U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

58–948 u WASHINGTON : 1999

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

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

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

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

JAY INSLEE, Washington

——— ———

BILL CONDIT, Professional Staff

MIKE HENRY, Professional Staff

DEBORAH LANZONE, Professional Staff

(III)

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

(1)

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:]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

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

19

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:]

20

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

21

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

22

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:

23

• 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 highpriority issues and the incorporation of local and regional priorities into a national agenda for geologic mapping,

• 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:

• Discovery and protection of ground water

• Identification and mitigation of natural hazards

• Assessment of our nation’s mineral and energy resources

• Establishment of scientific baselines for environmental restoration

•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 FY1999 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.

24

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.

25

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.

26

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

27

is a program that is an outstanding example of a successful StateFederal 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,

28

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.

29

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 longrange 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

30

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 supVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:20 Nov 09, 1999 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 58948.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
31

ports 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

32

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

33

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:]

34

35

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 preVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:20 Nov 09, 1999 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 58948.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
36

cise 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

37

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 landbased program. So the mapping activities that are supported under

this particular program are focussed on land—not on sea bottom

mapping.

38

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:]

39

40

41

42

43

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 71⁄2-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 71⁄2 minute scale, so we

have a long way to go. The only States that are fully mapped at

a 71⁄2 minute scale are Kentucky and Connecticut. So we do not

have complete coverage at 71⁄2-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,

44

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

45

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.]

46

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 deVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:20 Nov 09, 1999 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 58948.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
47

voted 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-bydoing 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

48

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.

Æ