For a printable copy click on the link below
STATE/FEDERAL ROUNDTABLE

1. GNIS data compilation and maintenance is the responsibility of everyone.

As reported at the State-Federal Roundtable in 2003, it is not nor ever has been the responsibility the Geographic Names Office of the U.S. Geological Survey to provide continuous maintenance of GNIS. The intent was and still is for the GNO to design the mechanism and to monitor and coordinate the maintenance. The maintenance of GNIS is the responsibility of Federal agencies in the course of project development, and as an inherent task in building The National Map.

Further, it is the responsibility of the GNO staff to seek and foster partnerships with State and local jurisdictions to assure and enhance the viability and continuous maintenance of GNIS.

Distributing proposals electronically.

In an effort to reduce mailing costs, the BGN staff will, whenever possible, forward proposals to the State Names Authorities electronically. If a proposal is submitted via the BGN online application form, the proposal will be acknowledged by e-mail and the State Names Authority included in this response. Unless the response indicates that additional information is needed from the proponent, or if for some other reason the case cannot be processed, this electronic copy is an indication to the State Names Authority that it should begin its review process. Similarly, it is now possible to scan and forward material as a PDF file. State Names Authorities are encouraged to submit their recommendations/meeting minutes electronically.

3. Proposals will be brought before the BGN for a decision after one year, even if there is no response from one or more interested parties, such as the Federal land management agency, the State Names Authority, a Tribal authority, the local government, etc.

As stated at the 2003 Roundtable, once a proposal is received and placed on a docket, the BGN staff is obligated to bring every case to closure, i.e. a BGN vote.

Once a proposal is received and processed, the appropriate research is initiated and requests for recommendations from official and interested parties are sent. Once the name is on a Board docket, there is little that staff can do to bring the process to closure other than to needle and agitate the interested party for a response. The BGN staff suggests one year should be sufficient for all parties to respond, but it seems this is proving difficult for some State Names Authorities and Federal agencies.

We implore all parties to respond in a timely manner. If a State Names Authority has a limited meeting schedule, then we encourage correspondence by fax and e-mail.

All cases will be brought to the Board for a vote before the one-year anniversary of appearing on the docket.

4. What happens if a proponent has "dropped out of sight" or otherwise lost interest in his/her proposal?

The BGN is unlikely to know that a proponent has "dropped out of sight". If an SNA learns that a proponent has lost interest, it should attempt to determine whether he/she wishes to withdraw the proposal. Remember, only a proponent can withdraw or amend a proposal.

Definition of Historical Tribal Lands.

For every proposal it receives, the BGN staff is required to determine whether any Tribal groups might have a current or historical interest in the feature (see PPP, Policy X). It has always been BGN policy (now a legal requirement) to consult with a Tribal group where the feature lies wholly or partially on present-day Tribal land. In addition, and following discussion and consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the staff has been instructed to contact any Tribe whose present-day Reservation is within fifty miles of the feature.

Further, the BGN staff must also determine whether a Tribe’s historical lands fall within fifty miles of the feature. To determine the extent of current and historical lands, the BGN staff uses a variety of tools, but primarily the 1978 map of Judicially Established Indian Land Areas that was produced by the U.S. Geological Survey from information provided by the Indian Claims Commission (http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/ClaimsMAP.htm). The Board also uses other tools, such as the Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1896-1897 (Charles Royce), and Tiller’s Guide to Indian Country: Economic Profiles of American Indian Reservations (1996).

6. Adding English generics to Indigenous Names.

Policy X, Section 7, of the PPP states, "The BGN recommends the use of generic terms with names derived from Native American languages that are easily understood by the general public and are common to the areas in which the names are applied. This policy applies even though the Native American names may already contain generic elements" (as do many other existing names). The BGN will mandate that an English generic term must be added. If a Tribe does not wish to add a generic, the BGN staff will select an appropriate term.

7. The only Federal agency recommendation that the BGN considers official is that of the BGN member or deputy member, or that of his/her designated geographic names liaison.

Proponents occasionally submit proposals with apparent "Federal agency support." Even if on official Federal letterhead, the recommendation of a local Forest Supervisor, District Ranger, Park Superintendent, or Refuge Manager does not constitute the official position of that agency unless it has the endorsement of the BGN member or deputy, or his or her designated spokesperson.

8. Providing official statements from interested parties.

If a State Names Authority solicits and receives input from a County, Town, or City government, a State agency, a Tribal Council, or a Federal land management agency, the SNA must include a copy of any such correspondence in the material it forwards to the BGN or it cannot be considered an official position of the organization. For all organizations, and especially Tribal Councils, a list of those contacted and an indication of a deadline for response must be included.

9. Should names not previously under the purview of the BGN ("administrative names"), but collected by Federal and State agencies, be submitted to GNIS?

Absolutely! The GNIS has always included entries for all types of geographic features, both natural and manmade, except roads and highways. They are identified in GNIS simply by the attached (required) bibliographic citation. Further, the Board’s mission of promulgating all official names is still in effect.

10. Coordinating data provided by Earth Science Corps Volunteers with that of State and other Federal agencies.

This is the responsibility of the Federal mapping centers and USGS Mapping Partnership Offices [new name??]. The GNO will assist with data coordination and integration as much as possible.

11. The status of the PPP Review.

1. Why is the BGN obligated to contact Tribes when the geographic feature is not on Tribal lands? How responsive are the Tribes? Should State Names Authorities contact Tribal authorities located outside their State?

The BGN is complying with the wording in Policy X of the PPP (Names of Native American Origin), which states, "As part of its standard review procedure for proposed names, the Board will consult with Federally-recognized tribes having an historic or cultural affiliation with the geographic location of the feature." This requirement was added by the Secretary of Interior’s Office during the previous PPP revision.

Since 2001, the BGN has sent 427 letters to Tribal authorities. 39 responses have been received, with 23 in support of the proposed name, eight having no opinion, and eight opposed. Of those that were opposed, four either submitted a counter-proposal or indicated there might be an alternative name for the feature.

In recognition of the 50 mile rule and the inclusion of historical lands, this often means that a Tribe is consulted on an issue several States removed from its present-day Tribal headquarters.

A few State Names Authorities have indicated they will contact the appropriate Tribal authorities as part of their standard review process. These SNA’s want to know the opinion of the Tribe before voting. One SNA has expressed concern that the Tribal headquarters may be located in a different State, so are they still required to contact that group?

2. When should the BGN allow a case to be reopened?

Once a decision is rendered by the BGN, all interested parties are informed of the outcome. Sometimes, proponents are not pleased and ask that the case be revisited. The BGN has stated it will only revisit a case if new information has become available or if the BGN was not made aware of information that might have affected the discussion.

3. Should there be a limit to the number of geographic features named for one individual/family?

A recent proposal submitted to the BGN was to name a stream and summit for a family. The BGN does not believe a limit should be placed on the number of features so named.

4. Do State Names Authorities solicit input from Federal agencies before issuing their recommendations?

This topic was on the Roundtable agenda for discussion in 2002, but was deferred because of a lack of time. The BGN staff would like to know whether SNA’s solicit Federal input if the feature is on Federally-managed land, especially if the BGN does not yet have a copy of the proposal.

Jacksonville, Florida

October 21, 2004

In attendance were representatives of:

U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN)

BGN Staff

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

USDA Forest Service (FS)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS)

National Park Service (NPS)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

State Delegates and Representatives

Other interested parties

The session opened at 8:40 a.m. with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) Executive Secretary and staff of the Domestic Names Committee presenting a list of annotated topics for information and discussion. The topics are listed below in the order in which they were discussed, along with a synopsis of the discussion.

GNIS data compilation and maintenance is the responsibility of everyone.

The group was reminded that the responsibilities of the Geographic Names Office (GNO) at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Reston are to design, develop, implement, and populate initially the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), the nation’s official geographic names repository. Further, it is the responsibility of the GNO to design and coordinate the maintenance of GNIS, and specifically, to serve as the national steward for applied toponomy. It is the responsibility of all Federal agencies dealing with geographic names, or products (conventional or digital) that display geographic names, to ensure that their names are correct and valid. It is further anticipated and desirable that local jurisdictions and State agencies (preferably coordinated by the State Names Authorities) participate in the maintenance of GNIS. This is happening, and agreements exist with Delaware, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Possible agreements are pending in Florida and Oregon.

There was a short discussion, and all agreed.

Distributing proposals electronically.

The BGN staff reported that more proposals are being submitted via the relatively new online application form (Domestic Geographic Name Report), and due to a limited staff, it is not possible, nor prudent, to print these out and distribute via U.S. Mail. There was a lively discussion, and many responded positively to receiving and distributing proposals electronically. Payne noted that once an SNA receives a copy of the online form via e-mail, that is the signal for the SNA to begin its processing of the proposal.

Many indicated they would like the online form to more strongly indicate to the proponent the need for compliance with the BGN’s policies and guidelines. However, many believe the Principals, Policies, and Procedures (PPP) might be overwhelming to some proponents. Julyan indicated that some proponents, especially indigenous peoples, would not use the PPP, and that it should not be the only source for proponents to obtain information about the BGN’s policies. Proponents should be strongly encouraged to contact the State Names Authority (SNA) who can guide them through the process.

Harne agreed that the PPP can be intimidating and suggested the possibility of a decision tree to assist proponents through the naming process. It was suggested that the proposal form be made available in a web page format with boxes to fill in and more complete pick lists for each information block. The use of a decision tree, offering policy explanations, and providing links to the SNA would assist the proponent in completing the form. Anderson indicated that each SNA has varying levels of assistance and some might not be able to provide what is needed. Payne indicated all were good ideas, but that it is made very clear to all proponents that they should not complete the Domestic Geographic Names Report (DGNR) until they have read the PPP, which is accessible by a web link at the BGN website. Further, the DGNR already contains pick lists and indicated that a direct link will be made to the PPP from the electronic proposal form.

It was asked whether the SNAs are required to forward a proposal to the DNC staff regardless of its content. A few do, but many do not. The DNC staff is bound by BGN policy to put any proposal on the docket unless it clearly violates the five-year wait in the Commemorative Names Policy, or if the BGN specifically indicates otherwise.

Smith stated that some SNAs only meet once every six months and that this policy is quite often difficult for them to follow. Runyon added that a few SNAs meet just once a year. It is difficult to meet the one-year rule because it takes at least that long to make all contacts. A suggestion was made to modify this rule and state that a proposal should be processed by the SNA within one year, but that the final decision still might not be rendered immediately upon the lapse of that one year period.

Payne stated that proponents would not tolerate a waiting period of over one year. Wolf asked if the one-year rule was documented, to which Payne indicated it was not; it is an internal procedure.

Furr indicated a need for a time line with target dates, when action is to occur, etc. Smith stated that if the one-year waiting period was to remain a policy, then the DNC might be deciding on an issue upon which all interested parties have not yet commented. Payne indicated that exceptions could be made for high profile cases, and that DNC staff will try to contact the SNA two months before the one-year deadline, at which time it is the SNAs responsibility to advise DNC staff that more time is needed. Kanalley and White both indicated that modifying the requirement to 18 months would provide enough time to complete the contacts that need to be made.

Runyon stated that more responsibility should be placed on the proponent to work with the SNA as that would optimize the procedure. Closer contact with the SNA would allow the public to understand more about what is involved in the decision process. Runyon encouraged SNAs to contact a County government that has not yet responded a week or more before the SNA meeting so the County’s opinion is known.

It was suggested that an FAQ link at the BGN website be made available to the public.

Payne and Runyon reiterated that the SNA should make every effort to determine whether a proponent wishes to continue or withdraw a proposal should there be no contact for an extensive period of time. The audience was reminded that only a proponent can withdraw or amend a proposal.

The DNC staff is required to determine whether the geographic feature in question falls within fifty miles of any Tribal lands deemed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to be of historical or cultural interest, and if it does, the Tribe must be contacted for an opinion as an interested party. It is not a legal requirement to contact the Tribe, but the staff conducts this inquiry in accordance with the PPP. The Tribal opinion carries the weight of an interested party. If the feature is located on Tribal lands, their opinion carries the weight of an SNA. If a feature is partially on Tribal lands, the Tribal government opinion carries the same weight as the SNAs recommendation.

Julyan asked what is required of an SNA after they have learned from a Tribal representative that an indigenous name exists for a feature. Runyon/Payne responded that the SNA is encouraged to contact the official Tribal Office for a formal recommendation. This is one of the standard contacts that "pink" States perform ("pink" refers to those States that conduct the necessary local inquiries; the color refers simply to the labeling of the State names in the DNC’s files). It was noted that responses from Tribal Councils are still mostly non-existent, but are beginning to increase in number.

The question should read: Adding Appropriate generics to Indigenous Names.

Many in the audience were not sure what is meant by the term "mandate". Payne responded that an appropriate generic will generally be added if one is not present in the indigenous name.

Smith stated that enforcement of this might be difficult, because the State of Washington believes the SNAs are supposed to be reactive, not proactive. An SNA can advise when an appropriate generic is needed but should encourage the proponent to determine the actual generic term. It was asked whether an SNA can decline to accept a proposal if a proponent refuses to add a generic. The consensus is that it cannot. Kanalley added that many names in other, non-indigenous, non-English, languages refer to physical features within their names; that is, they already have the generic imbedded in the specific part of the name. So why is a generic term now being challenged as needed?

Payne discussed how the BGN encourages the use of indigenous names, and then explained how applied toponomy is the practical use of geographic names, and is meant to avoid miscommunication. The procedure applies when the generic is imbedded as a one-word form, or is completely unknown to the majority of the user community. Messenger and Smith both indicated that the use of an appropriate generic is a good idea, but Clark felt that often times when a generic is added it causes a name to have two generics as in "Picacho Peak", which translates to "Peak Peak". Staff indicated that this is a common naming phenomenon and is toponymically acceptable, and then provided numerous examples. Payne gave the example of the name "Pushtay" (formerly "Squaw Tit"), which contains the imbedded generic term hill/summit. That name as placed on the map does not indicate to what type of feature the name refers, which is useless to most users.

Kanalley opened the discussion by noting that the Forest Service is a decentralized agency, with a substantial amount of authority given to the forest rangers, supervisors, and district officers across the country. She agreed that more effort needs to be made to improve communication amongst these field officers and to educate them because they may not always be aware of or understand the process regarding geographic names issues.

Runyon noted that a letter of support from a Forest Service employee, even on letterhead, does not constitute official support or non-support from that agency. Kanalley stated that the FS recommendation for a name proposal will be forwarded to the DNC staff by either the member or deputy member, with the agency’s final recommendation included. Field personnel should not forward their recommendations directly to the DNC staff; this is the responsibility of the FS member to the BGN.

Staff reiterated that each land management agency has internal procedures, which is why only the geographic names liaison’s recommendation can be considered official. Any recommendations received directly from the field will be forwarded to the geographic names representative for either validation or resolution.

A USFS/BLM Land Management and Resources Workshop, scheduled for April 18-22, 2005 in Phoenix, was announced and everyone was encouraged to attend. There will be a GNIS training course focusing on database use and maintenance.

Susan Tingley indicated that in the past there have been Federal agency representatives on the Nevada Board and she believes that the SNA should be allowed to seek directly the opinions of these individuals as well as those in the field offices of a particular Forest or National Park. Payne reiterated that internal procedures exist within each agency that need to be followed in order to determine which recommendation is official. Haymond stated that in his 25 years on the Utah Board, Forest Service personnel were always very helpful and cooperative, and that communication between SNAs was helped by contacts with the Forest Service personnel. States can benefit in a cooperative relationship. Fagan noted that everyone benefits from interaction of this nature by bringing about community awareness of names and how they impact our daily lives. Kanalley noted that a geographic names handbook exists on the FS website that deals with policies towards names. It was suggested that the handbook might be made available on the COGNA website.

Staff indicated that it is very useful for local land management officials to be involved, but all should be coordinated to assume non-conflicting official recommendations. Fagan reported that confusion is caused when there is more than one opinion or recommendation for a name from the same agency. He described the process of contacting the superintendent of the park after receiving a proposal from the DNC staff. He advises them about BGN policies and procedures and requests that the park superintendent forward his or her recommendation to NPS headquarters so that a formal recommendation can be made to the DNC staff.

Runyon asked whether a Federal employee serving on an SNA is acting as a representative of their agency or as a private citizen. Some in the audience indicated that either was possible. If the member is serving as a Federal employee, it was suggested that he or she coordinate with the BGN member before voting on a name.

Runyon stated that an interested party’s opinion does not necessarily have to be on official letterhead, although that is the preferred method of making these groups’ comments known. An e-mail message or a telephone log is sufficient to forward to DNC staff, but the contact should be very specific and include details such as date, name, title, phone number, and a brief description of the opinion. If the SNA requests an opinion of an interested party, background documentation should be included, along with an indication of a deadline for an opinion. It should be made clear in these letters that if no response is received by the deadline, it will be presumed that the party has no opinion on the issue.

9. Should names not previously under the purview of the BGN ("administrative names"), but collected by Federal and State agencies, be submitted to GNIS?

The BGN’s mission of promulgating all official names, except roads and highways, is still in effect. All agreed and no further comments were made or are necessary.

Messenger reported that Missouri has an active volunteer and that the data provided is quite good. She added that most of Earth Science Corps volunteers are working on features classified as structures more than physiographic features, primarily in support of homeland security. This effort is necessary because GNIS is more deficient in the category of administrative names. These names reflect an active, changeable environment, and local notification is not yet effective nationwide.

Payne announced that the revision of the PPP has been completed and will be sent to the Department of the Interior’s Office of Policy for review and approval. An explanation of changes to the PPP is enclosed in the COGNA packet. Payne noted that there is no longer a diacritical marks policy, because all such marks in the Roman alphabet are allowed; this is indicated in the BGN’s Principles.

Messenger asked about the BGN’s policy regarding pet names and asked whether the BGN would consider proposals for pet names. Staff indicated there is still some confusion over the wording and intent of this policy, and that it would be resolved quickly.

Smith asked if a Tribe purchases land in town for a casino, is that part of a Tribe’s land holdings? Marinucci indicated that mere ownership of property does not necessarily constitute Indian lands.

Furr stated that the Oklahoma State Board makes one contact only to the Tribal office. Staff requested that if an SNA makes contact with a Tribe to pass along any pertinent information to the staff.

Tingley reported that the Nevada State Board forwards basic locative information on a new proposal to the DNC staff, which then advises the SNA if the feature falls on or near Tribal lands. DNC staff will make direct contact to the Tribal office if the feature lies on Tribal lands. The SNA opinion is sought as an expert advisor, but the recommendation of the Tribal office is the local government recommendation. If the feature is not located on Tribal lands, but within an area of interest, the local government and SNA opinions are sought as government recommendations, and the Tribe’s comments are considered important. If a feature is partially on Tribal lands, both the Tribal office recommendation and that of the SNA are considered of equal weight.

Payne reiterated that it is the DNC staff’s legal responsibility to consult with Tribal officials if the feature in the name proposal falls on Tribal lands. However, some SNAs have expertise in this area and should make every effort to broaden that communication and relationship.

Smith asked rhetorically, how should an SNA process a proposal where the feature is not on Tribal lands, but is of interest to a Tribal government, for example, a feature that is on "sacred" lands but not Tribal lands? Smith added that SNAs should listen closely to the Tribe’s comments as they might become an important advocate in the SNA decision-making process. Staff indicated that they might ask for more information, and be more aggressive in consultation because they want to make a special effort to contact the Tribe. Yakel added that the objective is to get opinions and input from the Tribes, but that is oftentimes difficult. The Minnesota State Board continues to address the issue of better communication and how to solicit more Tribal involvement. Fagan echoed similar sentiments in asking all Federal agencies, SNAs, etc. to have better dialogue with Indian Tribes. Kanalley suggested that offering geographic names training to Tribal representatives might be worthwhile. Kealy stated that park rangers often know the local Tribes, and they would be an effective liaison for developing better relationships.

White asked why the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is not doing more work in the area of soliciting Tribal input? He suggested that agency should go through the same procedures that the Forest Service does when preparing to make a recommendation on a name proposal. Payne indicated that he would contact the BIA member regarding this question, and ask once again whether the BIA could be more visible and involved in Indian names issues.

It was also noted that individuals in the GIS arena need to be more involved in GNIS and names issues so that a dialogue can be developed. Kanalley suggested offering an open invitation to Tribal council members to attend Federal and State GIS meetings and future COGNA Conferences. Individuals could be asked to speak on a variety of names topics.

Wolf asked whether the BGN considers proposal from individuals from foreign countries. Staff indicated yes, and responded that no proposals are rejected unless they violate BGN policy.

There was little interest in discussing this topic. Staff reiterated that there is no "appeal process," but if requested by the proponent, staff will ask the BGN if it wishes to revisit a proposal. Typically, the BGN will only reopen a case if new relevant information is discovered.

Payne responded that the BGN might have to deal with this issue in the future, and asked that anyone wishing to comment on this to please forward their thoughts to the DNC staff.

There was some discussion, and it seemed apparent that the western SNAs seek Federal input more often, but obviously there is more Federal land in the western United States.

The Roundtable was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.