<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:58948.wais]
H.R. 1528, THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999,
TO REAUTHORIZE AND AMEND THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING ACT OF 1992
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 17, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-948 WASHINGTON : 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado RUSH D. HUNT, New Jersey
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
KEVIN BRADY, Texas Samoa
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JAY INSLEE, Washington
------ ------
Bill Condit, Professional Staff
Mike Henry, Professional Staff
Deborah Lanzone, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held June 17, 1999....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming, prepared statement of.................... 18
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 1
Additional material submitted by......................... 34
Rahall, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of West Virginia, prepared statement of.............. 36
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam.......................................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Statements of witnesses:
Leahy, Dr. P. Patrick, Chief Geologist, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
The Coastal and Marine Geology Program for 1999.......... 39
Thomas, Dr. William A., Professor of Geosciences, University
of Kentucky, on behalf of The American Geological
Association................................................ 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 46
Woodfork, Dr. Larry D., West Virginia Geological and Economic
Survey, and President, Association of American State
Geologists................................................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Additional material supplied:
Text of H.R. 1528............................................ 2
H.R. 1528, THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999,
TO REAUTHORIZE AND AMEND THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING ACT OF 1992
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m. in Room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Gibbons
presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources will come to order.
This Subcommittee meets today to take testimony on H.R.
1528, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of
1999, the bill to reauthorize and amend the National Geologic
Mapping Act.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.031
Mr. Gibbons. This is the third iteration of legislation
affecting the national cooperative geologic mapping program
within the U.S. Geological Survey. In the 102nd Congress, our
colleague Nick Rahall of West Virginia sponsored a bill which
became law, establishing the NGMA. In passing that measure,
Congress voted for the practice of the USGS using a portion of
its apropriation for geologic mapping to support the various
State geologic surveys in cooperative efforts to prioritize
national and State needs and then to start in on the identified
workload. The original bill was reauthorized and amended
through this Subcommittee in 1997, and now we are here to
review H.R. 1528, which seeks to reauthorize the program from
fiscal year 2001 through 2005.
The cooperative geologic mapping program has been
successful in my view because it is just that, cooperative.
State geologic surveys and academia both have lots to offer the
Federal survey in the way of geologic mapping expertise and the
training of future field mappers, as well as strongly held
views on where the most immediate mapping needs are. It is not
a free ride for these groups; the NGMA has always required a
50-50 match of the Federal dollars passed through by the USGS,
and a triage takes place in the form of a peer review panel
before proposals are funded. Thus a good deal of scrutiny of
projects occurs before either State or Federal appropriated
dollars are committed.
As we will hear from today's witnesses, the components of
this bill remain the same as its precursors, Federal, State and
educational. What is new, it seems to me is the willingness of
the administration to support a renewed emphasis on the most
basic role of the USGS, making maps of the geologic framework
of our country. I find this attitude refreshing, but I also
realize it is one thing for the Office of Management and Budget
to clear testimony in support of the authorization levels in
H.R. 1528 and yet another thing for the President's budget
submission to Congress next February to actually ask for the
increase in funds so authorized. I trust that the folks at the
Department of the Interior who are already beginning to conjure
up the fiscal year 2001 budget request are focusing in on the
USGS's unwavering support for this bill and the benefits it
brings to have modern geologic maps and adequate scales to
protect our citizens from geologic hazards and ground water
contamination or to broadly assess the mineral potential of our
Federal lands or to otherwise utilize knowledge incorporated in
a geologic map to make sound land use decisions.
I would like to say that I am one of the cosponsors of this
legislation, and I don't want that to unnecessarily influence
my colleague here, but I now turn to the Ranking Democratic
Member, Mr. Underwood, for any opening statements that he may
have.
Mr. Underwood.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin, offered by Mr.
Gibbons, follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming
The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals meets today to take
testimony on a bill to reauthorize and amend the National
Geologic Mapping Act. This is the third iteration of
legislation affecting the national cooperative geologic mapping
program within the U.S. Geological Survey. In the 102nd
Congress our colleague Nick Rahall of West Virginia sponsored
the bill which became law establishing the NGMA. In passing
that measure, Congress voted for the practice of the USGS using
a portion of its appropriation for geologic mapping to support
the various state geological surveys in cooperative efforts to
prioritize national and state needs, and then to start in on
the identified workload. The original bill was reauthorized and
amended through this Subcommittee in 1997, and now we are here
to review H.R. 1528 which seeks to reauthorize the program from
Fiscal Year 2001 through 2005.
The cooperative geologic mapping program has been
successful, in my view, because it is just that--
``cooperative.'' State geological surveys and academia both
have lots to offer the Federal survey in the way of geologic
mapping expertise and the training of future field mappers, as
well as strongly held views on where the most immediate mapping
needs are. Its not a free ride for these groups, the NGMA has
always required a 50/50 match of the Federal dollars passed
through by the USGS, and a ``triage'' takes place in the form
of a peer review panel before proposals are funded. Thus, a
good deal of scrutiny of projects occurs before either state or
Federal appropriated dollars are committed.
As we will hear from today's witnesses, the components of
this bill remain the same as its precursors--Federal, state and
educational. What is new, it seems to me, is the willingness of
the Administration to support a renewed emphasis on this most
basic role of the USGS--making maps of the geologic framework
of our country. I find this attitude refreshing. But, I realize
its one thing for the Office of Management and Budget to clear
testimony in support of the authorization levels in H.R. 1528,
and yet another thing for the President's budget submission to
Congress next February to actually ask for the increase in
funds so authorized. I trust that the folks at the Department
of the Interior who are already beginning to conjure up the FY
2001 budget request are factoring in the USGS's unwavering
support for this bill and the benefits it brings to have modern
geologic maps at adequate scales to protect our citizens from
geologic hazards and groundwater contamination, or to broadly
assess the mineral potential of our Federal lands, or to
otherwise utilize knowledge incorporated in a geologic map to
make sound land-use decisions.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You always unduly
influence me.
I am pleased to welcome the panel of witnesses today who
are here to discuss reauthorization of the Geologic Mapping
Act. We need geologic mapping in our society for many
worthwhile purposes, including emergency preparedness,
environmental protection, land use planning and resource
extraction. Over the years, the need for geologic maps has
grown steadily, but map production has not kept up. The Earth
provides the physical foundation for our society. We live upon
it and we use its resources. Therefore, we need to work towards
a better understanding of the Earth's resources and potential
dangers.
Geologic maps are one effective way to convey the Earth
science information needed for better understanding and
decision-making by all of us--Federal agencies, State and local
governments, private industry, and the general public alike.
The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 authorized a
national program of geologic mapping to be accomplished through
a partnership with State geologic surveys, academia, the
private sector, and the USGS. This partnership is essential if
we are to develop the extensive amount of material needed for
informed decision-making.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of
today's witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert A. Underwood, a Delegate in Congress from the
State of Guam
I am pleased to welcome the panel of witnesses today who
are here to discuss reauthorization of the Geologic Mapping
Act.
We need geologic mapping in our society for many worthwhile
purposes, including emergency preparedness, environmental
protection, land-use planning, and resource extraction.
Over the years, the need for geologic maps has grown
steadily but, map production has not kept up. The earth
provides the physical foundation for our society--we live upon
it and we use its resources. Therefore, we need to work toward
a better understanding of Earth's resources and potential
dangers.
Geologic maps are one effective way to convey the earth-
science information needed for better understanding and
decision-making by all of us--Federal agencies, State and local
governments, private industry, and the general public alike.
The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 authorized a
national program of geologic mapping to be accomplished through
partnership with State geological surveys, academia, the
private sector, and the USGS. This partnership is essential if
we are to develop the extensive amount of material needed for
informed decision making.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of today's
witnesses.
Mr. Gibbons. I thank the distinguished Ranking Democratic
Member on the panel.
I would now like to introduce the first panel that is
before us here. Dr. Patrick Leahy, chief geologist for the U.S.
Geological Survey, testifying for the Department of the
Interior; Dr. Larry D. Woodfork, State Geologist of West
Virginia testifying for the West Virginia Geological and
Economic Survey and the Association of American State
Geologists; and Dr. William A. Thomas, Professor of Geosciences
at the University of Kentucky testifying for the American
Geological Institute.
Gentlemen, I know that we have invited you here under the
guidelines of having up to 10 minutes for your testimony. Let
me encourage you that if there is anything that you can do to
expedite this, to make this matter go quickly, it would be
appreciated. And also your full statements will be entered into
the record without objection.
The Chair would now recognize Dr. Leahy.
STATEMENT OF DR. P. PATRICK LEAHY, CHIEF GEOLOGIST, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dr. Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here
today to express the Administration's support for geologic
mapping, House bill 1528 and Senate bill 607. These are
identical bills that would reauthorize the National Geologic
Mapping Act of 1992.
I would like to begin by emphasizing the close coordination
and agreement between the U.S. Geological Survey and the
Association of American State Geologists on this
reauthorization bill and on geologic mapping in general. With
the development of digital mapping technology, geologic mapping
has experienced a renaissance in both its use and
applicability.
The reason for this growth is quite simple. Geologic maps
are increasingly needed to bring together and interpret
information about the Earth. Geologic maps are used by land,
water and other natural resource managers at Federal, State and
local levels and by the private sector to achieve the most
efficient use of the Earth's resources. Economic growth, as you
know, is driven largely by access to the Earth is resources.
Geologic maps provide the spatial framework to locate energy,
construction materials and other mineral resources. They also
constitute the framework to locate and monitor the cleanliness
and availability of groundwater resources.
To the extent possible, humans must be safe from natural
hazards. Although earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides
and floods cannot be stopped, recognizing and planning for
these dangers significantly minimizes the damages and costs of
disasters. Identifying the location of hazardous areas on
geologic maps allows land managers, industry and the public to
predict potential losses and to develop strategies to mitigate
these impacts.
Unlike topographic maps, which show the elevation of the
Earth's surface, geologic maps display the array of different
types of soils, sediments and rocks that are present both at
and below the surface of the Earth. Advances in computer
technology and the development of Geographic Information
Systems, permit map users to display and analyze map
information in three dimensions. This ability allows non-
geologists to understand and use geologic maps more readily,
which has further increased the demand.
There are three components of the program and all three
components contribute to the construction of the National
Geologic Map database. The initial phase of the database is an
Internet-based catalogue of printed geologic maps.
The second phase of the project is under way to adopt
standards for GIS use and to provide access and delivery of
digital geologic map data on the Internet. Through the three
components that you mentioned, the program conducts geologic
mapping in all 50 States.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to state for the
record that the National Geologic Mapping Act has been
instrumental in helping focus attention on the Nation's need
for a new generation of high-quality geologic maps. The
Administration supports reauthorization and urges support for
this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to express my
views and those of the Geologic Survey on the benefits of the
Mapping Act and the value of reauthorizing this program. I will
be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Dr. Leahy. I appreciate
your testimony. It was very helpful and we are also very glad
to see the administration in such strong support of the
reauthorization Act.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leahy follows:]
Statement of Patrick Leahy, Chief Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to be here today to express
the Administration's support for H.R. 1528 and S.607, identical
bills that would reauthorize the National Geologic Mapping Act
of 1992.
I would like to begin by emphasizing the close coordination
and agreement between the USGS and the Association of American
State Geologists (AASG) on this reauthorization bill and on
geologic mapping in general. The bill was reviewed by the
Federal Advisory Committee for the National Cooperative
Geologic Mapping Program in April of 1998 and we have been in
close and frequent communication with the AASG on all aspects
of the bill since that time.
The principal changes in this reauthorization bill are:
First, an increase from approximately 20 percent to 48 percent
of new funds that will be made available for matching-funds
grants to State geological surveys, and second, an increase in
the authorization levels. These changes are the result of an
increased demand for geologic maps and a renewed emphasis by
the USGS on one of our most basic mission responsibilities:
producing objective and authoritative geologic maps and
information systems, and represent an increased capacity of the
States to provide matching funds. The authorization levels
contained in the bill are not assumed in the Administration's
current outyear funding levels and represent a significant
challenge in terms of acquiring, in the years to come, the
necessary resources through the Administration and
Congressional budget and appropriations process.
At recent public forums in Alaska, California, Indiana,
Ohio, and Virginia, and in opinion surveys conducted by State
geological surveys, we have heard a consistent message--more
geologic mapping is needed, and geologic mapping is considered
as a principal strength and responsibility of the USGS and our
State survey partners. In response, the President's FY 2000
budget proposes an increase of approximately 8 percent in
funding for the Geologic Mapping Program.
With the development of digital mapping technology,
geologic mapping is experiencing a renaissance in its use and
applicability. We anticipate increased demand for digital
geologic maps in the future. The reason for this growth is
simple, geologic maps are increasingly needed to bring together
and interpret information about the Earth. Geologic maps are
used by land, water, and natural resource managers at the
Federal, State and local levels of government and by the
private-sector to achieve the most efficient use of Earth
resources in a way that is at once both sustainable and
economically viable.
The economy is driven by access to the Earth's resources,
among other things. Geologic maps provide the spatial framework
to locate energy resources such as coal, petroleum, and natural
gas; construction materials such as sand, gravel, limestone,
and building stone; soil and rock types that enhance
agricultural productivity; and metals and other mineral
resources as diverse as gold and fertilizer. They also
constitute the framework to locate and to monitor the
cleanliness and availability of our ground-water resources.
To the extent possible, humans must be safe from natural
hazards. Although hazardous events such as earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, landslides and floods cannot be stopped,
recognizing and planning for these dangers significantly
reduces the damages and costs of disasters. Identifying the
location of hazardous areas on maps allows land managers,
industry, and the public to predict potential losses, and
develop strategies to minimize these losses. Geologic mapping
is the principal means for discovering and recording areas that
will be affected by natural hazards and geologic maps and
Geographic Information Systems are the principal means for
communicating the dangers and risks.
Unlike topographic maps, which show the elevation of the
earth's surface and can increasingly be produced using remote
sensing methods, geologic maps display the array of different
types of soils, sediments, and rocks that are present at and
below the surface of the Earth. Advances in computer technology
and the development of Geographic Information Systems permit
map users to display and analyze map information in three
dimensions. This new ability to visualize geologic map
information allows non-geologists to understand and use
geologic maps more readily, which has further increased demand.
The geologic map has been a keystone product of the U.S.
Geological Survey through its 120-year history. As reflected in
the President's FY 2000 budget proposal, the USGS is again
making geologic mapping a high priority. The Geologic Mapping
Act of 1992 anticipated the increased demand for geologic
mapping, and the reauthorization bill before this Committee
will assist USGS and our partners in the States and
Universities in responding.
To meet the need for new maps, our response must be
coordinated with both those who use geologic maps and those who
produce them. The broadest range of stakeholders must determine
what information is needed so that our mapping efforts are well
targeted. All of those who prepare geologic maps, from the U.S.
Geological Survey to State geological surveys and the academic
community, must work cooperatively to maximize each other's
strengths and to avoid duplication. It is in this cooperative
spirit that the National Geologic Mapping Act was written, and
under which the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
was built.
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM
The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping (NCGM) Program
was established by the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.
Through involvement with private industry, policy makers, and
the public, the program seeks to ensure that mapping efforts
are focused on priority areas. The program uses stakeholder
input to determine what formats are most needed as new geologic
maps are being produced in digital formats and indexed for
delivery on the Internet. The NCGM Program has been designed so
that the Nation will have the accurate geologic maps needed to
address tomorrow's problems. To this end, the following goals
are being pursued:
<bullet> Continued enhancement of outreach to stakeholders
ensures that our maps address societal priorities and are
produced at appropriate scales and in forms that are easily
accessible and usable. For example, on February 24, 1999, the
NCGMP participated in three separate public stakeholder
meetings to discuss the availability and quality of water
resources in New Mexico, the value of 3-dimensional earth
science information for the Great Lakes Region, and the
mitigation of geologic hazards in the Pacific Northwest. The
net effect of this enhanced outreach is the design of geologic
mapping projects that address high-priority issues and the
incorporation of local and regional priorities into a national
agenda for geologic mapping,
<bullet> Expanded cooperative mapping with the State geologic
surveys and academic institutions, and expanded cooperation
with other Federal agencies, and private-sector firms to
enhance the usefulness of map information and data.Development
of metadata (data about data) for the National Geologic Map
database and development of standards and data models to make
geologic maps accessible through the Internet.
The NCGMP supports the Mapping Act through three main
components FEDMAP, STATEMAP, and EDMAP. Since its authorization
by the National Geologic Mapping Act in 1992, the Geologic
Mapping Program has worked with the States and Universities of
the nation to produce more than 4,000 new maps and related
scientific reports for high-priority areas in virtually every
state of the Union. However, the job is far from complete. The
7.5 minute-geologic quadrangle map is the common denominator
for Federal and State mapping, and this scale of work is widely
accepted as the starting point for more detailed site-specific
studies conducted by private industry. However, there are more
than 50,000 such quadrangles across the nation, and high-
priority areas must be re-mapped periodically to incorporate
new scientific concepts, new technology, and new demands from
the public. For example, most of the geologic mapping in the
upper Mid-west was done more than 80 years ago, less than 2
percent is available at the 7.5 minute quadrangle scale, and an
even smaller fraction is available in modern digital formats.
Early generations of geologic mapping were focused on
locating mineral resources. This remains a focus in many areas
of the country. However, the missions of the Federal and State
geological surveys and the needs for geologic maps have
expanded. For example, we are now making three-dimensional
geologic maps to meet the needs of a nation that is
increasingly turning to ground water for drinking,
agricultural, and industrial uses.
The Federal-mapping component (FEDMAP) currently consists
of 18 regional geologic mapping and synthesis projects.
Government and private-sector clients and cooperators are
involved in planning new FEDMAP projects. The NCGMP has
increased interactions with other USGS programs and with State
survey partners during the last four years in order to share
expertise, leverage financial resources, and to respond
directly to customer needs. Due to this change, the scientific
emphasis of the program has shifted to issues that increasingly
affect society and human health such as:
<bullet> Discovery and protection of ground water
<bullet> Identification and mitigation of natural hazards
<bullet> Assessment of our nation's mineral and energy
resources
<bullet> Establishment of scientific baselines for
environmental restoration
<bullet> Land resource assessment in support of infrastructure
needs
The State mapping component, STATEMAP, awarded 3.8 million
dollars to 45 states in FY 1999, a record number, and every
Federal dollar was matched by a State dollar. The awards will
fund more than 150 geologic mapping projects. State Mapping
Advisory Committees met in all forty-five states during 1998 to
help the Mapping Program prioritize geologic mapping needs.
Over 500 individuals from Federal, State, and local government,
academia, industry, and geoscience consulting firms,
participated in these meetings. In addition, where the
priorities of FEDMAP, STATEMAP, and EDMAP geologic mapping
projects align well, regional coalitions have formed and
resources are leveraged to maximize efficiency and benefit to
the public.
The university-mapping component, EDMAP, is the matching-
funds educational program with universities to train a new
generation of geologic mappers. In FY-1999 EDMAP awarded
approximately 380 thousand dollars to 60 geology students at 41
universities and colleges. Again, each Federal dollar was
matched. Our effort to help geologic mappers has grown stronger
each year. This year's proposals showed that the students and
their faculty advisors are working more closely with mapping
projects at State geological surveys and the USGS. Student
mapping is tied more directly to societal needs than in the
past, and more of these maps are being published by state
geological surveys.
National Geologic Map Database
All three components of the National Cooperative Geologic
Mapping Program contribute to the construction of the National
Geologic Map Database. The initial phase of the database is an
Internet-based catalog of printed geologic maps. The index is
available on the Internet at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov and is being
populated with metadata (approximately 55 percent of USGS
holdings are completed as of April, 1999). The second phase of
the project is underway to adopt standards for GIS use and to
provide access and delivery of digital geologic map data on the
Internet. This is an area of continued emphasis in FY 1999 and
increased effort in FY 2000. The USGS is currently working with
both producers and users of geologic map information to develop
draft format, symbols, and technical attribute standards so
that digital geologic map information can be accessed,
exchanged, and compared efficiently as part of the National
Spatial Data Infrastructure.
Federal Partnerships
The geologic mapping program is developing cooperative
relationships with Federal partners in addition to our State
and academic cooperators. The most mature of these is with the
National Park Service (NPS). In 1995, the USGS and NPS signed a
Memorandum of Understanding that outlined areas of interaction
between the two bureaus. The geologic mapping program has
responded by working with NPS as part of their ``Science in the
Parks'' initiative to direct a portion of the program's
geologic mapping and supporting activities toward priorities
established by NPS. This cooperative program has continued each
year since 1995. NPS-identified priorities are merged with USGS
capabilities in FEDMAP projects that create geologic maps and
related interpretive products to serve the 286 million annual
visitors to our Nation's parks.
We are currently conducting geologic mapping projects in
partnership with NPS at more than a dozen Parks. For example,
at Death Valley National Park in California, we are partnering
with NPS, the Department of Energy, and Nye County by making
geologic maps as the three-dimensional framework for modeling
the ground-water system that originates in central Nevada,
flows under the Nevada Test Site and terminates in Death
Valley. In Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks
we are making geologic maps that show the widespread
distribution of landslide hazards and the impacts of landslides
on mountain stream habitats for trout. And at a variety of
Parklands across the Nation we are making geologic maps to
assist the NPS explain the geologic treasures of the Parks to a
curious and appreciative public.
Examples of Geologic Mapping Projects
I would like to cite a series of our geologic mapping
projects on a State-by-State basis and give a brief description
of the reasons for the mapping in each case. Because this is a
national program, with projects in virtually every state, it is
a simple matter to select examples that may have particular
meaning to the membership of this Committee.
California:
FEDMAP and STATEMAP efforts are defining the structure and
history of the San Andreas Fault system and its relation to
earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay
areas. Detailed geologic maps produced by these efforts help to
define seismic hazard zones, enabling local governments to plan
accordingly. FEDMAP projects are also mapping ground-water
basins in three-dimensions to support the water resource needs
of the populous desert region of the state.
Colorado:
STATEMAP funds support geologic mapping in the Colorado
Springs and Idaho Springs areas where areas of geologic hazards
such as landslides, rockfalls, swelling soils, and subsidence
over underground mines are being mapped. Our FEDMAP project and
the Colorado Geological Survey are evaluating landslides,
subsidence and infrastructure resources along the developing I-
70 and Front Range corridors, and assessing sources for salt in
the Colorado River.
Louisiana:
Our STATEMAP project supports geologic mapping of the Baton
Rouge area where a detailed knowledge of active faults is
necessary to protect critical aquifers from contamination and
to aid in siting of solid-waste repositories. EDMAP projects in
Louisiana supported the training of three students at Centenary
College of Louisiana and the University of New Orleans.
Oregon:
A FEDMAP project is mapping the earthquake-prone urban
corridor of western Oregon and Washington. The project locates
earthquake faults and defines areas that are susceptible to
liquefaction, ground failure, and damage during earthquakes.
Availability of ground water, forest health, and seismic and
landslide hazards are principal issues addressed by STATEMAP
projects in Klamath Falls, the upper Grand Ronde Basin, and the
central Willamette Valley. An EDMAP project at Portland State
University is investigating surface and subsurface water
interaction in the upper Williamson River.
Nevada
FEDMAP Projects in Death Valley and the Las Vegas Urban
Area are investigating geologic controls on regional ground-
water resources in southern Nevada and the potential for
contamination as the result of underground nuclear testing at
the Nevada Test Site. These projects are conducted
cooperatively with the Department of Energy, National Park
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and programs within the
Water Resources Division of USGS.
Rhode Island
Bedrock and surficial geologic maps of Rhode Island are
included as part of the National Cooperative Geologic Map
Database. The database is an effort coordinated jointly by the
NCGMP and the Association of American State Geologists (AASG).
The database is available over the World Wide Web and allows
anyone easy access to detailed geologic map information across
the Nation.
Texas
STATEMAP efforts are aimed at defining the extent of the
Edwards karst aquifer and evaluating source areas for potential
contaminants. The aquifer is the principal source of water for
communities in south central Texas that are experiencing rapid
growth. Information gained from these efforts will meet the
needs of a variety of professionals that respond to the demands
placed on the environment and resources of Texas.
Utah
In cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and the State Division of Water
Resources, the NCGMP is supporting geologic mapping of the
Ogden Quadrangle. The area is characterized by active faults
and landslides that will be evaluated. The detailed STATEMAP
product will update the previous mapping completed in 1963. The
geologic data will form the foundation for a comprehensive
Geographic Information System database for the area.
Washington
A FEDMAP Project is a key component in the USGS Urban
Hazards Initiative in the Puget Sound region, which is
coordinated with FEMA's Project Impact study of Seattle. The
NCGMP project role is mapping and defining the regional geology
work and fault structure to better understand earthquake and
landslide hazards.
Wyoming:
Geologic mapping of the Lander/Riverton area is underway by
our STATEMAP project. This area was targeted for increased
emphasis by the Wyoming Business Council to promote economic
development. Geologic mapping is also being done in a number of
areas where Environmental Protection Agency and the Wyoming
Geological Survey are studying aquifer vulnerability to
contamination from pesticides.
Conclusion
Madam Chairwoman, in concluding my remarks, I would like to
state that the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 has been
instrumental in helping focus attention on the Nation's need
for a new generation of high-quality geologic maps. The
Administration supports reauthorization and urges bipartisan
support for this legislation. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman for
the opportunity to express the views of the U.S. Geological
Survey on the benefits of the National Geologic Mapping Act and
the value of reauthorizing this program. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. Gibbons. I turn now to Dr. Larry Woodfork for your
testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF DR. LARRY D. WOODFORK, WEST VIRGINIA GEOLOGICAL
AND ECONOMIC SURVEY, AND PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
STATE GEOLOGISTS
Dr. Woodfork. Thank you, Chairman Gibbons.
I come before you as State Geologist of West Virginia and
current President of the Association of American State
Geologists. I have 35 years of experience in geoscience
enterprise in academia, the private sector and government. The
group that I am speaking for today, the Association of American
State Geologists, represents a group that has been extant since
1908, composed of the State geologists in the 50 States, as
well as those in equivalent positions in the territories,
protectorates and possessions of the United States.
Over the 70-year period that this group has been extant,
they have brought the very vital State perspective to
geoscience issues facing the Nation. The State geological
surveys--the very first geological survey was established in
1823 in North Carolina. When the Federal survey, the USGS, was
established in 1879, there were already extant 35 geological
surveys, 25 east of the Mississippi and 10 west.
In the intervening 120 years since the Federal survey was
established, the State geological surveys have interacted
continuously with the Federal enterprise, usually in a mutually
beneficial and supportive role to promote the needs of the
Nation and the products that fed the engines of the great
enterprise that we enjoy today in the United States. The
geological maps that were produced by both of those groups led
to the economic development that largely--the publicly
available information that allowed our Nation to grow and
prosper out there.
The National Geological Mapping Act is the latest iteration
of those mutually beneficial enterprises. I believe that most
of my colleagues would share my view that over the years that
is the best of the best. I will tell you why I think that to be
the case. It is the one that has been most closely coordinated.
It has resulted from joint planning, and the products that come
out of it are prompt; you get a lot of bang for your buck.
The State map component, which I am going to spend a couple
more minutes on, the one that I am the most familiar with, is
one that I can absolutely attest to the fact that the
priorities that are established within that component are set
by State advisory committees within the respective States. They
reflect real societal needs out there.
The advisory panels are composed of people from academia,
the private sector, individual citizens, organizations. They
reflect the real needs of society. The awards that are given
under that--and it is a 50-50 match, and the States actually
have much more money to ante up than has so far been advanced
by the Federal Government, are awarded on a competitive peer
reviewed process.
The national panel consists of State geologists and feds.
There is strict accountability for the spending of those funds.
If you don't produce, your proposal will not be received
favorably the next time; I can assure you of that. I know
many--it is certainly not an entitlement program.
There are many more proposals that are advanced than are
ever funded. So, in summary, what I will tell you, in my
experience, this is a program that is an outstanding example of
a successful State-Federal partnership to the benefit of the
Nation. I would encourage you--and I know that you will hear on
this Subcommittee from the State geologists in your respective
States, specific examples of what I am telling you.
It is a great program. It has broad support, I know it
does, throughout academia, industry and government. And I would
urge you to act affirmatively and favorably on the
reauthorization and amendment bill before you today and the
Nation would be the benefit of your wisdom.
Thank you, and I will entertain any questions now or later
if you would like.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Dr. Woodfork, and thank
you again for your ringing endorsement of the State geologic
surveys as the purveyors of Earth sciences and the guardians of
geologic truth.
I also understand from some of the remarks that your 1-year
sentence as the President of the Association of American State
Geologists is almost up and you are about to be paroled, soon
to allow, I believe, a Wisconsin State geologist to serve his
time in your place.
I think all of us on this Committee want to wish you well
and congratulate you for the hard work and service that you
have given us in that regard.
With that, we will turn to our next panelist.
Dr. Woodfork. Thank you, Chairman Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. You bet.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Woodfork follows:]
Statement of Larry D. Woodfork, State Geologist of West Virginia and
President, Association of American State Geologists (AASG)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Madam chairman and
members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources, thank
you for providing me the opportunity to appear before you today
in support of H.R. 1528, a bill to reauthorize and amend the
National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.
My name is Larry D. Woodfork. I am the State Geologist of
West Virginia and the current president of the Association of
American State Geologists (AASG) (attachment A). Our
organization was founded in 1908 and represents the geological
surveys of the 50 states of our nation as well as those in its
territories, possessions, and protectorates (attachment B).
Over the past 91 years, our organization has brought the
critical state perspective on geoscience issues facing the
nation to the attention of the Federal Government. We cherish
the trust and confidence placed in us when we are given the
opportunity to share our perspective with you, and we zealously
guard our well-earned reputation for geological expertise,
integrity, candor, and fidelity. In public applied geoscience,
state geological surveys are truly ``where the rubber meets the
road!''
Since the establishment of the first state geological
survey in 1823 in North Carolina, state geological surveys have
played a unique and vital role in the scientific establishment
in our country. They have provided much of the publicly
available geological information that led to the national
growth, economic development, environmental quality, general
prosperity, and quality of life that we enjoy today. Their
mission remains of equal importance to our nation's future.
State geological surveys had already been established in 35
states prior to the establishment of the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) in 1879. Over the past 120 years, the state geological
surveys and the USGS have interacted nearly continuously,
usually in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner to,
jointly and separately, provide the nation and its citizens
with relevant, credible, and timely geologic maps, information,
and expertise on energy, mineral, water, land, biological and
environmental resources, as well as on geological hazards such
as earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, and the like. No other
external organization has the institutional memory or in-depth
knowledge of U.S. Geological Survey programs that we in AASG
possess.
The long history and heritage of USGS-state geological
survey interaction and collaboration in geoscience is replete
with a multitude of successful and beneficial joint programs
and projects. Among the myriad examples of such programs,
however, the consensus of my colleagues within AASG, and
generally throughout the entire geoscience community, would be
that the National Cooperative Geological Mapping Program
(NCGMP) represents the ``best of the best.'' Over the past
seven years, it has provided the nation with a multitude of new
critically needed geologic maps in the most effective and cost-
efficient manner. It has become the model for joint planning,
close coordination, and prompt delivery of products. It's a
great state-Federal partnership success story in which we can
all take justifiable pride!
Because the reauthorization and amendment bill before you
today has been jointly crafted and closely coordinated between
the U.S. Geological Survey and our association (AASG), it
represents the latest step in the continuing evolution of the
program and encompasses significant improvements in what was
already a good program with a solid reputation and widely
acknowledged record of cost-efficient high productivity of
critically-needed, mission-oriented products.
The recommended reauthorization funding levels as amended
and percentages in the proposed legislation were similarly
arrived at through joint deliberation based on past experience,
future needs, and capabilities. They are honest, uninflated,
fair, realistic, and verifiable funding figures required to
continue and advance the program to an optimal level. There is
no ``smoke and mirrors,'' no ``fat nor fluff,'' no ``waste,
fraud, or abuse'' in the reauthorization and amendment
recommendations.
I am sure that many, if not all, of you on the Subcommittee
have already heard directly from, or will shortly hear from,
the state geologists in your respective states concerning the
value of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program to
your state with numerous specific examples. I am equally sure
that my Federal colleagues within the U.S. Geological Survey
have provided, or will provide, you with additional details and
specifics concerning various aspects of the program, its
several components, proposed funding levels, etc. Because I
know that there is broad support for the program within the
overall geoscience community throughout the nation, I'm sure
you will also receive positive feedback and support for the
program from numerous professional and scientific organizations
as well as from academia, the private sector, and the many
users of geologic maps. I note that representatives from
academia as well as the USGS are on the docket today. The
reason for such broad support for reauthorization and amendment
of the program is clear, simple, and unequivocal.
Reauthorization and amendment at the proposed levels will
enhance and continue an excellent cooperative Federal-state
program, and grow it into an optimal one clearly necessary to
meet the societal challenges we face in the new millennium.
Before I close, let me make a couple of very important
points about the part of the National Cooperative Geologic
Mapping Program that I am personally most familiar with: the
STATEMAP component. That is the part of the program under which
state geological surveys match state dollars with Federal
dollars to conduct prioritized, strategically-targeted geologic
mapping to meet current and anticipated societal needs. The
resultant geological maps serve very practical purposes: they
identify needed resources (energy, minerals and water); they
identify natural hazards so they might be avoided or their
impact mitigated; and they provide very important basic
information requisite for sound land use, environmental
management, and ecosystem considerations. Such considerations
and their enlightened resolution are key to maintaining our
preeminence as a nation and an international leader and power.
It should be noted that STATEMAP project priorities are set
by state advisory committees consisting of representatives of
all user groups: the private sector, government, academia,
industry, citizens--the entire spectrum of users of geologic
maps. Therefore, they reflect real, pressing societal needs
determined at the state and local level, not merely curiosity
driven research projects (not that such projects are
necessarily without merit).
Lastly, but not of lesser importance, funding for STATEMAP
projects among the participating state geological surveys is
awarded on a competitive basis through a rigorous peer-review
process. The national review panel that ultimately reviews
proposals and allocates funding is composed of state geologists
and USGS personnel who follow rigorous, mutually agreed-upon
guidelines, priorities and procedures. STATEMAP is definitely
not an entitlement program. Not all proposals are funded, as I
can personally attest.
To summarize, let me state forthrightly and with complete
confidence that H.R. 1528, reauthorization and amendment of the
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act of 1992, is a
critical investment in our country's future that we simply
cannot afford to pass up! The nation's need for geologic maps
is clear and compelling and the National Cooperative Geologic
Mapping Program provides the best mechanism to meet that need.
Its reauthorization and amendment by H.R. 1528 fully merit your
support. Your constituents and the entire nation will be the
beneficiary of the wisdom of your affirmative action.
Thank you for considering my views and recommendations.
Should you have any questions now or later, I'll be happy to
answer them.
Mr. Gibbons. Dr. William Thomas, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM A. THOMAS, PROFESSOR OF GEOSCIENCES,
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION
Dr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to speak
as an active participant in the EDMAP program on behalf of the
reauthorization of the National Geologic Mapping Act. My own
work emphasizes field geology and three-dimensional
interpretations from geologic maps. I have been active in
directing graduate students in geologic mapping in the EDMAP
program since its inception.
I am also here to express the support of the American
Geological Institute for this important legislation. I
currently serve as Treasurer of AGI, which is a nonprofit
federation of 34 geoscience societies with a total membership
of more than 100,000.
AGI's mission emphasizes geoscience education and public
awareness of geosciences. We are currently preparing a booklet
for public information on the applications of geologic maps to
human needs.
An extreme special need for geologic maps arose during the
Second World War when the demands of the war effort and
disruption of normal import channels threatened the supply of
strategic minerals. An intense program of geologic mapping was
instituted, and because of the urgent needs, some geologists
who otherwise would have been eligible for the military were
deferred and assigned to the mapping project.
Normal depletion of natural resources does not reach the
crisis level of a world war, but systematic mapping will
support our long-range planning to sustain supplies of
essential raw materials that fuel our national economy.
Geologic mapping is a long-term investment in our economy
because geologic maps portray the spatial distributions of
rocks and surficial materials that contain the natural
resources which drive our industry. A single corporation cannot
make the up-front investment of time and money to construct
geologic maps of large regions such as whole States. But when
geologic maps are available, the corporation can focus on areas
selected for resource potential from the maps.
For example, the massive construction and preparation for
the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta severely stressed the local
supply of cement. Geologic maps served to focus an efficient
search for additional limestone suitable for cement
manufacture.
To illustrate another application of geologic maps, I want
to tell you about an EDMAP project. The Girl Scout camp near
Rome, Georgia, operated for many years as a primitive camp
using water from a large spring. Later the camp was modernized
with indoor plumbing necessitating a septic tank and bleeder
field. In the absence of a detailed geologic map, the septic
field was placed on an area of exposure of what later turned
out to be the aquifer that fed the spring, and illnesses
developed at the camp soon thereafter. Subsequent testing
showed that water from a flushed toilet reached the spring
through the aquifer in less than 48 hours.
That same aquifer is important as a domestic water supply
in a large area, and my student, with EDMAP support, made a
geologic map of the aquifer and related rocks. Now, the
recharge area is clearly delineated, and protection from
contamination can be planned.
Let me show you our EDMAP product from the past year. This
colorful map accurately shows the distribution of rock types at
the surface in an area of complex geology. The rock layers
represented by the bright blue color on the map form the
primary groundwater aquifer that is used for domestic water
supplies. The map includes measurements that enable us to
geometrically project the depth of a specific rock layer below
ground, as illustrated in these cross sections. Using the map,
we can identify the area where the aquifer is at the surface
and must be protected from contamination, and we can calculate
the necessary depth to drill a water well.
These projects exemplify the dual objectives of EDMAP,
training of future mappers and producing geologic maps. More
than 40 institutions participate in EDMAP each year. From 1996
to 1999, EDMAP has awarded nearly $1.5 million to 84 different
universities in 43 States and the District of Columbia. Federal
funds have been matched, dollar for dollar, by these
universities, yielding a total investment in geologic mapping
of approximately $3 million. Proposals for EDMAP projects are
coordinated with priorities of State geological surveys or the
USGS, and the proposals are reviewed by a national panel of
representatives from universities, State surveys, and USGS.
I currently serve on the panel, and I can attest to the
high quality and careful planning exhibited in these proposed
projects. This year well-qualified proposals with well-
justified budget requests substantially exceeded the available
funds.
The tangible products of EDMAP are geologic maps. The ED
part, however, is really fundamental to the program. In recent
years many academic institutions and funding agencies have come
to emphasize laboratory science rather than field geology and
mapping. As a result, the number of geologic mappers being
trained by university geology departments has declined. At the
same time, increasing needs for the geologic maps that provide
information essential to sustain our economy and environment
now require a more systematic approach to the education of
geologic mappers for the future. We simply must not lose the
ability to make geologic maps.
EDMAP represents a clear national incentive to expand our
educational efforts in geologic mapping, and it attracts
students to the topic. A well-done geologic map provides a
wealth of information as a basis for development of resources
that fuel our economy and for protection of our living
environment. The making of a geologic map requires a particular
educational background, and EDMAP supports that education. I am
convinced and I hope I have convinced you of the vital role of
EDMAP and the National Geologic Mapping Act.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you have.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Dr. Thomas.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Thomas follows:]
Statement of William A. Thomas, M.S., Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences,
University of Kentucky on behalf of the American Geological Institute
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to speak as an active
participant in the EDMAP program on behalf of reauthorization
of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. My name is
William A. Thomas. I am Professor of Geological Sciences at the
University of Kentucky, where I have just developed a new
course in basic geosciences for undergraduate students in
science, engineering, agriculture, and science education. A
primary emphasis of that new course is on the use of geologic
maps in solving real problems in the respective disciplines of
the students. My own research and that of graduate students
whose research I have directed is in field geology with
emphasis on three-dimensional interpretations from geologic
maps. I have been active in directing graduate students in
geologic mapping in the context of the EDMAP component of the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Cooperative Geologic
Mapping Program since its inception.
I am also here to express the support of the American
Geological Institute (AGI) for this important legislation. I
currently serve as Treasurer on the Executive Committee of the
Institute, which is a nonprofit federation of 34 geoscientific
and professional associations that represent more than 100,000
geologists, geophysicists, and other Earth scientists. Founded
in 1948, AGI provides information services to geoscientists,
serves as a voice for shared interests in our profession, plays
a major role in strengthening geoscience education, and strives
to increase public awareness of the vital role the geosciences
play in mankind's use of resources and interaction with the
environment. I am currently working with others in AGI to
prepare a booklet for public information on the applications of
geologic maps to human needs.
Perhaps no greater testimony to the crucial nature of
geologic maps can be found than the strategic minerals mapping
program during World War II. The demands of the war effort and
the disruption of normal import channels threatened the
adequacy of the supply of vital minerals. In order to locate
undiscovered essential resources, a focused program of geologic
mapping was instituted, and the urgency of the circumstances is
reflected in the fact that some geologists, who were otherwise
military-eligible, were deferred and assigned to the mapping
effort. Although the normal depletion of natural resources does
not reach the crisis-level crescendo of a world war, a program
to systematically map and assess resource potential will allow
the best possible long-range planning to sustain the supplies
of necessary raw materials that fuel our national economy.
Geologic mapping is a long-term investment in the future of
our economy, because most manufacturing depends upon natural
resources from geologic materials, and geologic maps portray
the spatial distributions of rocks and surficial materials that
hold those resources. A typical user of natural resources,
generally a corporation, cannot make the up-front investment of
time and money to construct geologic maps of large regions such
as whole states. However, when geologic maps are available, the
corporate research effort can be focused on smaller areas which
can be selected for their resource potential from the maps. In
other words, the availability of a geologic map provides the
information base that enables private investment to locate and
develop resources. For example, the massive construction in
preparation for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia,
severely stressed the local supply of cement. Available
geologic maps were sufficiently detailed to generally focus the
search for additional limestone suitable for cement
manufacture; however, it was quickly realized that more
detailed maps were needed for this specialized purpose. The
scale of geologic maps prepared through the EDMAP program is
suitable for this kind of resource development.
I could provide similar examples of other applications of
geologic maps in, for example, coal-mine planning, oil and gas
exploration, assessment of landslide hazards, and exploration
for metals. Instead, I want to tell you about an EDMAP project
with which I was involved and the application it addressed. A
Girl Scout camp near Rome, Georgia, operated for many years as
a primitive camp, using water from a large spring. In due
course, although continuing to use the spring as a water
supply, the camp was modernized with indoor plumbing,
necessitating a septic tank and bleeder field. In the absence
of a detailed geologic map, the septic field was placed on the
area of exposure of the aquifer that fed the spring, and
illnesses developed soon thereafter. Subsequent testing showed
that water from a flush toilet reached the spring through the
aquifer in less than 48 hours. The same aquifer is important as
a domestic water supply in a large area around Rome, and my
student Aaron Baldwin with EDMAP support and University of
Kentucky matching funds made a geologic map of the aquifer and
related rocks, so the recharge area is clearly delineated, and
protection from contamination can be planned. This project
illustrates the best of EDMAP. We developed our mapping plan in
coordination with priorities of the geological survey of
Georgia. The student received an education in the techniques of
geologic mapping, interpretation of the underground three-
dimensional extent of a particular rock, and the design of a
research project to solve a problem. The finished map has been
provided to USGS.
Let me show you our EDMAP product for the past year. This
is a geologic map of an area northwest of Fort McClellan in
Alabama. Springs supply the water for several towns in the
area, and in addition to the standard observations in making a
geologic map, my student Greg Graham located the larger springs
in the context of rock types and geologic structures. Perhaps
the colorful map does look like a piece of modem art, but it
accurately shows the distribution of rock types at the surface
in an area of complex geologic structures. Of particular
importance, the map includes carefully measured angles of dip
of the rock layers, so that rocks exposed at the surface can be
geometrically projected below ground. Using this kind of data,
we can calculate the depth necessary to drill to a particular
rock layer at any particular locality. This is important in
developing groundwater resources. For example, the rocks
represented by the bright blue color on the map form the
primary groundwater aquifer that is used for domestic water
supplies in this part of Alabama. From the map we get two
important pieces of information: (1) we can identify the area
where the aquifer is at the surface and must be protected from
contamination; and (2) for the many farms that use well water,
we can predict the necessary depth to drill. My student who
made this map learned the mapping techniques, as well as the
interpretation of the rocks at depth; and we have provided the
map to the USGS and the Alabama Geological Survey to be
publicly available. This project exemplifies the dual objective
of EDMAP: training of future mappers, and producing geologic
maps. Greg Graham completed his M.S. degree a few weeks ago,
and last week I provided a reference interview for the U.S.
Forest Service in consideration of that agency's hiring this
new graduate to map landslide potential in the Klamath
Mountains.
Mine is but one of more than 40 institutions participating
in EDMAP each year. In fiscal year (FY) 1999, EDMAP provided
$382,150 to support mapping projects by 60 students in 41
universities in 29 states and the District of Columbia. From
1996 to 1999, the USGS has awarded $1,487,276 to 84
universities in 43 states and the District of Columbia; Federal
funds have been matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by these
universities, for a total investment of approximately $3
million. EDMAP has been funded at the authorized percentage (2
percent of program funds) since 1996. Proposals for EDMAP
projects are coordinated with a state geological survey or
USGS, and proposals are reviewed by a national panel of
representatives from universities, state geological surveys,
and USGS. I currently serve on the review panel, and I can
attest to the high quality and careful planning exhibited in
these proposed projects. Indeed, in this past year, well-
qualified proposals with well-justified budget requests
substantially exceeded available funds. Important issues
addressed by EDMAP projects include groundwater assessment and
protection, landslide hazards, mineral resource potential (both
metallic and aggregate), mapping of National Park lands, and
earthquake hazards. The proposals are specifically reviewed for
a mentoring plan, wherein the supervising faculty member spends
time in the field with the student mapper. The willingness of
faculty to participate in this relatively time-consuming
teaching activity is further testimony to the wide-spread
support for the training of the next generation of geologic
mappers.
Although the tangible products of EDMAP are geologic maps,
the ``ED'' part is fundamental to the program. As in all fields
of academic endeavor, students in the geosciences gravitate to
the current hot topics in which research funding is available.
In recent years, many of our academic institutions and funding
agencies have emphasized laboratory science. Laboratory
research has contributed to significant advances in a broad
spectrum of the geosciences; however, students with laboratory
training alone do not develop the perspective necessary to
understand spatial relationships and three-dimensional
projections in geologic maps. In other words, many of today's
geoscience students are not educated in the preparation and use
of geologic maps that provide information essential to sustain
our economy and environment. In short, during the past 20
years, the number of geologic mappers being trained by
university geology departments has decreased. At the same time
that our educational system has shifted away from field mapping
and into the laboratory, the accelerated growth of needs for
new and more detailed geologic maps requires a systematic
approach to the education of geologic mappers for the future.
EDMAP represents a clear national incentive to expand our
educational efforts in geologic mapping, and it attracts
students to the topic. Already, EDMAP awards have helped to
support the training of more than 220 future geologic mappers.
These young mappers are beginning to enter the workforce and
make a difference. Informal information indicates that previous
EDMAP students have been hired by state geological surveys, oil
companies, and environmental consulting companies.
A well-done geologic map provides a wealth of information
as a basis for development of resources that fuel our economy
and for protection of our living environment. The making of a
geologic map requires a particular educational background, and
EDMAP supports that education. I am convinced, and I hope that
I have convinced you, of the vital role of EDMAP and the
National Geologic Mapping Act. I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you may have.
Mr. Gibbons. I want to applaud each of you for doing
something that none of us could have done, having been a panel
of three Ph.D.s, all given 10 minutes to talk about your field
of specialty and having completed it within the time allotted
is a remarkable experience. None of us would have been able to
do that, at least talk anywhere near that short a time period.
When you held that map up, I was extremely pleased. It
reminded me of my youth. I was very good at coloring. In fact,
I think that I colored all of the walls of in the house and
became a geologist because I loved to color maps, and that is
one of the real treasures, I think, of being a geologist, being
able to map things out and put them into perspective.
Also, in the interests of full disclosure here, not just
for the panel but members of the Committee as well, I would
like to note that we have an adjunct professor with your
Department of Geoscience at the University of Kentucky and the
Kentucky geologic survey. David Wunsch has been an AGI-
sponsored Congressional Science Fellow with this Subcommittee
for the past 9 months.
I have had the great pleasure of having him out to
Subcommittee hearings in Nevada as well. I did this because of
the excellent cooperative spirit in the Act that is fostered
between the Federal Government, States, and academic
institutions.
I would ask now for unanimous consent to place a letter
from the National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges that was addressed to the chairman, Barbara
Cubin, on H.R. 1528, expressing their support for this bill
into the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.032
Mr. Gibbons. To the Members of the panel, we have allowed
you 10 minutes. You have been very gracious in that fact. We do
limit ourselves to 5 minutes in terms of our own questions, and
let me take the lead and start my 5 minutes and go back to Dr.
Leahy.
I just want to thank you again for your comments regarding
the administration's support for this. You state in your
testimony that one of the USGS's goals is to expand cooperative
mapping with State surveys, academic institutions and other
Federal agencies in the private sector.
Can you elaborate upon the role of the private sector and
the role it plays in cooperative efforts with the USGS related
to geologic mapping?
Dr. Leahy. Of course, as you know, geologic mapping is a
research activity. However, there is considerable support of
activities that we do through contracting with the private
sector. These include such things as aerial photography,
geophysical surveys, the use of geographic information systems,
and the acquiring of the hardware and software associated with
that and base map materials.
All of these maps are prepared on a topographic base. All
those base maps come from our National Mapping Division. Many
of their activities, a large percentage, are contracted out to
the private sector.
Mr. Gibbons. Dr. Woodfork, I noticed in your testimony, in
both in your written and verbal testimony, that you say that
the State geologic surveys and the USGS--I use the word
emphasized, you usually interact in a cooperative and mutually
beneficial manner.
With that testimony, are you suggesting that there are
times when the two agencies may not interact as well and maybe
there should be some improvements? Would you care to expand on
this?
Dr. Woodfork. There is always room for improvement. There
no doubt have been times in the past and probably will be in
the future that we might not share the same perspective because
the States represent the State interests and the Federal survey
has a different perspective; the Federal issue may have
considerations in it that we don't make. I would say that that
has generally been the loyal opposition role that we might
play. It is not uncommon, the dynamic tension that probably
always exists between the Federal Republic and the States that
comprise that probably has led to all of our benefit over the
years. It is not--it is viewed, as you well know, from a
different perspective. It is not--I did not mean it to be a
derogatory. It is simply the way I think it is supposed to
work.
Mr. Gibbons. Has the availability of State-appropriated
dollars for West Virginia surveys or your colleagues' surveys
increased as a result of the initial success of even the 1992
Act or have these funds always been available if the Federal
matching funds had been there?
Dr. Woodfork. You know, I can't say that there is a cause
and effect there. What I can tell you is that there are
sufficient funds there to match, the State funds to match
Federal funds. We did have an ad hoc committee of ASG appointed
to determine in the foreseeable future--and that is the time
frame that we were talking about, 2001 to 2005--whether or not
there would be sufficient State funds to match those. And
although I can't give you the precise figure, my recollection--
and I will provide it to you later--is that there were at least
half again as much funds available out there, matching funds
from State surveys to match the Federal dollars that are
scheduled in the bill that you have before you.
Mr. Gibbons. Dr. Thomas, dedication of 2 percent of the
USGS geologic mapping budget to EDMAP, is that sufficient to
ensure a continuing stream of skilled geologic mappers that
will come out of our universities? And where do the schools get
50 percent matching money which the program requires?
Dr. Thomas. On the first point, my experience has been with
the panelists last year. Members of the panel who had served in
previous years commented on the steadily increasing quality of
the proposals that the panel was receiving. It was our
perception that meritorious proposals could not be fully funded
simply because of total limitation of the budget. Whether that
falls in the realm of the total budget or percentage, I am not
sure. But we, as a panel, felt that we should have funded some
of the proposals at a higher level than we were able to in
order to assure that the students were able to get the
experience in the field. The universities matching commitment
for the most part is in the area of faculty salaries and the
commitment of faculty time. Because field work, as you well
know, is a time-intensive activity, and the expectation or even
the requirement of EDMAP is that the faculty member be actively
in the field with the student in an instructional sense. So
there is a substantial commitment of faculty time to this
activity.
Mr. Gibbons. As you can see, I didn't stay within the green
light. I now have a red light here, so I need to turn to my
colleague from Guam.
Mr. Underwood, the time is yours.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The colors actually
seem more psychedelic to me, a throwback to the 1960s, very
artistic and very graphic.
First of all, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
enter a statement by our colleague, Congressman Rahall,
expressing his words of welcome to Dr. Woodfork.
Mr. Gibbons. Without objection
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Statement of Hon. Nick Rahall, a Representative in Congress from the
State of West Virginia
I would simply like to welcome the distinguished State
Geologist, from the great State of West Virginia, Larry
Woodfork, to the Subcommittee this afternoon.
Larry has held that position for a little over ten years
now, and throughout that period we have worked closely on a
number of initiatives to advance the geosciences in not only
West Virginia, but nationwide.
One product of that partnership is the National Geologic
Mapping Act of 1992, which is being considered for
reauthorization today.
Larry, welcome to the Subcommittee.
Mr. Underwood. I want to thank all of you for your
testimonies. I am very interested and very gratified to hear
about the levels of cooperation that occurred between the
Federal Government and the State map and the EDMAP projects.
Although I fully understand, primarily coming from an academic
background myself, that there never appears to be sufficient
effort, level of effort, in trying to provide funding for the
many and multi-faceted educational programs that those of us
who come from academia always have lots of time to figure out.
But I do think that it is a very critical activity that you
are carrying out.
I did want to ask Dr. Leahy, in terms of the projects for
the insular areas, for the territories, if you could give me a
status report perhaps. When has the Survey last done a geologic
map for Guam?
I want to be real specific, if you don't mind, Mr.
Chairman.
Dr. Leahy. I think we would prefer to answer that question
for the record, writing to you in terms of what mapping we have
done.
[The additional material follows:]
------------
The most recent geologic map of the Island is included in:
Tracey, Joshua I., Jr., Schlanger, Seymour O., Stark, John T.,
Doan, David B., May, Harold G., General Geology of Guam,
Professional Paper, P 0403-A, p. Al-A104, illus., geol. maps,
1964.
In addition, the National Geologic Map Database includes
three recent publications.
(1.) Tonikai, J.D., 1997, Rainfall, ground water, and
ocean-tide data, Guam, 1996: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File
Report OF-97-239, scale 1:107000.
(2.) Otton, J.K., 1993, Preliminary geologic radon
potential assessment of Guam: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File
Report OF-93-292-K, scale 1:200000.
(3.) Richmond, B.M., and Jaffe, B.E., 1991, Typhoon Russ
effects on the shoreline of Guam: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-
File Report OF-91-571, scale 1:50000.
As part of the National Geologic Mapping Act, the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program has created the National
Geologic Map Database (NGMDB) to serve as a ``national
archive'' of geologic maps. The initial phase of the database
is an Internet-based catalog of printed geologic maps. The
index is available on the Internet at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov and
is being populated with metadata (approximately 90% of USGS
holdings as of 6/99). The second phase of the project is
underway to adopt standards for GIS use and to provide access
and delivery of digital geologic map data on the Internet.
I will point out that the initial passage of the National
Geologic Mapping Act in 1992, did not include the territories
as eligible in terms of participating in the State-map element
of the program. However, that was changed in the last
reauthorization to include Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin
Islands and so forth. So they are now eligible for the funding
under this program.
We have been working with Puerto Rico, but I don't think
that we have worked with the other territories in the context
of this program, although we have done geologic mapping in
those areas.
Mr. Underwood. But I am sure that you are more than willing
to work with them if the occasion arises?
Dr. Leahy. Yes.
Mr. Underwood. I know that part of the responsibilities for
the Geologic Survey have to do with providing information for
the economic utility of mineral resources. And one of the
issues that always comes to mind in an insular area is the EEZ,
the exclusive economic zone, which is most often thought of in
terms of fishing.
We just had a hearing a few weeks ago on methane hydrates.
There has also been a lot of discussion about the possibility
of mining manganese nodules on the ocean floor. What thought
has been given to the issue of mapping those potential economic
resources which are under the jurisdiction of an exclusive
economic zone?
Dr. Leahy. That is a complicated question, but let me try
to answer it. First of all, the National Geologic Mapping Act
is a land-based program. So the mapping activities that are
supported under this particular program are focussed on land--
not on sea bottom mapping.
However, in 1983, the USGS, under our Coastal and Marine
Geology Program, began a major effort to map the sea bottom of
the EEZ and that work is completed. So we have complete digital
imagery of sea floor conditions for the entire EEZ.
Now, the next step has not been taken in terms of
evaluating those for mineral potential, at least not on a
national scale. Certainly they have looked at individual areas
of interest. Again, it is a different program and I would be
glad to provide you information about the Coastal and Marine
Program.
[The above mentioned material follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8948.037
Mr. Underwood. I would certainly be very interested in
that. I am trying to understand exactly where that
responsibility may lie or where that activity should occur,
whether it should occur in your agency or perhaps in Commerce.
I think it is a matter that should be pursued.
Perhaps the gentleman from West Virginia or people from
academia might venture a comment on that. Have you given any
thought to that issue?
Dr. Woodfork. Age before beauty.
Dr. Thomas. I am afraid my activities are also quite land-
based, coming from Kentucky.
Mr. Underwood. We may have to teach you how to swim then.
Dr. Thomas. I did want to comment on the map. We have
thought that possibly one way to improve the overall budget for
EDMAP would be if we could sell this as a work of art.
Mr. Underwood. Very good.
Dr. Woodfork. I deal with Paleozoic oceans to the extent of
many eons ago. I have tried to sell that program to the Mineral
Management Service, that those Paleozoic coastlines should be
eligible for consideration thereto, so far unsuccessfully. I
cannot give you any specific insight into the manganese mapping
issues on the current ocean base. I think it is a project
worthy of merit.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Underwood. We will
have just one quick second round of questions to kind of clear
things up here and then certainly allow you gentlemen to be
released from the Committee here.
Dr. Leahy, let me ask a question about the process, the
mapping that has taken place since the 1879 evolution of the
USGS using the 7\1/2\-minute quadrangle scale, which is the
normal scale. Has any State been adequately mapped at that
scale since your testimony only relates to a 2 percent coverage
that you stated in there?
Dr. Leahy. I think the Nation right now has about 20
percent coverage of modern geologic maps at a 7\1/2\ minute
scale, so we have a long way to go. The only States that are
fully mapped at a 7\1/2\ minute scale are Kentucky and
Connecticut. So we do not have complete coverage at 7\1/2\-
minute scale except for those two States.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me ask a question, Dr. Leahy, for the
chairwoman of this Committee who is unavoidably absent today
due to an illness. But she wanted me to ask about your
testimony mentioning a project in the Lander-Riverton area of
Wyoming as an ongoing example of a State map component of this
cooperative program and that local business councils had sought
this work.
Are you familiar yet or are you apprised of any preliminary
results of the result of this mapping?
Dr. Leahy. In terms of impact or----
Mr. Gibbons. I presume it is whether there is any result
from the effort of mapping to date.
Dr. Leahy. That effort is still in progress. Therefore, I
can't tell you about the impact of the mapping yet. I suspect
they are still in the field, compiling the data, producing the
map. Once it is done,
then I think the stakeholders will be able to use it for
economic development.
I believe there is an environmental aspect associated with
groundwater vulnerability in that area as well.
Mr. Gibbons. Any significant results that have shown or
come to light as a result of this mapping in the area?
Dr. Leahy. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Gibbons. Dr. Thomas, let me ask a question about--the
evolution and the practice of geology has traditionally been
one in the male world. I know there is a great deal of interest
now in the society for female geologists. Is the program
working to improve conditions for development of female
geologists in your institution and throughout the program?
Dr. Thomas. I can speak specifically about my own
institution. I have EDMAP funding for a project that is
currently under way. The student doing that work is a female
Ph.D. student at the University of Kentucky. She was in the
field last year in Alabama, and we have also been notified that
we have received funding for a second year on her project, and
she will again be working in the field next winter.
Mr. Gibbons. Is the trend in female undergraduate
enrollment in geology or other majors of that type, or grad
students in the area, is it growing, staying level, or
declining?
Dr. Thomas. I am not sure about the rate of growth. It
certainly has been a steady increase over the years of my
experience. I was in school in the 1950s. There were very few
female students in geology at that time. Now I think the
percentage--I am sorry, I can't say exactly what the percent
is, but it is a substantial percentage. I think more
importantly, the women geology students are in all aspects of
geology.
We tend to think of some things, particularly field
geology, for example, as being kind of a male-dominated
activity. But some of my better field students have been
females.
Mr. Gibbons. Dr. Woodfork, final question. In the testimony
here we see this reauthorization Act allows for, I see, some
fairly healthy increases in the USGS geologic mapping budget.
Can you state to this Committee that the portion of those funds
that go to the State map component of this Act will be able to
be matched by various State surveys that submit grant proposals
which make it through the peer review process?
Dr. Woodfork. Based on our survey, I can state
unequivocally that the money is there to accomplish that.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much.
Mr. Underwood, any further questions?
Mr. Underwood. No.
Mr. Gibbons. Gentlemen, I want to again thank you for your
time and your testimony here today. I would like to ask that if
the Committee or the staff has further questions, that we may
submit them to you in writing and that you will respond to
those written questions as if you were here testifying before
this Committee, if that is agreeable with you.
And there is no further business of this panel. The
chairman
thanks the members of the panel for being here, the
Subcommittee, and especially the witnesses.
This Subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC,
June 25, 1999.
Dr. William Thomas,
Department of Geological Sciences,
University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY 40505
Dear Dr. Thomas:
Thank you for testifying before the House Resources Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources during the hearing on H.R. 1528, the
``National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999.''
Due to time constraints, Members did not have time to ask all of
their questions about the EDMAP component of the National Geologic Act.
The Subcommittee would like answers to the following questions:
1. How much time and ``manpower'' were necesssary to complete the
geologic mapping of the state of Kentucky at the 1:24,000 scale?
2. What are the differences in geologic education, if any, between
the current generation of geology students, and the geologic mappers
that completed this massive mapping project?
3. Can you explain the role of field camps in teaching geologic
mapping to geologists? Do EDMAP matching funds play a part infield camp
training programs?
4. Can you describe the benefits reaped by your home state of
Kentucky that resulted from its comprehensive geologic mapping
coverage?
We would appreciate if you could provide answers to the above
questions in the same format as they are asked before July 1, 1999.
This letter and your reply will be included in the hearing record.
On behalf of the entire Subcommittee, I look forward to receiving
your reply to our follow-up questions no later than Thursday, July 1,
1999.
Sincerely,
Barbara Cubin,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Answers to questions from the Subcommittee by Dr. William A. Thomas
Dear Representative Cubin:
I enjoyed the opportunity to testify before the House Subcommittee
on Energy and Mineral Resources during the hearing on H.R. 1528, the
``National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999,'' and I am
happy to respond to the additional questions posed in your letter of
June 25. My responses are numbered to correspond to the questions.
1. Concerning time and ``manpower'' to complete geologic mapping of
the entire state of Kentucky at 1:24,000 scale, I can report data
compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Kentucky Geological
Survey. The state encompasses 707 quadrangles at 1:24,000 scale.
Geologic mapping began in 1960. Field work was completed in 1977, and
the final quadrangle map was published in 1978. The total effort
required 661 professional man-years, and an estimated more than 200
different individuals contributed to the mapping. The total budget was
$20,927,500 over the 18 years of the project. Most of the mappers were
USGS geologists, but some Kentucky Geological Survey geologists and
university faculty members were employed in the mapping.
2. It is difficult to quantify the differences in geologic
education received by the mappers of the 1960-1978 Kentucky project and
that offered in current geology programs; however, I can describe the
primary differences in terms of my own experience. As an undergraduate
student in 1952-1956, I attended an 8-week summer field course that
consisted almost entirely of geologic mapping; during the succeeding
fall semester, each student was required to complete a full geologic
report on the area mapped. I also took 5 field courses that consisted
of geologic mapping on Saturdays throughout the academic year. In
addition, I took a second 8-week summer field course as an elective to
do geologic mapping in especially challenging areas. The undergraduate
program that I followed may have emphasized field mapping to a somewhat
higher degree than some contemporary programs, but an intense
involvement in field work was characteristic of geology departments of
that time. Through the years, an increasing sophistication of
laboratory work in the geosciences, advances in remote sensing
techniques, and growth of numerous subspecialties in the geosciences
have resulted in progressive decreases in the time devoted to
instruction in geologic mapping in the typical curriculum. In response,
several changes have occurred in the teaching of geologic mapping. Most
notably, most summer field courses (field camps) are now in session for
six weeks or less. Part of the reduction in length is driven by cost.
Field camp is somewhat costly to the student, and university funds for
off-campus travel are limited. Furthermore, many students depend on
summer jobs for income, and field camp takes much of the summer. In
addition to the simple reduction in length, many summer field courses
now include exercises in a variety of specialized field techniques,
thereby reducing the amount of time devoted to mapping. Some summer
field courses are devoted entirely to special topics other than
mapping; for example, hydrogeology field camps are now common. Each of
the specialized topics for instruction is appropriate, but none is a
suitable replacement for the understanding that arises from geologic
mapping. Most of the specialized courses would benefit from a
prerequisite of a geologic mapping course. For example, data on
geologic maps are essential to define the geometry of groundwater
aquifers that must be known in order to plan water wells, and geologic
maps show where the aquifer is at the surface (the recharge area) to
enable protection from pollution. The allocation of time for
instruction in geologic mapping is a difficult dilemma. The evolving
techniques and subspecialties are changing and improving our abilities
to resolve many types of problems; however, geologic maps remain the
essential tie from all facets of geoscience to the real conditions of
the Earth. While not every geoscientist must be able to make a high-
quality geologic map, any geoscientist who lacks the ability to read
and interpret a geologic map is at a serious disadvantage. The only
effective way to learn map interpretation is by the practice of making
a map, and this is one essential reason to re-establish an emphasis on
field geology and mapping. A more direct critical need, however, is to
maintain a well-trained cadre of field geologists who will be available
to make the geologic maps that we will continue to need. For this
purpose, the EDMAP program is crucial. It is a clear mandate for
geology departments to maintain the teaching of geologic mapping, and
it involves students as active geologic mappers.
3. Field courses (field camps) and EDMAP have complementary but
different missions. The primary purpose of field camp is to take a
student at an introductory level and provide basic instruction in
making a geologic map. This is in a learn-by-doing approach, and the
final product is a geologic map. The sites for study are carefully
selected so that the students will encounter a suitable level of
complexity, quality of exposure, variety of rocks and structures, etc.
Each new class typically works on the same sites; therefore, successive
years of field camps do not progressively cover a previously unmapped
region. Each class has the benefit of working on a locality that is
especially suited to teaching the techniques of mapping. This is really
necessary to the educational objective. In contrast, EDMAP projects are
coordinated with priorities defined by the U.S. or state geological
surveys, and one objective is to map an area for which a map is needed.
The educational component of EDMAP takes a student who has already
completed the field camp introduction to geologic mapping and provides
additional instruction to reach a professional level of competence in
mapping. In this sense, EDMAP provides a kind of on-the-job training
that would be appropriate for any senior or graduate student going into
an industry job. Because of these differences in objectives, a field
camp should not be expected to generate the deliverables that are
rightly required of EDMAP projects. Field camp experience, however, may
lead to the identification of appropriate EDMAP projects, and it is
essential as preparation for mapping at the skill level required for
EDMAP. I strongly support the concept of field camp as an essential
educational enterprise; however, in my opinion, it would be
inappropriate to use EDMAP funds to support field camps. If other funds
could be made available, external support would alleviate the cost
problems of attending field camp described in item 2; however, I would
not favor diverting those funds from EDMAP which is currently
underfunded in terms of ability to fully support all deserving
proposals.
4. The geologic quadrangle maps of Kentucky are sold to the public
through the state geological survey and other offices. The numbers of
these maps that have been sold attest to the usefulness ascribed to
them. Statistics at the Kentucky Geological Survey show that more than
105,000 maps were sold between 1965 and 1978; 58,000 of those during
the last four years of that period, when many maps were being
published. Predictably, as the various corporations and institutions
acquired complete sets of maps, the large initial demand began to
decrease. A measure of the continuing market is in recent sales
statistics: 3,950 copies in 1996, 3,275 in 1997, and 2,605 in 1998.
Raster images are being made available as an alternative to the paper
copies of maps. At present, work is underway to digitize the existing
geologic maps at 1:24,000 scale, and this level of availability will
further enhance the many uses of the maps. In particular, the digitized
maps will expand the use of the geologic maps in the display of many
kinds data in a GIS format. The sale of maps is but one measure of the
value placed on these data sets by the general public. Many specific
uses of the maps are documented, and I will cite a few here as
examples. Geologic maps are used extensively in the exploration for and
development of coal resources, one of the mainstays of Kentucky's
economy. Tracing of coal beds is necessary to extend the area of
mining, and the geologic maps have been used for that purpose by many
companies. Documented reports describe the finding of additional coal
resources at many scattered localities in amounts from one-half million
to several million tons. A simple example illustrates that a single
discovery of only 195 acres of 6-foot-thick coal yields a value of
$21,000,000, the total cost of the entire state mapping project.
Similar examples of the use of the geologic maps in mining of fluorspar
in western Kentucky and in petroleum exploration throughout the state
are available. Several oil and gas operators have reported the
discovery of new fields as a direct result of the use of the maps. In
addition to bedrock data, the maps show alluvium along stream systems
and other surficial deposits. These surficial deposits are important
resources of clay, sand, and gravel, and the geologic maps greatly
focus the search for these materials. Nearly every example of the
development of resources through the use of the published geologic maps
falls into the category that I described in my previous testimony: a
corporation cannot invest the time and money to map large areas, but
where geologic maps are available, they serve to focus the search for
resources. Clearly, this is working in Kentucky. The geologic maps have
also proven useful in engineering applications, particularly in highway
design and construction. For example, a new highway in eastern Kentucky
through an area prone to landslides was under construction while the
mapping was being conducted. With the use of the maps, the highway was
redesigned and relocated greatly reducing the risk of landslides of the
type that had destroyed earlier parts of the road. The Kentucky
Department of Transportation now uses complete geologic map coverage as
part of the design and planning for all new road construction; the up-
front investment in geologic mapping is underwriting this aspect of
highway construction. The geologic maps are coming to be used
extensively in studies of groundwater movement and in planning
protection of groundwater from pollution. For example, in central
Kentucky, soluble limestone bedrock is susceptible to sinkholes and
small caverns, and the tracing of these rocks on geologic maps is
essential to understanding of the flow of surface water into the
groundwater system. In addition to the geologic maps, numerous other
reports on the scientific aspects of rocks in Kentucky were generated,
and the availability of the maps continues to support geological
research in the state. The maps are useful in archaeological studies of
Native American sites; for example, a massive sandstone that forms
numerous rock shelters in eastern Kentucky can be traced from the
geologic maps. A dollar value is difficult to put on the many benefits
Kentucky has derived from the geologic mapping project; however, it is
clear that only a very small part of the increased coal productivity
alone is more than adequate to pay the total cost of mapping several
times over.
During the hearing, I offered my own personal observations without
documented numbers in response to a question posed by Rep. Gibbons for
Rep. Cubin concerning the numbers of women in the geosciences. With
data from the files of the American Geological Institute, I would like
to enter the following more specific information into the record.
According to data compiled by the American Geological Institute, women
have made considerable advances in the geosciences in terms of
enrollments and degrees granted since 1980. That year, women made up 24
percent of undergraduate enrollments and 21 percent of graduate
enrollments. In 1996 (the last year for which data are complete), that
percentage had grown to 37 percent for undergraduate students and 32
percent for graduate students. Because of decreasing geoscience
undergraduate enrollments through that period, the absolute numbers of
women geoscience undergraduates increased only by 14 percent (from
7,390 to 8,455). In contrast, graduate enrollments increased, and the
actual number of women rose 54 percent (from 2,108 to 3,242). In terms
of degrees granted, women have also seen their numbers rise from 25
percent of geoscience bachelor's degrees in 1980 to 36 percent in 1996.
For master's degrees, the change is from 20 percent to 31 percent, and
for doctorates, the change is from 10 percent to 22 percent.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide this additional
information for the Subcommittee, and I will be happy to respond to any
further questions you may have.
-