USGS Meets with Northeast States

The USGS held a "meeting among partners" in Albany, New York, this month. The meeting brought together USGS staff with GIS coordinators from northeastern states to discuss common interests and partnership opportunities. It was one in a series of USGS partnership meetings that included a meeting of the southeast states in 2007.

Among the states represented, either by a state GIS Coordinator or staff or by their USGS liaison, were New York, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Maine, Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Washington DC, Indiana and Delaware.

USGS staff spoke about efforts to update the National Map program, interactions and partnerships with the homeland security community, integrating GIS data in USGS science efforts, and the renewed interest by USGS leadership in printed topographic maps. Each state gave an update on its latest efforts and several states took the opportunity to outline challenges seen in the years to come in providing meaningful geospatial data.

The meeting featured frank, open and respectful dialogue. I hope to post more information from this meeting as I digest my notes.

NSGIC Mid-Year Reports: The National Map Tactical Plan

The USGS has been working on a new tactical plan for the National Map. Bill Carswell, of USGS, gave an overview of the purpose of the National Map. He described it as a key part of the NSDI and noted that it is built on partnerships and standards. He listed some of the accomplishments of the first version of the National Map, but added that the job is not yet done.

The focus for the National Map "2.0" includes integration into a consistent, quality assured and seamless map; revitalization of topographic maps, and online services from consistent national data.

The near-term priority areas include the coasts, along international borders and the 133 urban areas, among other areas.

Mr. Carswell set out a tactical plan to gather and publish base-map data for the National Map.

Paul Wiese explained a movement from distributed data to centralized data in National Map 2.0.

Vickie Lucas spoke about the importance of partnerships, which she called the foundation of the National Map. The USGS partnership strategy is based on the complimentary roles of levels of government to develop the NSDI.

She noted that the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) is an example of working in partnership with states and local governments.

She said that the USGS will draw from the NSGIC 50 States Initiative and the strategic plans that states are developing. Staff are starting meet with NSGIC members to gather feedback.

Bill Carswell reported that the USGS director has signed the National Map 2.0 tactical plan.

Update (3/18/08): Presentation materials from this session are now available on-line.

Update on USGS Research Priorities

Directions Magazine's Adena Schutzberg has an update this morning on research priorities for the USGS.

As we noted in November, the Mapping Science Committee of the National Research Council released A Research Agenda for Geographic Information Science at the United States Geological Survey which offered recommendations to the USGS for future research by the USGS Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science (CEGIS). Last week, Adena and colleague Joe Francica discussed some of those recommendations on their Podcast.

Today, Adena has some reaction from E. Lynn Usery, the acting director of CEGIS, including further discussion of the future of the USGS' National Map project.

Study Recommends USGS Research Priorities

The National Academies Press has published a study that makes recommendations to the USGS for future research by the USGS Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science (CEGIS).

The study, A Research Agenda for Geographic Information Science at the United States Geological Survey, is by the Mapping Science Committee of the National Research Council.

The study makes 12 recommendations:

1. CEGIS should initially focus on research that will improve the capabilities of The National Map.
2. The three priority research areas for CEGIS should be (1) information access and dissemination, (2) integration of data from multiple sources, and (3) data models and knowledge organization systems.
3. The two priority research topics within the area of information access and dissemination should be to reinvent topographic maps in an electronic environment and to investigate user-centered design for The National Map web services.
4. The two priority research topics for CEGIS within the area of data integration should be generalization and fusion.
5. The two priority research topics in the area of data models and knowledge organization systems should be developing geographic feature ontologies and building the associated feature data models and gazetteers.
   
6. CEGIS should initially comprise six to eight Ph.D.-level scientists working in teams of at least two on the high-priority topics identified in Recommendations 3 to 5. Each team would comprise a mix of USGS scientists and visiting scientists and/or postdoctoral fellow(s) as appropriate to the topic. Their location should not be constrained to USGS facilities if the most efficient progress could be made in another setting (e.g., an academic center of excellence).
7. CEGIS should establish and/or support one to two centers of excellence in GIScience at universities with relevant GIScience focus and capabilities that address its longer-term research challenges.
   
8. CEGIS should supplement the work of its core research teams with Broad Area Announcements, Cooperative Research and Development Act agreements, and targeted contracts on high-priority research topics.
   
9. To reestablish USGS’s leadership role in GIScience, maximize efficiency, and share in the cost of addressing common challenges, CEGIS should forge connections with other federal agencies, professional societies, and private-sector firms that conduct, support, and/or promote GIScience research.
10. Because of USGS’s core role in integrating data from local sources for The National Map, CEGIS should establish collaborative activities with state and local agencies that have progressive activities in GIScience.
11. CEGIS should use specialist meetings, perhaps in conjunction with the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science winter meeting or summer assembly, to advance its state of knowledge and plans for addressing emerging research challenges.
12. To provide broad-based input, review, and critique of CEGIS plans, activities, and progress and to institutionalize CEGIS’s connection to the USGS disciplines, the National Geospatial Program Office should establish an advisory board for CEGIS that includes members from each of the USGS disciplines as well as non-USGS GIScience experts.
    

The study is available for sale on the National Academies Press website. An Executive Summary (PDF) is available for free download.