studies as a starting 

point. After the initial conceptual framework has been developed, the model is verified and extended using the water-well 

logs from the ODW (Venteris, 2007). Polygon and stack-unit 

information are hand-drawn on 1:24,000-scale Mylar overlays 

registered to the 1:24,000-scale topographic maps (Swinford 

and others, 2007).

Once the polygons have been drawn by a geologist on 

the Mylar overlay, the maps are digitized. The maps are 

scanned and georeferenced to the appropriate 7.5-minute 

quadrangle. The lines are then digitized into an ArcGIS 

geodatabase feature class, where the 7.5-minute quadrangles 

are mosaiced into a 30 x 60-minute quadrangle for plotting 

at 1:100,000 scale. Several iterations of quality control are 

conducted to ensure that stack-unit polygons are edge-matched 

between quadrangles (Swinford and others, 2007). After the 

lines are digitized, polygons and topology are created in the 

GIS. The polygons are assigned a unique polygon ID, known 

as the GEOID, which is based upon a unique sequence number 

for each 7.5-minute quadrangle. Finally, the polygons are 

attributed with the correct three-dimensional stack-unit lithologies using the stack-map application. In Figure 1, these stack 

units are shown for the Peninsula, Ohio, 7.5-minute quadrangle. Once the GIS data are created for the project, they are 

given to a cartographer to create a finished print-on-demand 

map at 1:100,000 scale that the public can purchase.

The ODGS program to map the surficial geology began 

in 1997. To date, the ODGS has mapped 17 of the thirty-four 

30 x 60-minute quadrangles covering the State of Ohio (Figure 

2). Each year, a 1:100,000-scale quadrangle is selected 

for mapping and four to five geologists are assigned to the 

task. At the beginning of the program, the geologists mapping the 1:100,000-scale quadrangle used traditional techniques, such as drawing the map units onto Mylar overlays and 

using paper topographic base maps. In the last few years, 

there has been a transition from using traditional techniques 

to using a mixture of traditional and GIS techniques. This 

paper describes the first GIS tools developed to assist automating the stack-mapping process in a GIS environment. These 

tools allow for the more rapid mapping of surficial geology in 

three dimensions.

GIS TOOLS

Stick Figure Application

In order to create the stack-unit polygons, many different 

sources of information are used. The most abundant source 

is the water-well logs from the Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water (Jones and Barrett, 2007). To 

help the geologist interpret and map the stratigraphy for the 

stack units, a VBA application for ArcMap was written that 

draws a stratigraphic column for selected water wells based on 

the lithology information from the water-well logs. In this 

3-D mapping program, these stratigraphic columns are called 

stick-figures. Stick figures changes an overwhelming amount 

of written lithology information into a more easily decipherable set of colorized graphics which speeds interpretation.

To create stick-figure stratigraphic columns, a geologist 

selects a series of wells using the native Selection Set tool 

in ArcMap (Figure 3). Once the desired wells have been 

selected, the geologist activates the Stick-Figure application, which draws a stratigraphic column for each well. The 

geologist can then begin to use these stratigraphic columns as 

an aid in the delineation of the stack-unit polygons. Before 

this application was created, four geologists required approximately twelve weeks to transcribe lithologic records from 

water wells and draw the stick-figures. Using this application, the amount of time necessary to create the stick figures 

has decreased to approximately 1 week. Most of this time 

is spent on generating the stick-figures for each 7.5-minute 

quadrangle, removing stick-figures for wells with suspect 

information, removing stick-figures in areas of dense drilling to improve readability and interpretation, and plotting the 

7.5-minute quadrangles. 

The creation of stick figures utilizes the one-to-many 

relationship between a water-well location and the water-well 

lithology table. During the drilling of a water well, one 

or more lithologies are encountered downhole; in the database, this is managed as a one-to-many relationship. This 

is illustrated in Figure 4, whereby a water well has been 

selected and the corresponding lithology records of the water 

well are displayed in a separate table. The upper table is 

the feature-attribute table of the water-well location, showing the selected record of the water well (near the bottom 

left of the map). The other table is the water-well lithology 

table, which shows the five stratigraphic records related to 

the selected water-well location. In the geodatabase, there 

is a feature class for the water wells, a table for the lithologic 

descriptions, and a relationship class. The relationship class 

provides the link for the one-to-many relationship between the 

water wells and the table of lithologic descriptions. The primary key between the water well feature class and the lithology table is the WELL_LOG_N field, which is the unique 

identification number for the water wells. During execution 

of the stick-figure application, the VBA code cycles through 

all of the selected water wells and identifies the corresponding 

lithologic units that are associated with each selected waterwell location. The VBA application then builds graphic 

polygons at the location of the water well. The polygon has 

a constant width and the height is defined as the along-hole 

depth of the lithologic unit encountered during the drilling of 

the water well. The application creates a stack of polygons 

that represent the lithology encountered during drilling of the 

water well.

The polygons are symbolized based on a lookup field. 

The original lithologic descriptions provided by the waterwell drillers were reclassified into eight standard lithologies 

that can be displayed by the stick-figure polygons. These 
GIS Tools for 3-D Surficial Mapping in Ohio 111

Figure 1. Map showing the surficial geology of the Peninsula Quadrangle, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties, Ohio. The topmost unit 

is symbolized, by color. Till units are colored green (T), Ice-contact units are colored orange (IC), Lake clay units are colored tan 

(LC), Alluvium and Organic units are colored blue (A and O), Sand and gravel units are colored dark blue (SG), and sandstones of the 

Pennsylvanian Pottsville Group are colored purple (Ss).
112 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 2. Map showing the completed 1:100,000-scale 3D surficial geology mapping in Ohio. This figure shows the topmost surficial 

geologic units, and can be compared to the Quaternary Geology Map of Ohio (Pavey and others, 1999) to show the similarities and 

differences between the two mapping techniques. The red line is the generalized glacial boundary in Ohio.
GIS Tools for 3-D Surficial Mapping in Ohio 113

Figure 3. Selected water wells whose lithologic column is generated using the Stick-Figure Application. Colors in the stick 

figures represent various lithologies. Length of the stick figures corresponds to depth of the well, with deeper wells resulting in 

longer stick figures.

lithologies include clay, silt, sand, gravel, diamict, peat/muck, 

soil, and bedrock. These reclassified values are stored in 

a reclassification lookup field. The VBA application reads 

the value from the reclassification field, and then assigns the 

appropriate color and symbol pattern to the polygon. The 

entire process takes about 1 minute for a few thousand wells 

found in a quadrangle.

For each stick figure, the graphics polygons are grouped 

together so they can be moved and placed cartographically 

on the map. In some areas the density of water well drilling 

is very high, particularly in urban areas. In these areas, the 

density of the stick-figures can make it almost impossible to 

read and interpret them. At any time, a geologist can delete 

individual stick figures, reselect individual well locations 

and generate new stick figures, all of which can improve the 

readability of the map. This ability also allows the geologist 

to omit from consideration, and from display, those well logs 

found to contain unreliable information.

Stack Map Application

Currently, the stack-map process requires both GIS software and traditional methods of drawing the polygon boundaries using pen, paper, and Mylar. Once the maps have been 

drawn using traditional methods, the maps are then digitized 

into the GIS database. Finally, the stack-map application 

is used to attribute the newly digitized polygons in the GIS 

database.
114 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 4. Example of the one-to-many relationship between the water-well location and the water-well log table. The well log 

record (upper table) is linked by WELL_LOG_N to the lithologies encountered downhole (lower table). The selected well is in the lower 

left-hand corner.

The stack-map application consists of three different toolbars in ArcMap; each toolbar has a number of different tools 

(Figure 5). The first toolbar is Surface Geology; it is used 

to attribute the surface-geology polygons and their associated 

one-to-many relationship lithology table. The second toolbar, Geology Annotation Editing, is used to label the surface 

geology polygons by reading the associated one-to-many 

relationship lithology table and creating the stacked text labels 

shown on the map. The third toolbar, Geology Query, is 

used to create custom queries using the one-to-many relationship lithology table. 

The primary tool used to list and edit the lithology 

attributes is the Edit Surface Geology tool on the Surface 

Geology toolbar (Figure 6). By selecting the tool and then 

selecting the desired polygon, different forms will appear 

that will either list the stack-unit lithologies in stratigraphic 

order or allow the GIS user to attribute one or more of the 

stack-units for the selected surface-geology polygon. In figure 

6, the selected surface-geology polygon has been attributed, 

and the Edit Surface Geology tool will activate the List 

Stack Lithologies form. This form lists all the stack-unit 

lithologies and the name of the GIS user who has edited the 

stack-unit lithology and the date and time the last edit has 

occurred. The name of the GIS user and the date and time 

of the last edit are a form of feature-level metadata. This 

feature level metadata are stored in the database and is currently used for project-management quality control of the GIS 

conversion and editing.

Similar to the relationship between the stick-figure stratigraphic columns and the lithology table, the surface-geology 
GIS Tools for 3-D Surficial Mapping in Ohio 115

Figure 5. The three toolbars of the stack-map application: The Surface Geology toolbar, the Geology Annotation Editing toolbar, and 

the Geology Query toolbar. 

polygon and the lithology table is a one-to-many relationship 

(Figure 7). The upper table is the feature-attribute table of 

the surface-geology polygon, showing the selected record of 

the selected polygon. The other table is the lithology table, 

showing the four records related to the selected surface-geology polygon.

To edit any of the stack-unit lithologies, the Surface 

Geology Input form is used (Figure 8). This form is 

accessed automatically if a surface-geology polygon has not 

been attributed, or it can be accessed through a command 

button (“Update...”) on the List Stack Lithologies form (see 

Figure 6). Once the form has been activated, the GIS user 

can select the stack-unit sequence number, select a new lithology, input the thickness of the stack-unit and, optionally, select 

a unit modifier for the stack unit. In this figure, the topmost 

unit is being edited (Layer 1). The lithology is till (T), thickness is 40 feet, and the minus sign modifier indicates that this 

is the maximum thickness for the unit.

The labels for the surface-geology polygons can be 

placed using the Geology Annotation Editing toolbar (Figure 

9). This toolbar uses the Annotation Editing tool along with 

a custom Add Lithology Annotation tool to place the labels 

for the polygons. The GIS user first turns on the annotation editing using the Annotation Editing tool. Next, they 

select the Add Lithology Annotation tool and then select the 

surface-geology polygon to be labeled. The custom Add 

Lithology Annotation tool, using the GEOID for the polygon, reads the related records for the polygon in the lithology table. The tool then finds the center of the polygon, 

builds the text and separating lines for the label in correct 
116 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 6. The Edit Surface Geology tool, and its List Stack Lithologies display. Polygon selected is in the right side of the figure and 

is outlined in a bold green line and has a hatchured interior.

stratigraphic order, and then snaps the label to the center of 

the polygon. Placing the label semi-automatically in the 

polygons, which can number between 1,500 to 2,000 per 30 x 

60-minute quadrangle, creates significant time savings.

Query Toolbar

Complex queries can be generated using the Lithology Query toolbar, which has two tools within its dropdown 

menu. The first tool, shown on the left side of the toolbar in 

Figure 10, can select polygons that have one type of lithology 

overtop another type of lithology. The second tool, which 

is not shown in Figure 10, can select polygons that have a 

combination of thicknesses and lithologies overlying one 

another. In Figure 10, a query was generated for Sand and 

Gravel (SG) overlying Lake Clays (LC). The selected polygons are then highlighted in red. The query tools allow for 

easy extraction of specific data for a map area and allow the 

user to transition data from a surficial-geology map to a more 

user-specific derivative map that a layperson can comprehend.

The Lithology Query toolbar has been set up to perform 

some very simple queries. The query tools use the depth 

sequence ID number to identify the stack-unit sequence 
GIS Tools for 3-D Surficial Mapping in Ohio 117

Figure 7. Example of the one-to-many relationship between the surface-geology polygon and the lithology table.

with depth. For the first query, one type of lithology above 

another, the SQL SELECT WHERE clause is 

WHERE (LITH = “1st Lithology” AND LITH = “2nd

Lithology”) and (SEQID of 1st Lithology > SEQID of 2nd

Lithology)

This SQL statement identifies stack-unit polygons that 

have both 1st Lithology and 2nd Lithology, and where the 1st

Lithology overlies the 2nd Lithology. One disadvantage of 

this type of query is that it will also identify multiple-selected 

lithologic records within a polygon of 1st Lithology overlying 

the 2nd Lithology. For example, take a stack-unit polygon 

that has a lithologic sequence from the surface of till, sand, 

lake clay, till, sand, and bedrock. If a query was generated 

to identify till over sand, the SQL query above will select both 

till over sand units. The query will select multiple units and 

can not specify as to which till over sand unit we would like 

to select. Future enhancements of this type of query and 

the VBA code must be modified to refine the query for depth, 

thickness, and the selection of a single lithologic record 

per polygon.
118 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 8. The Surface Geology Input form for the top layer (1) containing a lithology of till (T), a thickness of 40 feet, and a modifier of 

minus (-) meaning maximum thickness.
GIS Tools for 3-D Surficial Mapping in Ohio 119

Figure 9. The Geology Annotation Editing toolbar. This toolbar contains the Annotation Editing tool and the custom Add Lithology 

Annotation tool.
120 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 10. The Lithology Query toolbar with areas of sand and gravel (SG) overlying lake clay (LC) selected and outlined in red.
GIS Tools for 3-D Surficial Mapping in Ohio 121

CONCLUSIONS

Three new GIS applications have been created for the 

3-D stack-unit mapping program at the Ohio Geological 

Survey. Two GIS applications are used to assist with the 

stack-unit mapping. The stick-figure application is used 

to draw stratigraphic columns of boreholes, adjacent to the 

location of the borehole. The stratigraphic columns are then 

used to delineate the subsurface polygons on the stack-units 

maps. The second application is used to attribute the oneto-many relationships between the polygons and the related 

attribute table; it also is used to edit and label the stack-unit 

polygons. These two applications have greatly increased the 

productivity of the geologists, reducing the amount of time 

it takes to produce a map. The third application queries the 

stack-unit polygons, allowing geologists to perform map analysis and to ask questions using the GIS database. The query 

tools are a first generation attempt to provide answers to typical questions that might be asked of the GIS database. These 

query tools will form the basis of future derivative mapping at 

the ODGS. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank J.D. Overton, ESRI, Inc., for 

providing the initial software programming for the Stack Map 

application toolbars.

REFERENCES

Jones, A.W., and Barrett, K.A., 2007, Building a water well 

database for GIS analysis, in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital 

Mapping Techniques ’06 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1285, p. 27-33, 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1285/pdf/Jones.

pdf.

Kempton, J.P., 1981, Three-dimensional geologic mapping for 

environmental studies in Illinois: Illinois State Geological 

Survey Environmental Geology Notes 100, 43 p.

Pavey, R.R., Goldthwait, R.P., Brockman, C.S., Hull, D.N., 

Swinford, E.M., and Van Horn, R.G., 1999, Quaternary 

geology of Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey Map 

2, scale 1:500,000.

Swinford, E.M., Pavey, R.R., and Larsen, G.R., 2007, New 

map of the surficial geology of the Lorain and Put-In-Bay 

30 x 60 minute quadrangles, Ohio, in Soller, D.R., ed., 

Digital Mapping Techniques ’06 – Workshop Proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1285, p. 

177-182, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1285/pdf/

Swinford.pdf.

Venteris, E.R., 2007, Qualitative and quantitative 3D modeling 

of surficial materials at multiple scales, in Soller, D.R., ed., 

Digital Mapping Techniques ’06 – Workshop Proceedings: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1285, p. 

129-149, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1285/pdf/

Venteris.pdf.

Mapping Potential Geologic Hazards for Proposed 

Highway Construction Projects in Pennsylvania: Route 15 

in Lycoming County

By Stuart O. Reese, P.G.

Pennsylvania Geological Survey

3240 Schoolhouse Road

Middletown, PA 17057

Telephone: (717) 702-2028

Fax: (717) 702-2065

email: streese@state.pa.us

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the Pennsylvania Geological Survey has 

worked on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to develop maps for specific highway 

construction projects. The purpose of these maps is to identify 

potential geologic hazards such as landslides, sinkholes, mineralization, historic deep mines, acid drainage, and groundwater conditions. Map layers have included aerial imagery, 

digital elevation model (DEM) datasets, digital raster graphics 

(DRGs), bedrock units and their contacts, surficial and structural geology features, mapped landslides, glacial boundaries, 

and water well locations. Possible issues are described in 

the accompanying poster for the proposed construction zones 

(Figure 1). The current example is a proposed Interstate 99 

upgrade of existing U. S. Route 15 in Lycoming County, 

Pennsylvania. 

BACKGROUND

At PennDOT’s request, the Pennsylvania Geological Survey has provided overviews of potential geologic hazards for 

proposed construction projects. Prior to this, PennDOT had 

encountered numerous unexpected geologic complexities that 

cost hundreds of millions of dollars in additional construction 

and environmental mitigation costs. Examples include major 

sinkholes that plagued bridge repair and adjacent new bridge 

construction over Bushkill Creek in Northampton County; a 

large sulfide deposit (known to the geologic community) that 

created lengthy delays and expensive remediation measures 

for Interstate 99 in Centre County; and, in Mifflin County, 

acidic drainage from uncovered Marcellus Shale (a black shale 

with approximately 3 percent sulfur) that had to be mitigated.

The current project is situated in north-central Pennsylvania in the Deep Valleys section of the Appalachian Plateaus 

physiographic province in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. 

Section C41 of U.S. Route 15 is located from north of Trout 

Run to the Village of Buttonwood in the “Steam Valley” 

area of Cogan House and Lewis Townships. The improved 

highway corridor will become part of Interstate 99, the Appalachian Thruway. This requires an upgrade of the 4 1/2 mile 

Steam Valley section (C41) to a four-lane limited access highway that meets current design standards comparable to adjacent sections of U.S. 15. Construction is estimated to begin in 

fall 2007 (pending the availability of funds). At the time this 

paper was written, right-of-way appraisals were completed and 

acquisitions and negotiations nearly finished.

MAP USAGE AND PREPARATION

The map represents information that we recommend to 

be considered during the construction of the highway. It also 

represents the Pennsylvania Geological Survey’s collective 

knowledge of the location’s geology and its potential hazards. 

The process of gathering this knowledge for a report begins 

with a geologic literature search.

The starting point for the map was a digitized version 

of the proposed highway realignment. The geologic map 

portrays the underlying bedrock and surficial geology of 

the region. Mapped landslide locations, glacial boundaries, and groundwater points of information were included. 

Text descriptions of potential hazards were added to the 
124 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

map. A base map using PAMAP imagery was tried but not 

used because it was more detailed than the presentation scale 

selected for this geologic hazard map (scale 1:24,000). Ultimately a transparent hillshade layer derived from the 10-meter 

DEM data was used over a seamless DRG layer as the base. 

To generate the map, ESRI ArcInfo ver. 9.2 software was used.

Figure 1. Mapping potential geologic hazards for proposed highway construction projects in Pennsylvania: Route 15 in Lycoming County 

(presented as a poster; see full-resolution image at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/dmt/docs/reese07.pdf).

CONSIDERATIONS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is a summary of geologic issues that were 

identified on the map. Regarding the bedrock geology, the 

C41 section is almost entirely underlain by Upper Devonian 

Catskill Formation. These rocks are dominated by interbedded 

and alternating red and gray sandstones, siltstones, shales, and 

mudstones. The rocks are arranged in fining-upward cycles 

from gray sandstones through red mudstones. The Catskill 

Formation is overlain by the Huntley Mountain Formation. 

For the most part, the C41 section occurs within the Catskill 

Formation, though a portion of the highway at the north end 

intersects the Huntley Mountain Formation.

The major issue for this area is terrain stability, with 

shallow groundwater as an additional, related consideration. 

Minor issues include potential mineralization in channel lag 

deposits in the Catskill rocks, and a possible contribution 

to instability by Wisconsinan glacial deposits. Delano and 

Wilshusen (1999) classified the area as a “high-susceptibility” 

zone of landslide occurrence. Moist and saturated shales and 
Mapping Potential Hazards for Highway Construction Projects 125

mudstones sequences on steep slopes may form landslides. 

Instability and landsliding in the colluvium also may occur. 

Steep valley slopes with high vertical relief have the potential 

to form rock falls where interbedded sandstones create ledges, 

in contrast to undercutting into the underlying mudstones and 

shales. Jointing perpendicular to bedding can enhance this 

potential. Previous landslides typically occurred on northfacing slopes. Mapped landslides are included on the geologic 

map along with a note that other, unmapped landslides may be 

present.

In the Catskill Formation of north-central Pennsylvania, 

localized enrichments of copper and uranium in paleochannel 

lag deposits may exist. Such lag deposits also may contain 

elevated concentrations of trace elements of arsenic, lead, 

and silver, and may contain pyrite nodules (Smith and Hoff, 

1984). Wisconsinan glaciation penetrated the valleys of both 

the southern and northern portions of the section including 

the Lycoming Creek valley past the village of Trout Run, and 

north of the village of Steam Valley.

The glacial deposits consist of discontinuous Quaternary 

Olean ground moraine, which is composed of a wide range of 

unsorted sediment types from clay and sand, to cobbles and 

boulders (collectively referred to as “till”). Till deposits have 

been mapped in these areas by Crowl and Sevon (1980); these 

deposits, if excavated, could be unstable, especially in areas 

where relatively high groundwater levels might be encountered. The median value of static water levels for all types of 

“valley” wells in the Catskill Formation of the Deep Valleys 

physiographic section was 20 feet (n = 116 wells; Fleeger and 

others, 2004). For 25 percent of these wells, the static water 

level was less than 11 feet below surface. Records for three 

water wells near the village of Trout Run show static water 

levels less than 20 feet. In areas with such high water tables, 

slope stability is impaired where the geologic materials are 

excavated.

On the map delivered to PennDOT, it was noted that 

“This map is not a substitute for site-specific subsurface tests 

and investigations.” The map included Pennsylvania bedrock 

geology units with geologic unit contacts that were widened to 

reflect the coarser precision at 1:24,000-scale. Geologic structure axes (e.g., folds) and measurements of their strike and dip 

were added to the map, based on internal data from an unpublished dataset of the Pennsylvania Geological Survey. For this 

area, folds are broad and dips rarely exceed 15 degrees. Most 

jointing is steeply dipping (70 degrees or more) and parallel or 

perpendicular to bedding. The late Wisconsinan glacial border 

was also portrayed. A shaded relief layer was used as derived 

from 10-meter DEM data for the Cogan Station, Salladasburg, 

Trout Run, and White Pine 7.5-minute quadrangles. DRGs 

for these quadrangles were used as the base layer for the map. 

Data showing the alignment of the highway centerlines were 

provided by a PennDOT consulting firm.

Digital and paper copies of the map were mailed to the 

Central and District offices of PennDOT. In a cover letter, we 

noted that our main concern was that new road construction 

might encounter some severe rockfall and landslide problems, 

based on the steepness and north-facing aspect of the slopes, 

the Catskill Formation’s propensity for jointing in the sandstone, its variable lithology and subsequent differential 

weathering properties, known historical landslides, the presence of colluvium, and the probable shallow water table along 

the slopes. We also noted the expectation of a new surficial 

geologic map for part of the area in late spring, and that within 

the next year, as part of the PAMAP program, we are expecting the delivery of LiDAR data for Lycoming County. This 

new data will provide for a DEM and 2-foot contour data sets, 

and may help to identify historical stability issues with other 

slopes in the area.

We are hopeful that such mapping products will alert 

the engineers and geotechnical participants to the potential 

hazards that might be encountered, and that such information 

will benefit not only the engineering participants but the entire 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks Michael Moore (Pennsylvania 

Geological Survey) for his helpful comments on the original 

manuscript. 

REFERENCES

ArcInfo, ArcGIS - Environmental Systems Research Institute, 

Inc., 380 New York St., Redlands, CA 92373-8100 USA, 

(909) 793-2853, http://www.esri.com/. 

Crowl, G.H., and Sevon, W.D., 1980, Glacial border deposits 

of the late Wisconsinan age in northeastern Pennsylvania: 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th Ser., General Geology 

Report 71, 68 p.

Delano, H.L., and Wilshusen, J.P., 1999, Landslide susceptibility in the Williamsport 1- by 2-degree quadrangle, 

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th Ser., 

Environmental Geology Report 9, 192 p.

Fleeger, G. M., McElroy, T. A., and Moore, M. E., 2004, 

Hydrogeologic and well-construction characteristics of the 

rocks of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 

4th Ser., Water Resources Report 69, Database (Microsoft 

Access 97 and 2000).

Smith, R.C., II, and Hoff, D.T., 1984, Geology and mineralogy 

of copper-uranium occurrences in the Picture Rocks and 

Sonestown quadrangles, Lycoming and Sullivan Counties, 

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th Ser., 

Mineral Resource Report 80, 271 p.

Old Mapping and New LiDAR......a Reality Check

By Thomas G. Whitfield

Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

3240 Schoolhouse Road

Middletown, PA 17057

Telephone: (717) 702-2017

Fax: (717) 702-2065

email: twhitfield@state.pa.us

ABSTRACT

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has begun a 

state-wide mapping program called PAMAP; this will be 

a new digital map of Pennsylvania, available as a seamless, consistent, high resolution set of digital, geospatial 

data products. PAMAP data are being compiled from new, 

high-resolution aerial orthoimagery, LiDAR (Light Distancing and Ranging) elevation data, and existing digital map data 

developed by state and federal agencies, counties, regional 

agencies, and municipalities. PAMAP is part of The National 

Map, a cooperative effort of the U. S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

One of the components of the PAMAP project is flying high resolution, 1:2400 scale, color orthoimagery on a 

four year cycle. The objective is to have maps and imagery 

available that are no more than four years out of date. More 

recently, LiDAR was added to the data acquisition flight 

contracts.

During the 2006 flight program, several counties that 

were contracted to be flown for orthoimagery also were flown 

for LiDAR as a test. One of the counties, Luzerne, had an 

ongoing STATEMAP cooperative mapping project. The 

surficial geology of the Harveys Lake 7.5-minute quadrangle 

had just been compiled using traditional mapping methods by 

a very experienced author, Dr. Duane D. Braun, professor of 

Geology at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Geological Survey (PAGS) obtained 

a beta version of the Luzerne County LiDAR DEMs (Digital 

Elevation Model) based on the “bare-earth” classified elevation points. These DEMs had not completed the Q/A process 

when this comparison was done so they may have some errors.

We decided to compile and print a raster hillshade of the 

Harveys Lake quadrangle from the DEMs and compare it to 

the surficial geology recently compiled. We also considered 

comparing the hillshade data-set to the bedrock geology of 

the area, but because this quadrangle has only three bedrock 

formations identified, 95% of which is the Devonian aged 

Catskill Formation (Dck), the resulting comparison would not 

have been too informative.

For the original poster shown at the DMT’07 meeting, 

we printed the DEM-derived hillshade on glossy photopaper. We then printed the surficial geology polygons on a 

clear mylar overlay. Figure 1 is a rendition of the poster, 

and shows the raster hillshade data-set and surficial geology 

overlay as a single image.

MAP PREPARATIONS

In mapping the Harveys Lake quadrangle, Braun used a 

variety of sources and methods. Soils maps, aerial photography, previously published and unpublished mapping efforts, 

and good old-fashioned field work were his main sources of 

data. Combinations of digital and analog methods were used 

to compile the digital data-sets into ESRI geodatabases.

The map overlay (refer to Figure 1), is a de-constructed 

map of surficial geology that is part of the PAGS Open File 

Series of Surficial Materials (OFSM) report for the Harveys 

Lake quadrangle. Normally, the surficial geology and supporting Digital Raster Graphic (DRG) files are printed on 

the map area. For the purposes of this demonstration, we 

printed the surficial geology and DRG on clear film to act as 

an overlay, dropping the colors for the mapped Bedrock (R) 

and Urban (U) areas just to show the glacial deposits and some 

obvious manmade disturbances. We then compiled a raster 

hillshade from the LiDAR DEMs using ESRI ArcGIS 9.2 and 

printed it with our HP 5500 UV plotter on HP Durable HighGloss photo paper.

For obvious reasons, we could not reproduce the clear 

film overlay in the PDF version of this poster, shown in Figure 

1. But, we did produce a reasonable facsimile. We took the 

same surficial geology data-set used in making the clear film 

overlay, set a 50% transparency, and applied it as a layer over 

the hillshade raster data-set. Some color changes were necessary so certain features would be visible against the grays of 
128 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

the hillshade. Although the visual effects are not as spectacular as described below, they do get the point across.

Figure 1. Old Mapping and New LiDAR........a Reality Check (presented as a poster; see full-resolution image at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/

Info/dmt/docs/whitfield07.pdf).

OBSERVATIONS

Our initial visual analysis was done on a light table. We 

placed the photo paper plot of the hillshade on the light table, 

and then laid the clear film plot of the surficial geology on 

top. The simulated 3-D appearance was stunning. The 

higher elevation hilltops are clearly shown, surrounded by the 

glacial deposits. The poster and PDF file’s attempt to illustrate this 3-D effect is good, but nothing like the backlighting 

of a light table.

At first glance, Braun did an excellent job mapping the 

surficial geology. The last advances of the Wisconsinan ice 

sheet were from the NNE with glacial striations ranging from 

S05°W to S30°W. Many of the preglacial valleys oriented 

parallel to ice flow are significantly scoured while valleys oriented perpendicular to ice flow would have the least scour and 

be the most back-filled, sometimes becoming completely buried. The overall glacial deposit pattern is one of ridges with 

a thin, discontinuous till mantle rising above valleys partly 

filled with 30 to more than 100 feet of glacial till. The many 

lakes, wetlands, and peat bogs are naturally formed by glacial 

activity, with many of the lakes dammed by piles of glacial 

till. As the glacial ice retreated to the northeast, drainage 

channels (sluiceways) from the ice margins opened up through 

the ridge tops. These sluiceway channels tend to follow 

the southwesterly curve of the Allegheny Front. Periglacial 

activity is also observed in the quadrangle including frostshattering of the bedrock ridges and mobilization of some of 

the glacial deposits by gelifluction. Modern day deposits of 

alluvium, alluvial fans and terraces are also influenced by the 

previous glacial activity (Braun 2007).

Looking carefully, the observer can see where the till 

was deposited as ice flowed down the valleys, and where the 
Old Mapping and New LiDAR......a Reality Check 129

topography influenced how other deposits were emplaced. In 

the northeastern corner (Figure 2) of the quad, one can see just 

how a meltwater sluiceway sliced through the ridge top. Just 

to the north and west, the hillshade shows another “gap” in a 

ridge top indicating another possible, but not mapped, sluiceway. Also notice how the bedrock outcrop ridges follow the 

ridge contours. Keep in mind that these ridges were mapped 

prior to LiDAR availability.

The rock pit (Rp) quarry in the southwest part of the 

quadrangle (Figure 3) is accurately placed, despite the lack of 

identifiable features on the original topographic map. One 

can also see some glacial outwash (Qwo) against the ridge 

on the southwest shore of Harveys Lake (Figure 4). In the 

northwestern corner of the quadrangle (Figure 5), on the 

eastern slope of Kocher Mountain, multiple level sluiceway 

benches can be observed descending east into the valley to its 

Figure 2. Just east of Harveys Lake, 

a glacial meltwater sluiceway cuts 

through a bedrock ridge. To the west 

and north, a higher elevation gap in 

the bedrock is exposed that could also 

be an unmapped, higher elevation 

sluiceway. Note another sluiceway 

just north and east.

Figure 3. In the southwest part of 

the quadrangle is a mapped rock 

pit (Rp) quarry. It was accurately 

placed despite the lack of identifiable 

landmarks on the topographic 

map. Note the high-wall mapped as 

a bedrock outcrop ledge. Settling 

ponds and possible associated 

possessing equipment areas are 

adjacent (south-southwest) to the 

quarry and mapped as Urban lands (U).
130 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 4. On a southwestern section 

of Harveys Lake, glacial water outflow 

deposited outwash (Qwo) over till 

(Qwt) before plunging through the 

gap into the next valley. Note the 

absence of till in the gap.

Figure 5. In the northwest area 

of the quadrangle, on the eastern 

slope of Kocher Mountain, there are 

multiple level sluiceway benches 

descending east into the valley to the 

floor. As the glacial meltwater levels 

decreased, new sluiceway paths were 

carved into the bedrock. On the 

opposite side of the valley (east), a till 

shadow exists. As glacial ice moved 

southwest over the mountain, as 

indicated by striation station number 

2 on top of the mountain, the glacier 

drops its load on the lee side of the 

mountain, while scouring the western 

(opposite) side of the valley. Kocher 

Mountain also has till shadows.
Old Mapping and New LiDAR......a Reality Check 131

floor. A till shadow on the opposite (eastern) side of the valley remains where the glacier dropped its load on the lee side 

of the mountain. LiDAR verifies each of these examples. 

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 

Overall, the LiDAR DEM hillshade rendering and the 

traditional surficial geologic mapping of the Harveys Lake 

quadrangle indicate that Braun (2007) did an excellent job 

of mapping the area. In fact, Braun was given a copy of 

the data presented here. He said he wished he had this data 

available while he was mapping. The LiDAR DEM hillshade 

has given him more insight not only to what glacial processes 

were involved in creating the Harveys Lake geomorphology, 

but on the regional processes involved. Braun is currently 

analyzing this LiDAR data-set, and in all probability will be 

making revisions and refinements to this map. If I may quote 

him, “There are so many things I missed.” Fortunately, GIS

data are easily revised when an author changes interpretations.

One of the biggest advantages of LiDAR derived DEMs 

is the level of detail of the ground surface. There is more 

detail than even the USGS 10-meter DEMs offered previously. They also have the distinct advantage of having all 

the vegetation, trees, buildings, etc., effectively filtered out 

and removed. Even in this very limited experiment, LiDAR 

has proven its worth as another valuable tool in a geologist’s 

arsenal. 

REFERENCE

Braun, D. D., 2007, Surficial geology of the Harveys Lake 

7.5-minute quadrangle: Luzerne County, Pennsylvania: 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th series, Open-File 

Report OFSM 07-08.0, 19 p., Portable Document Format 

(PDF), available at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/.

DNAG Geologic Map of North America GIS 

Implementation: Overview and Progress

By Christopher P. Garrity and David R. Soller

U.S. Geological Survey

National Center, MS 956

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

Telephone: (703) 648-6426

Fax: (703) 648-6419

email: {cgarrity, drsoller}@usgs.gov

PURPOSE1

When plans for the Geologic Map of North America 

(GMNA) were being made, the notion of geologic map databases was in its infancy. At that time, and for many years 

thereafter, few geologists were familiar with the design and 

use of databases to manage geologic map information. In 

1998, the Geological Society of America (GSA) and the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Geologic 

Map Database project agreed to cost-share the digital preparation of this map. The plan was to digitize the hand-drawn, 

author-prepared geologic compilations for the four map quadrants, in order to provide digital data for two purposes: (1) to 

allow GSA to print the map, and (2) to permit the National 

Geologic Map Database project to develop a prototype database for this map. When the map was printed, the National 

Geologic Map Database project began to design and implement the GMNA for use in a Geographic Information System 

(GIS), based on certain assumptions regarding the anticipated 

content of, and uses for, the map database as it gradually 

evolved from the printed map. In mid-2006, a GIS prototype of the GMNA (Garrity and Soller, 2006) was provided 

to the organizations principally responsible for map compilation (GSA, USGS, Geological Survey of Canada, and Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institute), in order to initiate discussion 

and decisions on how the map database would be designed, 

managed, and served to the public and cooperators. These 

discussions were successfully concluded, and in 2007 construction of the database began. The first version of this database will contain the geologic information observable from 

the printed map and accompanying explanation sheet. It will 

serve as the fundamental entity from which products of the 

1

 Modified from Soller, in Reed et al. (2005)

map can then be derived. These products may be interpretive, 

or they may be future editions of the map.

To produce any future editions of the map, the database 

will incorporate all map revisions that are necessitated by 

detection of compilation errors and by new regional mapping 

and interpretations. Further, the geologic unit descriptions 

shown on the printed map can be supplemented in the database 

by more richly attributed information derived from the many 

sources that were used to compile the map. This capability 

to revise the printed map and to include additional descriptive information for map units is one of the primary reasons 

for building the database; the other reason is, of course, the 

analytical capabilities made possible by providing the map in a 

digital, GIS compatible format.

The creation of this database and its enhancement to 

include new mapping and more richly attributed information 

is a daunting task that will require a significant amount of 

time and effort. Recognizing that a group of dedicated and 

knowledgeable scientists is essential to make this database 

useful and to keep its content up to date, GSA will develop a 

consortium of geological agencies to manage the database.

DATABASE DESIGN

The design of this first version of the GMNA database 

reflects the information structure of the printed map. As the 

database evolves, data attributes will be modified to make 

the database more comprehensive and useful. Also, future 

versions of the GMNA database may incorporate elements 

of the North American Data Model (http://nadm-geo.org/) 

and be harmonized in content with the International Geological Map of Europe (http://www.bgr.de/karten/IGME5000/

igme5000.htm). Figure 1 shows the geologic features found 
134 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 1. Features of the geologic map of North America grouped by feature geometry type.

on the printed GMNA, and how they are generally organized 

in the database. Figure 2 specifies the organization of these 

features in the ESRI Geodatabase structure.

GEOLOGIC UNIT ATTRIBUTES

For this first version of the database, we strove to capture 

the information exactly as it was depicted in the GMNA 

explanation sheet that accompanies the published map. For 

geologic map units, the database’s attribute list includes:
DNAG Geologic Map of North America 135

Figure 2. Database design of the Geologic Map of North America. Primary bracket includes feature datasets, secondary bracket 

includes features classes, tertiary and quaternary brackets include feature class subtypes.

• ROCKTYPE – the “top level” rock classification (sedimentary, plutonic, volcanic, metamorphic).

• LITHOLOGY – the simplified description included 

for each geologic unit on the explanation sheet of the 

GMNA.

• ROCK_UNIT_NOTE – special notes associated 

with certain units on the explanation sheet of the 

GMNA. For example, selected volcanic rocks are 

attributed “Basalt adjacent to active spreading centers”, 

selected metamorphic rocks are attributed “Granulate 

facies metamorphism”, and selected sedimentary rocks 

are attributed “Continental deposits”.

• UNIT_UNCERTAINTY – a query following the map 

unit code indicates uncertainty about composition, or 

whether the rock was recovered in situ from the ocean 

bottom.

• MIN_AGE – minimum geologic age for the unit. Subdivisions of time-stratigraphic units are lower, middle, 

and upper (lower-case), and for plutonic rocks are Early, 

Middle, and Late

• MAX_AGE – see comments for MIN_AGE.

• MIN_AGE_CODE – code derived from the geologic 

age codes defined by the AAPG Committee on Standard 

Coding (1967) 

• MAX_AGE_CODE – see comments for MIN_AGE_

CODE.

• AGE_UNCERTAINTY – a query preceding the map 

unit label indicates uncertainty about the assigned age.

• MAP_UNIT_CODE – the GMNA map unit code

• MIN_MAX_RELATE – the relationship (“and”, “or”, 

“thru”) between the MIN/MAX ages of units bounded 

by multiple ages. 
136 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

PROCESSING STEPS

The following steps are taken to process the source 

digital files into the GMNA database:

1. Adobe Illustrator files containing linework used for 

the hard copy production of the Geologic Map of 

North America (GMNA) were obtained from USGS 

cartographers in Reston, VA. The two (northern and 

southern) Illustrator source files were massive, with layer 

counts totaling over 1,500 each.

2. Files were analyzed to determine if direct import 

of the entire Adobe Illustrator file to ArcGIS was 

possible. When observed at scales far more detailed 

than that of the printed map, the files showed numerous 

areas where problems in topological relationships existed. 

Common topological problems in these areas included 

polygons that overlapped or had gaps between them, 

overlying line layers (contacts, faults, etc.) which were 

not coincident with polygon boundaries, and line features 

that self-overlapped. Topological errors were estimated in 

the hundreds of thousands. 

3. To avoid the time consuming process of correcting each 

topological error due to the direct import of all features 

from Adobe Illustrator to ArcGIS, only the non-geologic 

contact linework coincident with geologic unit boundaries 

was imported. For attribution purposes, each line type 

(inferred thrust fault, concealed thrust fault, etc.) was 

imported to ArcGIS individually. 

4. The remaining linework (geologic contacts) was isolated 

in Adobe Illustrator and exported as a series of highresolution (~600-1200 dpi) monochrome raster tiles. 

Export at lower resolutions resulted in “blobbing” of 

raster cells in areas where very intricate linework existed, 

making them undesirable for auto-vectorization purposes.

5. When computer generated graticules plotted on stable 

base media were overlain on the printed version of the 

GMNA, unsystematic registration shifts at latitudelongitude intersections were observed throughout the 

printed version of the GMNA. Although shrinking/

swelling of base media may have contributed to the 

registration inconsistency, it is more likely that error was 

introduced in the numerous iterations (and numerous 

technological changes in cartographic production) of the 

GMNA over its twenty year history of compilation. As 

a result, the monochrome tiles exported from Adobe 

Illustrator had to be rubber sheeted to local geographic 

coordinate positions using control points in the DNAG 

projection (Snyder, 1987). 

6. Georeferenced monochrome images were auto-vectorized 

using ArcScan. Gaps and overlaps between tiles due to 

rubber sheeting were rectified via raster painting tools.

7. Topology rules were set in ArcMap and line dangles in the 

newly vectorized layer were snapped to the nearest unitbordering line features imported in process step 3. This 

resulted in a topologically clean layer. 

8. Individual geologic unit layers were batch exported from 

Adobe Illustrator and used to overlay the feature class 

created in step 7. Through spatial querying, polygons 

in the new layer that had their center within a specific 

overlay layer were attributed based on the overlay’s 

geologic unit abbreviation.

9. Remaining attribution for all other fields was completed 

quickly through VBA field calculator scripting based on 

the populated unit abbreviation field.

10. Feature class symbolization was created to closely 

resemble the printed version of the GMNA. Feature class 

symbology was exported to layer files.

REFERENCES

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Committee 

on Standard Coding, George V. Cohee, Chairman, 1967, 

Standard stratigraphic code adopted by AAPG: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 51, no. 10, 

p. 2146-2150.

Garrity, C.P., and Soller, D.R., 2006, Prototype GIS Database 

for the DNAG Geologic Map of North America, in D.R. 

Soller, ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’06 – Workshop 

Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2007-1285, p. 197-201, accessed at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2007/1285/pdf/Garrity.pdf.

Reed, J.C. Jr., Wheeler, J.O., and Tucholke, J.E., compilers, 

2004, Geologic Map of North America: Decade of North 

American Geology Continental Scale Map 001, Boulder, 

Geological Society of America, scale 1:5,000,000, 

accessed at http://rock.geosociety.org/bookstore/default.

asp?oID=0&catID=2&pID=CSM001F.

Reed, J.C. Jr., Wheeler, J.O., and Tucholke, B.E., 2005, 

Geologic Map of North America—Perspectives and 

explanation: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of 

America, Decade of North American Geology, 28 p.

Snyder, J.P., 1987, Map projections—a working manual: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1395, 383 p.

Soller, D.R., 2005, Digital Database, in Reed, J.C. Jr., 

Wheeler, J.O., and Tucholke, B.E., Geologic Map of North 

America—Perspectives and explanation: Boulder, Colorado, 

Geological Society of America, Decade of North American 

Geology, p. 20.
Compilation and Production of the 1:500,000-scale 

Geologic Map of Washington State, and Some Aspects of 

1:24,000-scale Map Production at the Washington Division 

of Geology and Earth Resources

By J. Eric Schuster, Charles G. Caruthers, Anne C. Heinitz, and Karen D. Meyers

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Division of Geology and Earth Resources

1111 Washington St. SE

PO Box 47007

Olympia, WA 98504

Telephone: (360) 902-1455

Fax: (360) 902-1785

email: charles.caruthers@dnr.wa.gov

The 1:500,000-scale Geologic Map of Washington State 

(Schuster, 2005) presents the geology of Washington State at 

a scale that allows the entire state to be shown on one sheet 

of reasonable size (Figure 1). It is the first new 1:500,000-

scale geologic map of Washington published since 1961, 

and is intended primarily for wall display. Map compilation 

involved both digital and hard-copy sources, and production 

was entirely digital (Figure 2).

DIGITAL CAPTURE OF THE SOURCE 

DATA

This map was compiled from four 1:250,000-scale 

geologic maps, each covering a quadrant of Washington State 

(Walsh and others, 1987; Stoffel and others, 1991; Schuster 

and others, 1997; Dragovich and others, 2002). Much of the 

data presented on the 1:500,000-scale map was compiled and 

published at 1:100,000 and 1:250,000 scales before the Division began using digital methods. Three of the four quadrants 

(southwest, northeast, and southeast) of Washington State 

were compiled at 1:250,000 scale from open-filed 1:100,000-

scale geologic maps using manual and photographic methods. 

The 1:100,000-scale geologic maps were reduced photographically to 1:250,000 scale, and the authors simplified them to a 

level of complexity suitable for presentation at 1:250,000 scale 

by combining geologic units with different formal or informal 

names, but with the same geologic age and general lithology. 

These maps were manually registered to a 1:250,000-scale 

mylar grid and used as masters for scribing the faults, folds, 

contacts, and other features. The scribecoats and peelcoats 

became original materials for the photographic preparation of 

composite negatives from which printer’s press plates for the 

published 1:250,000-scale maps were made. The scale-stable 

and other materials from this process became the source documents for digitizing and attributing arcs, points, and polygons 

at 1:250,000 scale. Digitizing for the southwest, northeast, 

and southeast quadrants was done in ESRI ArcInfo 8.3 on a 

backlit digitizing table.

The northwest quadrant was prepared using digital methods from 1:100,000-scale geologic quadrangle maps prepared 

by Division and U.S. Geological Survey geologists. Some 

of these maps were produced using manual methods, while 

others were produced digitally; those that were not created 

digitally were digitized in ArcInfo. The digital data for all 

1:100,000-scale maps in the northwest quadrant were then 

appended and simplified by merging geologic polygons of the 

same age and lithologic range. Line and point features were 

simplified on-screen, as guided by the authors. The resulting 

ArcInfo coverages were used to produce the published map of 

the northwest 1:250,000-scale quadrant and, eventually, in the 

compilation of the 1:500,000-scale map.

These procedures resulted in several ArcInfo 8.3 coverages for each of the four 1:250,000-scale quadrants of Washington State. These four groups of ArcInfo coverages were 

appended and converted to shapefiles in ArcGIS 9.0, and the 

geology was simplified for publication at 1:500,000 scale.
138 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

Figure 1. Geologic Map of Washington State (presented at DMT’07 as a poster; see high-resolution image at 

http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/dmt/schuster07b.pdf).

SIMPLIFICATION OF THE SOURCE 

DATA

Simplification of the 1:250,000-scale geologic information was an iterative process with the goal of producing 

1:500,000-scale geologic data that is easy to read everywhere on the map. Small water polygons were eliminated 

early-on, as were the shortest faults, folds, and dikes. Then 

the 1:250,000-scale map units were lumped into units with 

broader age and lithologic ranges. In two iterations the number of map units were decreased from about 400 at 1:250,000 

scale to 53 at 1:500,000 scale. The original labels for units 

that were to be lumped were changed to the new label, and 

then a dissolve was performed on the polygons to create one 

polygon. Some remaining areas were too complex and not 

clearly legible, so additional small polygons were deleted 

unless they were important for defining the extent of a map 

unit. Small polygons in close proximity to each other were 

manually combined into larger polygons, which involved 

snapping arcs together to make the outline of the new polygon, 

building the coverage, running a label error check, and deleting any extra labels. Some faults, folds, and dikes in crowded 

areas were deleted as well.

MAP PRODUCTION

Shapefiles were imported into Adobe Illustrator using the 

Avenza MAPublisher plug-in. MAPublisher provided access 

to line and polygon attributes in order to assign line types 

for contacts, faults, and folds, as well as geologic unit labels 

and colors for geologic polygons. However, line ornaments 

needed to be placed directly into Illustrator as EPS files generated by ArcInfo, because we do not have the ability to ornament arcs through MAPublisher and Adobe Illustrator so that 

the ornaments can be displayed satisfactorily for publication.

The legend for the Washington 1:500,000-scale geologic 

map contains a useful detail found on the recently-published 

Pennsylvania statewide geologic map (Miles, 2003); that is, a 

small index map next to each geologic unit description in the 

legend shows the distribution of that unit. An ArcInfo AML is 

used to generate the state outline for this legend icon. Within 

each legend icon, the locations of each geologic feature are 

plotted by AML cursors. Because of the small size of the legend icons, each geologic polygon is represented as a dot, positioned at its centroid. Glaciers and ice fields, tectonic zones, 

dikes, dike swarms, and eruptive centers are represented in the 

legend in similar fashion. Finally, the AML saves the legend 

as an EPS file, to be loaded into Illustrator. This map won 
Compilation and Production of the 1:500,000-scale Geologic Map of Washington State 139

Figure 2. Compilation and production of the 1:500,000-scale Geologic Map of Washington State (presented at DMT’07 as a poster; see 

high-resolution image at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/dmt/schuster07a.pdf).
140 Digital Mapping Techniques ‘07

both Best Map of 2005 and Best Geologic Map in the Avenza 

2005 MAPublisher Map Competition. Additional information 

is provided on the DMT’07 poster, at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/

Info/dmt/schuster07b.pdf.

SOME ASPECTS OF 1:24,000-SCALE 

MAP PRODUCTION

Each year, under the U.S. Geological Survey STATEMAP 

program, we produce new 1:24,000-scale geologic maps of 

7.5-minute quadrangles in Washington. We use a variety of 

software to make our maps: ArcInfo, ArcGIS, MAPublisher, 

Adobe Illustrator, CorelDraw, and Adobe InDesign. In the 

course of map production, we have developed several map 

production tools that may be useful to others producing similar 

products.

We have developed two Python scripts for use in ArcGIS 

that you may find useful (see Figure 2):

• Some point files, such as strike and dip, require 

symbols to be rotated. The rotation angle is typically 

recorded as the compass angle (zero = north; increasing clockwise). Illustrator, however, uses the arithmetic angle (zero = east; increasing counterclockwise). 

Python script calculate_plotangle.py converts the compass angle to an arithmetic angle, which MAPublisher 

uses to interpret the correct strike orientation. Both 

the original compass angle and the resulting arithmetic 

angle are stored as attributes.

• Because of their projection, georeferenced maps are 

usually tilted, but for publishing purposes they are 

rotated into an upright position. Python script calculate_rotation_angle.py calculates the quad boundary 

rotation angle and stores it as an attribute in the boundary file. After importing shape layers into Illustrator 

via MAPublisher, the script refers to the angle field to 

rotate all layers precisely.

We have also developed a set of ArcMap layer files containing geologic symbols for draft-quality maps, and symbol 

palettes for Adobe Illustrator for our final publication-quality 

maps. The above-referenced scripts, layer files, and symbol 

palettes are available for download at ftp://198.187.3.44/

geology/DMT07/.

REFERENCES

Dragovich, J.D., Logan, R.L., Schasse, H.W., Walsh, T.J., 

Lingley, W.S., Jr., Norman, D.K., Gerstel, W.J., Lapen, T.J., 

Schuster, J.E., and Meyers, K.D., 2002, Geologic map of 

Washington—Northwest quadrant: Washington Division 

of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-50, 3 

sheets, scale 1:250,000, with 72 p. text.

Miles, C.E., compiler, 2003, Geologic shaded-relief map of 

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Bureau of Topographic and 

Geologic Survey Map 67, scale 1:500,000.

Schuster, J.E., 2005, Geologic map of Washington state: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic 

Map GM-53, 1 sheet, scale 1:500,000, with 44 p. text, available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/pubs/pubs_ol.htm.

Schuster, J.E., Gulick, C.W., Reidel, S.P., Fecht, K.R., and 

Zurenko, S.E., 1997, Geologic map of Washington—Southeast quadrant: Washington Division of Geology and Earth 

Resources Geologic Map GM-45, 2 sheets, scale 1:250,000, 

with 20 p. text. 

Stoffel, K.L., Joseph, N.L., Waggoner, S.Z., Gulick, C.W., 

Korosec, M.A., and Bunning, B.B., 1991, Geologic map 

of Washington—Northeast quadrant: Washington Division 

of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-39, 3 

sheets, scale 1:250,000, with 36 p. text.

Walsh, T.J., Korosec, M.A., Phillips, W.M., Logan, R.L., and 

Schasse, H.W., 1987, Geologic map of Washington—Southwest quadrant: Washington Division of Geology and Earth 

Resources Geologic Map GM-34, 2 sheets, scale 1:250,000, 

with 28 p. text.