----------------------------Original message----------------------------
------------------
This is in response to the revision issue statements made in Russell Guy's =
9/18
submission to the MAPS-L mailing list.
 
Although it is true that the majority of base-series topo map revisions over=
 the
past several years have been done in financial cooperation with State
cooperators, USGS has no policy which mandates such arrangements.  During =
the
next several years USGS will be inspecting and revising a larger number of =
topo
maps based on their sales history, significant environmental events, etc.,
rather than cooperative funding in an attempt to update an increased share =
of
those in greatest demand.  There will continue to be maps updated at the =
request
of State cooperators and these, by law, must have at least =BD their costs =
borne
by the cooperator.
 
Topography will be updated, in most instances, to fit new or modified =
features
like roads and ponds.  More substantial topographic changes (e.g. new =
quarries,
dams, etc.) will be considered on a map-by-map basis.  Cooperators will also
generally have the option to have a full topographic update performed on a
cost-shared basis.
 
The cooperatively funded aspect of the National Mapping Program benefits the
Nation in two ways.  First, it increase the overall resources available for
mapping activities, and therefore permits the USGS to produce more maps and
digital data than would otherwise be possible.  Secondly, by working =
directly
with the State and Federal agencies with whom the USGS cooperates, the =
National
Mapping Program can be more responsive to their requirements.   Cooperative
agreements help by augmenting the Federal dollars and, as you point out, =
they
also influence where work is performed. This can be very beneficial to the
program because the State and Federal agencies who have operational
responsibilities in their localities are often the best source of =
information as
to which maps need revision the most.
 
Michael Cooley