U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65-119 PDF 2011

SPENDING PRIORITIES AND MISSIONS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL 

SURVEY AND THE PRESIDENT’S 

FY 2012 BUDGET PROPOSAL 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 

Serial No. 112-8 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

Rick Healy, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman 

RUSH D. HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democrat Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 ......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Aster, Dr. Richard C., President, Seismological Society of America, and 

Professor of Geophysics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and 

Technology ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

McNutt, Hon. Marcia, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Palatiello, John M., Executive Director, MAPPS ........................................... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26 

Price, Dr. Jonathan G., State Geologist and Director, Nevada Bureau 

of Mines and Geology, Association of American State Geologists ............. 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30 

Schiffries, Dr. Craig M., Director for Geoscience Policy, Geological Society 

of America ...................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING TO ‘‘EXAMINE THE 

SPENDING PRIORITIES AND THE MISSIONS 

OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND THE 

PRESIDENT’S FY 2012 BUDGET PROPOSAL.’’ 

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:43 p.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, Fleming, Coffman, Rivera, 

Gosar, Landry, Fleischmann, Holt, and Sarbanes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under Committee Rule 

3[e] is two Members. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources is meeting today to hear testimony on the mission, priorities, and proposed Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the United States 

Geological Survey. 

Under Committee Rule 4[f], opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee so that 

we can hear from our witnesses more quickly. However, I ask 

unanimous consent to include any other Member’s opening statements in the hearing record if submitted to the clerk by close of 

business today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

We are here today to consider the President’s proposed Fiscal 

Year 2012 budget and missions for the U.S. Geological Survey. The 

Survey was founded on March 3rd, 1879, for the purpose of 

classifying public lands and to examine geologic structures, mineral 

resources, and products within and outside the national domain. 

Today, the USGS mission reads a little bit like the Book of 

Genesis, although not quite in the order of the earth’s creation. It 

includes the land and waters. It gives us an understanding of the 

minerals and energy resources of our world, helps to track the subsurface movements of the earth in order to mitigate the adverse 

impacts of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and other 

geologic hazards. 

During the nineties, that mission was expanded even further to 

include the National Biological Service to study the plants that 

cover the earth and the birds and animals that roam the earth. 

Over the last few years, the mission of USGS has expanded further 

to include work on climate change, and the budget before us today 

continues this expansion by finalizing a move to include more 

responsibility for operations in space and ecosystem restoration 

here on earth. 

2 

Considering the USGS now has the responsibility for the entire 

world, the rocks, waters, animals, air and space, I must say, Madame Director, it sounds like an incredibly daunting job. It is also, 

however, concerning, if not troubling, for those of us who care 

about the traditional missions of the Survey to see its missions and 

budgetary requirements redirected to programs other than the important economic activities built on the USGS Organic Act and the 

various mineral policy laws that Congress has passed over the 

years. 

We will be reminded today that the important mission of the 

Survey to combat and address geologic hazards is slated for a 

reduction in funding. As we were reminded just over a year ago in 

Haiti, earthquakes can and do kill hundreds of thousands of 

people—in the case of Haiti, a magnitude 7 earthquake that killed 

over 230,000 people. We were also reminded of the importance of 

mitigation as an equally devastating magnitude 8 earthquake in 

Chile recently killed approximately 500 people. 

Now, many folks are deeply concerned that the Administration’s 

proposal to reduce funding for the geologic hazards program will 

hinder the nation’s ability to prepare and mitigate for potential 

natural disasters. More troubling is the proposed budget that includes significant spending increases for well-intended but questionable scientific endeavors with no measurable benefit to society. 

In addition, as the Survey is stretched thinner, the traditional 

core responsibilities, such as mapping, geologic mapping, and ensuring adequate, stable, and economical materials and supplies essential to national security, economic well-being, and industrial 

production—that is a quote from the original Act, I believe—are 

displaced with fashionable programs with limited, if any, measurable benefit to society. 

As we see the Survey gaining greater responsibility for the 

Landsat satellites that help us understand our earth, we also see 

the Survey failing to help keep duplication of mapping efforts from 

wasting our precious tax dollars. This is an area I am particularly 

concerned about. In 2009, this Subcommittee heard testimony identifying billions of dollars wasted in the Stimulus Bill on duplicative 

mapping efforts. 

I expect today we will hear that such duplication and waste continue in our Federal agencies. It is the mission of this Subcommittee to find opportunities to root out waste, duplication, and 

to streamline government. You can be assured this committee will 

be examining this issue in more depth in the future. 

Finally, I am wondering where the geology is at with the United 

States Geological Survey. It has been completely swallowed up by 

all the, quote, ‘‘new missions and reorganization,’’ unquote, at 

USGS. If I were to guess the name of your agency by looking at 

your budget, it would be called the United States Ecosystem Restoration and Climate Monitoring Service, not the United States Geological Survey. It is time that the Survey get back to its roots, providing the foundational knowledge of the nation’s geology, energy, 

and mineral resources, geologic structures and hazards, and a functional map base for the United States. 

This is knowledge that allows States, local governments, tribal 

nations, territories, and the private sector to make informed 

3 

decisions regarding economic development, private sector investment, conservation, and job creation. Baseline geologic information 

allows the United States to make informed decisions on how best 

to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fuel and nonfuel 

mineral resources that will improve our economic and national security. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I would 

now like to recognize for five minutes the gentleman from New Jersey, our Ranking Member, for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lamborn follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

We are here today to consider the President’s proposed fiscal year 2012 budget 

and missions for the U.S. Geological Survey. 

The Survey was founded on March 3, 1879 for the purpose of classifying public 

lands and to examine geologic structures, mineral resources, and products within 

and outside the national domain. 

Today the USGS mission reads a little like The Book of Genesis but not quite in 

the order of the earth’s creation. It includes the land and waters; it gives us an understanding of the minerals and energy resources of our world. Helps us track the 

subsurface movements of the earth in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of earth 

quakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and other geologic hazards. 

During the 90’s that mission was further expanded to include the national biological service to study the plants that cover the earth and the birds and animals that 

roam the earth. Over the last few years, the mission of USGS has expanded further 

to include work on climate change and the budget before us today continues this 

expansion by finalizing a move to include more responsibility for operations in space 

and ecosystem restoration here on earth. 

Considering the USGS now has responsibility for the entire world: the rocks, 

waters, animals, air, and space I must say madam Director, it sounds like an incredibly daunting job. 

It is also deeply troubling for those of us who care about the traditional missions 

of the Survey to see its missions and budgetary requirements redirected to programs 

that other than the important economic activities built on the USGS Organic act 

and the various mineral policy laws that Congress has passed over the years. 

We will be reminded today that the important mission of the Survey to combat 

and address geologic hazards is slated for a reduction in funding. As we were reminded just over a year ago in Haiti, earthquakes can and do kill hundreds of thousands of people, in the case of Haiti a magnitude 7 earthquake killed over 

230,000people. We were also reminded of the importance of mitigation as an equally 

devastating magnitude 8 earthquake in Chile killed approximately 500 people. 

Many folks are deeply concerned that the Administration’s proposal to reduce funding for the geologic hazards program will hinder the Nation’s ability to prepare and 

mitigate for potential natural disasters. More troubling is the proposed budget includes significant spending increases for well-intended but questionable scientific 

endeavors with no measurable benefit to society. 

In addition, as the Survey is stretched thinner, the traditional core responsibilities such as mapping, geologic mapping and ensuring ‘‘adequate, stable, and economical materials supplies essential to national security, economic well-being, and 

industrial production;’’ are displaced with fashionable programs with limited if any 

measurable benefit to society. 

As we see the Survey gaining greater responsibility for the Landsat satellites that 

help us understand our earth, we also see the Survey failing to help keep duplication of mapping efforts from wasting our precious tax dollars. This is an area that 

I am particularly concerned about; in 2009 this Subcommittee heard testimony identifying billions of dollars wasted in the stimulus bill on duplicative mapping efforts. 

I expect today we will hear that such duplication and waste continue in our federal 

agencies. It is the mission of this Subcommittee to find opportunities to root out 

waste, duplication and streamline government. You can be assured this committee 

will be examining this issue in more depth in the future. 

Finally, I’m wondering where the ‘‘geology’’ is at the United States Geological Survey. It’s been completely swallowed up by all the ‘new missions and reorganization’ 

at USGS. If I was to guess the name of your agency by looking at your budget it 

4 

would be called the United States Ecosystem Restoration and Climate Monitoring 

Service not the United States Geological Survey. 

It’s time that the Survey get back to its roots providing the foundational knowledge of the nation’s geology, energy and mineral resources, geologic structure and 

hazards, and a functional map base for the United States; knowledge that allows 

states, local governments, tribal nations, territories and the private sector to make 

informed decisions regarding economic development, private sector investment, conservation and job creation. 

Baseline geologic information allows the United States to make informed decisions 

on how to best reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fuel and non-fuel mineral resources improving our economic and national security. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And since this is the first 

hearing of this Subcommittee in this Congress, I would like to welcome our colleagues to the Subcommittee and say I look forward 

to working with you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The USGS dates back to the fine work of such American heroes 

as John Wesley Powell and many other experts. And I would have 

to say, too few Americans know how much they depend on the 

work of the USGS, work that benefits all Americans in so many 

areas, including traditional geology and far beyond. 

I have some questions on specific line items in the budget 

request. I would like to focus just quickly on a couple of items, 

though, that I hope we will be able to discuss. First, with the 

increasing use of hydraulic fracturing, there has been an increase 

in public concern about the effects that this technique has on our 

environment. And last week, notably, The New York Times published the results of a rather extensive investigation that suggests 

that millions of gallons of drilling wastewater that are contaminated with radioactive materials have been dumped into rivers and 

other waterways. Oh, and The Times also reported, interestingly, 

that much of the sludge has been spread on roads to control ice in 

the winter and dust in the summer. 

Other news reports have raised concerns about this same drilling 

wastewater when injected deep underground. We have had reports 

recently of earthquakes in Arkansas and in Texas and other areas, 

and so questions remain about the exact effects of hydraulic fracturing. It is an issue of great importance to residents of my state, 

New Jersey, because so many of us live in the Delaware River 

basin and depend on that water. 

USGS has an important role to play in providing robust data and 

scientific understanding that is needed to ensure that any 

hydrofracking is done in an environmentally responsible manner. 

Rare earth elements are another area that I think deserve our 

attention, minerals that are useful in military and civilian applications of all sorts. Our scientists at USGS, I think, have an important role in helping us understand the nature and quantity of 

available rare earth resources, and I look forward to hearing more 

about that. 

I also wanted to express concern about something that is of interest to many of the States and their geological programs, and that 

is the elimination of the National Geological and Geophysical Data 

5 

Preservation Program, as well as proposed cuts to the Cooperative 

Geologic Mapping Program. 

As Dr. Phillips will testify today, these programs are very important to many of the States, and I know of particular importance to 

New Jersey. My State has one of the oldest geological agencies in 

the nation, predating the USGS. In fact, it goes back to 1835. And 

I am very proud of our State Geologist, Karl Muessig. Geology, I 

should point out, is so important in New Jersey that although we 

don’t have a State song, we do have a State soil. And for you trivia 

afficionados, it is Downer soil. 

So I look forward to discussing these cuts and how they would 

affect the States if they were to go forward. And finally, as we approach the one-year anniversary of the BP oil spill, we should remind ourselves that Congress still has not yet enacted the reforms 

to improve the safety of offshore drilling. And the independent 

Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill recommended 

that Congress establish permanent technical expertise on, among 

other things, flow rate. And the legislation I have introduced with 

Ranking Member Markey to implement the Commission’s reforms 

would create a permanent flow rate technical group, headed by 

USGS. And this Subcommittee, I think, should take action on that 

and related recommendations. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rush D. Holt, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

As this is the first hearing of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee 

in the 112th Congress let me begin by welcoming my colleagues to the Subcommittee and saying that I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman. 

Few Americans know of the work of the USGS—dating back to the fine work of 

such American heroes as John Wesley Powell and many other experts—that all 

Americans depend on and benefit from in so many areas including traditional geology and beyond. While I have questions on specific line items in the Administration’s budget request for the U.S. Geological Survey for FY2012 I want to begin by 

focusing on a few general issues. 

First, with increasing use of hydraulic fracturing there has also been an increase 

in public concern about the effects this technique has on our environment. Last 

week the New York Times released results of an investigation that suggests that 

millions of gallons of drilling wastewater contaminated with radioactive radium had 

been dumped into rivers and other U.S. waterways that feed our drinking water 

supply. When this wastewater is treated by sewage plants, what is left is a highly 

concentrated toxic and radioactive sludge, which according to the Times, is spread 

on roads to control ice in the winter and dust in the summer. Other news reports 

have raised concerns that this same drilling wastewater, when injected deep underground, may be responsible for triggering earthquakes in Arkansas, Texas and other 

areas where these drilling operations are abundant. Questions remain as to the 

exact effects that hydraulic fracturing is having on our environment. This is an 

issue of utmost importance to my New Jersey constituents who live in the Delaware 

River Basin, where hydro fracking regulations are currently being considered. USGS 

has an important role to play in providing the robust data and scientific understanding needed to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is either done in an environmentally responsible manner and if that is not possible that it not be done at all. 

Rare earth elements are another area I feel deserves close attention. These minerals are indispensable to a wide range of military, electronic, and industrial applications, as well as a variety of clean energy technologies, such as wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, solar panels and energy efficient light bulbs. The United States was 

once self-reliant in producing rare earth elements domestically, however, we have 

become completely reliant on imports over the past 15 years. Today, 97 percent of 

the world’s rare earth element supply comes from China, a scenario unfavorable to 

6 

American economic and national security interests. Our scientists at USGS have an 

important role in helping us more fully understand the nature and quantity of the 

available rare earth resource base and I look forward to hearing more about that 

strategy today. 

I also have to express my concern about the proposed elimination of the National 

Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program and proposed cuts to the 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program. As Dr. Phillips will testify today 

these programs are extremely important to our states, and, I know, of importance 

to New Jersey. My state runs one of the oldest Geological Agencies in the nation. 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental protection created the NJ Geological 

Survey in 1835, and I am proud to have our state Geologist Karl Muessig as a constituent. Geology is so important to New Jersey that while we do not have a state 

song we do have a state soil, downer soil. I look forward to discussing the reasons 

that these cuts have been proposed and what can be done to ensure that states get 

the federal support they need to continue these programs. 

Finally, as we approach the one-year anniversary of the BP oil spill, it is a reminder that the Congress still has not yet enacted reforms to improve the safety 

of offshore drilling. The independent commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill recommended that Congress establish permanent, technical expertise on flow 

rate. The legislation that I have introduced with Ranking Member Markey to implement the commission’s reforms would create a permanent flow rate technical group 

headed up by USGS and this Subcommittee must take action to implement these 

recommendations. 

Thank you and I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And now we will hear from our witnesses. It is my honor to welcome USGS Director, Dr. Marcia 

McNutt. Like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep your oral 

comments to five minutes, as outlined in the invitation letter. Our 

microphones are not automatic, so please press the button when 

you are ready to begin. 

I also want to explain the timing lights. When you begin to 

speak, the clerk will start the timer, and a green light will go on. 

After four minutes, a yellow light will come on. And then at that 

time, you should begin to conclude. And at five minutes, the red 

light comes on. 

So we would love to hear from you. Thank you for being here 

today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCIA McNUTT, DIRECTOR, U.S. 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Dr. MCNUTT. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members 

of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and to discuss the Administration’s 2012 budget request for the USGS. I will be pleased to answer your questions and 

to hopefully clear up any misperceptions about our request. 

The 2012 budget does formally realign the USGS budget with 

our new mission areas. And although it may appear to you that we 

are diverging from our roots, it really is in order to better meet the 

needs of the changes in our nation and what the American public 

really needs to see from the USGS in terms of our natural resources: water, energy, minerals, natural hazards. And those are 

exactly our new mission areas. 

So while much has changed at the USGS, really things have not. 

Natural resource managers, natural hazard responders, industry, 

and the public continue to rely on our science, our data, and our 

information. So here are some examples. 

7 

The USGS recently released the first detailed inventory of rare 

earth elements, describing known deposits for the entire nation. 

The assessment will be important both to policy makers, but particularly to industry. It reinforces the value of our efforts to maintain accurate, independent information on our nation’s resources. 

Estimated economic loss and casualty information are now being 

included in U.S. earthquake alerts following significant earthquakes around the world. These earthquake alerts are wildly used 

by emergency responders, are FEMA’s favorite product right now, 

and aid officials in the public to understand the scope of potential 

disasters and to develop the appropriate level of first response. 

The USGS long-term monitoring and robust ecosystem studies 

continue to pay dividends as our nation seeks to discover whether 

investments in ecosystem restoration are working. For example, a 

recent study determined that the Potomac River in Washington is 

showing multiple benefits from restoration efforts. 

The 2012 budget request for the USGS is 1.1 billion, about onehalf of 1 percent more than we received two years ago. The budget 

request includes establishment of a separate account for Landsat 

missions, along with an increase of 48 million to begin developing 

an operational Landsat program, starting with Landsats 9 and 10. 

Landsat has become vital to the nation’s agricultural, water 

management, disaster response, and scientific communities. Establishment of this account and the increase in funding will provide 

the stable budgetary foundation needed for a continuous capability. 

The budget request also proposes an additional 12 million for the 

restoration of some of the nation’s most iconic ecosystems, including Chesapeake Bay, Columbia River, Upper Mississippi, Puget 

Sound, and the Great Lakes. The USGS is working in collaboration 

with other Interior bureaus, the Federal agencies, on these restoration efforts. 

Funding to complete the work of Interior climate science centers 

is also included at 11 million above the 2010 enacted level. The 

centers focus on understanding landscape stressors related to climate change and designing adaptation strategies at a regional 

level. In 2010, centers were established in the Northwest, Southeast, and Alaska regions, in collaboration with universities in your 

home states. The remaining centers will be established in the 

Northeast, South Central, North Central, Southwest, and the Pacific Island regions. 

To support Interior’s substantial coastal and ocean resource management responsibilities, the budget request includes an additional 

4.5 million for coastal and marine spatial planning. The USGS will 

continue leading the development of a national information management system for coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources. 

Our budget also makes vital investments in resource and development in ecosystem restoration, while proposing reductions within 

a number of programs, and also making management efficiencies. 

The U.S. 2010 budget reflects our ability to address a broad 

array of natural resource and natural science issues facing the nation. It also reflects tough choices and difficult decisions. We aim 

to ensure our multi-disciplinary science expertise is applied effectively, efficiently, and strategically to meet the nation’s most pressing needs today. 

8 

To conclude my statement, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to 

answer your questions and that of any other Members. I appreciate 

this opportunity to testify before you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McNutt follows:] 

Statement of Marcia McNutt, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Administration’s 2012 

budget request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

Much about the USGS has changed in the year since we last sat together in this 

room to discuss funding for the important work the USGS does for the Nation. The 

USGS has realigned its management structure, moving from an organizational 

structure of single and separated disciplines to form interdisciplinary mission areas 

as outlined in the USGS Science Strategy: ‘‘Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017’’ (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). I 

appreciate the Subcommittee’s support for the realignment. The 2012 USGS budget 

request formally aligns the USGS budget structure with the new mission area management structure. We are already seeing evidence that bringing expertise from several Earth science disciplines together through these mission areas to address issues 

of concern allows the USGS to better respond to customer and partner needs to provide the best value to the taxpayers. 

While much has changed at USGS, some things have not. Natural resources managers, natural hazards responders, industry, and the public continue to rely on the 

important science, data, and information the USGS produces as part of its core mission to provide the scientific basis that contributes to the wise management of the 

Nation’s natural resources and that promotes the health, safety, and well-being of 

people. Given the rapid pace required for management and policy decisions in comparison to the more deliberative time scale for authoritative, peer reviewed science, 

the USGS must always anticipate the Nation’s needs and maintain a broad portfolio 

of research and researchers across the country. The last year has provided numerous examples of how USGS science is providing relevant and timely scientific results 

to address some of the most pressing natural resources challenges of our time. 

In the last year, USGS science has been at the forefront in responding to many 

natural resource challenges. The USGS recently released the first ever detailed inventory of rare earth elements describing known deposits for the entire Nation. 

These elements are essential components for many current and emerging alternative energy technologies, such as electric vehicles, photo-voltaic cells, energyefficient lighting, and wind power. The assessment will be very important both to 

policy-makers and to industry, and it reinforces the value of our efforts to maintain 

accurate, independent information on our Nation’s natural resources as only the 

USGS can do. 

USGS hazards science made great strides as well. In the aftermath of the January 2010 Haiti earthquake, USGS scientists used geological field observations and 

interpretations of satellite imagery, aerial photography, and light detection and 

ranging (LiDAR) to discover the main strand of the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden 

Fault thought to be responsible for the January quake had not ruptured and the 

hazard associated with the fault still remains high. Information of this nature is 

critical as Haiti continues its struggle to recover from the impacts of the devastating 

earthquake and make important decisions on rebuilding its capital city. 

The USGS continues its efforts to put science, data, and information into the 

hands of those who need it for decision making. In recent months, the USGS announced that estimated economic loss and casualty information will now be included 

in USGS earthquake alerts following significant earthquakes around the world. 

These earthquake alerts are widely recognized and used by emergency responders, 

government and aid officials, and the public to understand the scope of the potential 

disaster and to develop the best response. The USGS automated system, PAGER 

(Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), within minutes provides 

preliminary estimates of earthquake impacts, including the range of possible fatalities and economic losses, by assessing the shaking distribution, the number of 

people and settlements exposed to severe shaking and other factors. This information is critical in determining the human and economic toll so that emergency responders can act promptly and effectively. 

The USGS recently made available instant, customized updates about water conditions through its ‘‘WaterAlert’’ system. This system allows users to receive updates 

about river flows, groundwater levels, water temperatures, rainfall and water qualVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65119.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
9 

ity at more than 9,500 sites where the USGS collects real-time water information. 

This information is crucial for managing water resources, including during floods, 

droughts and chemical spills. Real-time water data are essential to those making 

daily decisions about water-related activities, whether for resource management, 

business operations, flood response or recreation. WaterAlert furthers USGS efforts 

to make data immediately available and relevant to every user. 

USGS long-term monitoring and robust ecosystem studies continue to pay dividends as our Nation seeks to discover whether investments in ecosystem restoration 

are working. One example is a recent study that determined the Potomac River in 

Washington, D.C., is showing multiple benefits from restoration efforts. According 

to direct measurements taken during the 18-year field study, reduced nutrients and 

improved water clarity have increased the abundance and diversity of submerged 

aquatic vegetation in the Potomac. The public deserves to know whether its investments are having tangible results. This study and others like it provide that information. 

It is the hard-working scientific and professional staff at the USGS, powered by 

this Subcommittee’s long-term investment in and commitment to science, that 

makes these advancements possible. The success of USGS efforts, such as those 

highlighted here, makes it all the more challenging to make tough decisions regarding the allocation of scarce fiscal resources. 

To address the President’s priority on fiscal responsibility, the USGS 2012 budget 

makes vital investments in research and development and ecosystem restoration, 

while also proposing reductions within programs such as regional assessments of 

groundwater quantity and quality; toxic substances research; mineral resource assessments; research and grants that address the Nation’s resilience to natural hazards; the Water Resources Research Act program; the National Biological Information Infrastructure; the National Water Quality Assessment Program; the National 

Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation program; the National Cooperative 

Geological Mapping program; research to establish the limits of the extended Outer 

Continental Shelf; and the climate effects network. These changes reflect tough 

choices. We are repositioning core responsibilities to better address complex multidisciplinary issues within a reduced funding level. 

The 2012 budget request for the USGS is $1.1 billion, an increase of $6.1 million 

from the 2010 enacted level. In 2012, the USGS is proposing to establish a new appropriations account, National Land Imaging (NLI), which comprises a base transfer 

from the Surveys, Investigations and Research (SIR) account of $53.5 million coupled with an increase of $48.0 million to begin work on Landsats 9 and 10. Excluding the NLI account, the SIR account is $53.6 million below the 2010 enacted level. 

Decreases are proposed in scientific programs as well as for Interior-wide management efficiencies and administrative savings in travel, contracts, supplies, and information technology. 

Major Changes 

The USGS 2012 budget request includes establishment of a separate account for 

Landsat missions along with an increase of $48.0 million to begin developing an 

operational Landsat program, starting with Landsats 9 and 10. Landsat furthers Interior’s important role in land remote sensing under the President’s National Space 

Policy and provides invaluable data for land use and climate change research. The 

new account will include funding for current satellites (Landsats 5 and 7), the 

Landsat Data Continuity Mission (Landsat 8), which is scheduled to launch in December 2012, and the development of Landsats 9 and 10, through a continuous 

Landsat program that will ensure data continuity in the future. Landsat has become 

vital to the Nation’s agricultural, water management, disaster response, and scientific communities. Establishment of this account and the increase in funding will 

provide the stable budgetary foundation needed for a continuous capability. A permanent budgetary and managerial structure will ensure the continued collection 

and maintenance of the important data the Landsat satellite series provides. 

The budget request also proposes an additional $12.0 million for the restoration 

of some of the Nation’s most iconic ecosystems. These efforts support America’s 

Great Outdoors, the President’s signature conservation initiative to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources and social and economic value of some 

of the Nation’s most significant ecosystems. The USGS plays a vital role in the development and implementation of the America’s Great Outdoors initiative, working 

in collaboration with other Interior bureaus and Federal agencies. Particular focus 

is given to important and iconic ecosystems, with targeted increases for Chesapeake 

Bay (+$4.6 million), Columbia River (+$1.4 million), Upper Mississippi River (+$1.0 

million) and Puget Sound (+$1.5 million). The budget includes $3.5 million for the 

10 

Great Lakes, including support for USGS’ role in the Asian Carp Control Framework, to detect and understand this invasive fish and develop chemical control tools. 

The 2012 budget provides $10.9 million for USGS activities in the WaterSMART 

initiative, $9.0 million above the 2010 Enacted/2011 CR level, to implement the 

WaterSMART Availability and Use Assessment. The USGS will conduct comprehensive water supply and demand inventories to provide the baseline information needed by public and private water managers to work toward sustainable water supplies. 

This effort will include estimating freshwater resources, how those supplies are distributed, and how they are changing over time; evaluating factors affecting water 

availability including energy development, changes in agricultural practices, increasing population, and competing priorities for limited water resources; and assessing water use and distribution for human, environmental, and wildlife needs. 

Funding to complete the network of Interior Climate Science Centers, as called 

for in Secretarial Order 3289, is also included at $11.0 million above the 2010 enacted level. The planned network of eight Interior Climate Science Centers will provide fundamental research and tools to the network of landscape conservation cooperatives and to natural and cultural resource managers. The Centers focus on understanding landscape stressors related to climate change and designing adaptation 

strategies at a regional level. In 2010, CSCs were established in the Northwest, 

Southeast and Alaska Regions. At the proposed funding level, the remaining CSCs 

will be established in the Northeast, South Central, North Central, Southwest and 

Pacific Islands regions. 

To continue investment in science to support Interior’s substantial coastal and 

ocean resource management responsibilities and its critical role in implementing the 

Administration’s National Ocean Policy, the budget request includes an additional 

$4.5 million for coastal and marine spatial planning. The USGS will continue leading the development of a national information management system for coastal, 

ocean and Great Lakes resources. This involves conducting a number of efforts important in managing resources with other Federal, State, tribal, and regional partners. Efforts include constructing a prototype Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning 

Internet portal for the Gulf of Mexico; developing modeling tools to forecast coastal 

vulnerability to projected sea level rise and predicted coastal storms; and establishing data standards and undertaking gap analysis to target future priority data 

collection activities. 

Budget Summary by Budget Activity 

The 2012 budget includes a total of $166.4 million for the Ecosystems mission 

area. The request includes increases to the Terrestrial, Freshwater, and Marine Environments and Invasive species programs to support the President’s signature conservation initiative, America’s Great Outdoors. 

The Climate and Land Use Change budget activity request totals $106.4 million 

and includes new funding for completion of the Interior Climate Science Centers 

and funding for new efforts associated with carbon sequestration in the California 

Bay-Delta. 

The 2012 total request for Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health is $88.5 

million, which reflects a $13.0 million reduction from the 2010 enacted level. 

The total requested funding level for Natural Hazards in 2012 is $133.9 million 

or $5.1 million below the 2010 enacted level. 

In 2012, the request level for Water Resources totals $199.6 million. This represents a reduction of $21.6 million from the 2010 enacted level. 

The 2012 total budget request for Core Science Systems is $105.9 million, a reduction of $19.0 million below the 2010 enacted level. 

The total funding level for Administration and Enterprise Information is requested at $116.5 million and reflects a net program increase of $1.4 million. 

The 2012 total budget request for Facilities is $100.8 million; a reduction of $5.6 

million below the 2010 enacted level. 

Conclusion 

The USGS 2012 budget request addresses issues long important to the Administration and Interior, and aligns the USGS budget structure with its management 

structure. This budget reflects our ability to address a broad array of natural-resource and natural-science issues facing the Nation. It also reflects tough choices 

and difficult decisions. The challenges ahead are great, but the USGS is committed 

to placing our science, data, and information into the hands of decision makers 

across the landscape when they need it and in formats they can readily use. The 

2012 budget request aims to ensure our multidisciplinary science expertise is applied effectively, efficiently, and strategically to meet the Nation’s most pressing 

needs today and to preserve our wealth of biologic, geologic, geographic, and hydroVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65119.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
11 

logic monitoring capabilities to meet the needs of tomorrow. The USGS will continue 

its legacy of providing the data, long-term scientific understanding, and scientific 

tools needed to sustain and improve the economic and environmental health and 

prosperity of people and communities across the Nation and around the world. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer the questions you and other Members have. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before 

you and this Subcommittee and look forward to our continued collaboration. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, thank you for your testimony. And at this 

point, we will begin questions for our witnesses. To allow all of our 

Members to participate and to ensure we can hear from all of our 

witnesses, we will limit questions to five minutes. However, if 

Members have additional questions, the Chair might consider more 

than one round of questioning. And I now recognize myself for five 

minutes for the first set of questions. This morning, the price of oil was at $114.52 per barrel, and the average price per gallon of gasoline in the U.S. is $3.52. With the 

ongoing instability in Northern Africa and the Middle East, prices 

will probably continue to climb, adversely impacting the nation’s 

economy as a whole and each and every U.S. citizen. The working 

poor and jobless will be harmed the most. 

So we import 60 percent of the oil that our country needs, and 

we are 100 percent dependent on 17 different nonfuel mineral commodities. How can the Geological Survey in its budget continue to 

support cuts in the energy and minerals programs while at the 

same time increasing significantly the budgets for ecosystem restoration and climate change, Director McNutt? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Well, there are of course tough choices that had to 

be made in this budget. The USGS energy program does periodically reassess the places in the country where we have already 

done initial assessments, and when we do these reassessments, of 

course, not as resource intensive as when we did the initial assessments. Do I wish we could be growing all of our programs? Absolutely. But these were tough choices that had to be made. 

The same in our minerals program. We wish we could grow these 

programs, but unfortunately that is not the case. Some of the 

money that goes to our ecosystems programs can be used to help 

with domestic development of helping to decide right places to do 

alternative energy programs as well. For example, deciding where 

might be the appropriate places for solar and wind energy. 

So it is not as though we draw sharp lines between the ecosystems programs and the energy programs. We recognize that all 

of these programs are interrelated. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. Now, there are serious workforce 

issues in the energy and mineral sector, and we are in jeopardy of 

losing accreditation in some of the energy and mineral engineering 

programs around the country. Yet, you zero out funding for graduate programs in these fields, while adding funding for environmental programs, where from all that I am aware of is an abundance of programs at universities around the country. Why that apparent disconnect? 

Dr. MCNUTT. I wasn’t aware that we had funding for graduate— 

OK. OK, right. We are maintaining opportunities for students in 

other ways through our minerals program, although those particular grant programs did have to be zeroed out because of again 

12 

tough choices in terms of meeting the fiscal restraints of the budget. But there will be other opportunities to support students. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with you that I agree completely that the workforce issues are something that we are facing. 

And I will be speaking at Colorado School of Mines as their commencement speaker this year, and that will be one of my messages, 

is indeed the workforce issues in mines, the number of schools of 

mines that have closed around the country, and the difficulty that 

we will be facing in terms of replacing the many retirements we 

have in the minerals workforce. It is something that we as a nation 

do need to worry about. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, thank you, and I am glad you are coming 

out to Colorado. That is an excellent, world-renowned school. It is 

an excellent institution of higher learning, so we appreciate your 

taking the time to encourage them and be there for that event. I 

just wish that the budget that we just talked about, that the line 

items in particular were more reflective of a stronger priority on 

the core mission of USGS, at least the original core mission up 

until recent years maybe, the focus that I should like to see on 

energy and minerals. 

OK. Thank you for your answers, and now I will recognize the 

Ranking Member for any questions he might have. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As New Jersey is experiencing floods even right now, with more to come, I note the proposed reduction in funding for national stream flow information 

and the loss of perhaps hundreds of stream gauges. Can you tell 

us what would be the effect of such reductions? Is there remote 

sensing that somehow replaces this, or we doing without the information? 

I have to tell you, that sort of information is critically important 

for the livelihood and lives of people in my district. 

Dr. MCNUTT. I have to agree with you, Congressman Holt, that 

it is hard to look around the USGS and not find a program— 

especially if you look over the past few years—that has not had 

budget cuts and been impacted by cuts to its budget that has impacted its mission. And the stream gauge program is one that was 

initially viewed as one that should be a 50/50 match between cooperators and the USGS. 

It is so far from a 50/50 match today, and for awhile we were 

able to get by with our cooperators paying more than their 50 percent share. And then, of course, what happened was States similarly felt the economic issues that the Federal Government was facing, and states found that they no longer could pick up more than 

50 percent, and so stream gauges started getting shut down. And 

this is definitely putting into jeopardy—we have the Secure Water 

Act, which has in it provisions to create a backbone of water 

gauges, which would help provide at least a national network, 

which would help provide some consistency, but yet the funding for 

that Act has never been completely materialized. 

Mr. HOLT. Am I correct that the effect now will be the loss of 

hundreds of gauges in the coming year? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Well, right now we are looking at it as a million 

dollars, and we are going to try to absorb that in mainly travel, 

13 

training, administrative stuff, to the maximum that we can, hoping 

to not absorb that in the stream gauges themselves. 

Mr. HOLT. Let me ask you to please keep the Subcommittee informed as—— 

Dr. MCNUTT. We will do that. 

Mr. HOLT.—that goes forward. And perhaps you would like to answer in more detail later the rationale behind the reductions in the 

cooperative mapping program and the data preservation program. 

One thing I would like you to address in the minute or so that remains, is the recovery, the ARR Act, which provided 150-ish, $140 

million in funds, can you say that those were spent wisely, without 

duplication or redundancy? 

Dr. MCNUTT. OK. First of all, I will say that the decisions on 

how to spend them were made before I arrived. I looked into how 

they were spent when I arrived, and I was extremely pleased with 

how those decisions were made from the standpoint that—just to 

give you an example, our stream gauge program with the new technology that was put into play, it allowed us to bring those gauges 

up to a standard in terms of the new satellite network that they 

were able to communicate with. It allowed us to connect those new 

gauges with a new protocol for the satellite communications that 

otherwise would have rendered so many of those gauges obsolete 

and unable to communicate back to the network that it saved us 

so much in future budgets to be able to bring those up to standards. 

It took the advanced seismic network and took it 10 years into 

the future in terms of that funding. So very wise decisions, and 

ones that made sense for the USGS because we did not have construction authorities. So it was right sized for the USGS, right decisions. 

Dr. MCNUTT. I am pleased you could put that in the record. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And thank you. I would like to now recognize the 

gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. RIVERA. Excuse me. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Idaho, Florida, it doesn’t matter, either way. 

Mr. Rivera from Florida. 

Mr. RIVERA. How are you doing? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Please accept my apology. 

Mr. RIVERA. That is OK. The weather is a little bit different, but 

other than that, it is pretty much the same. We love potatoes in 

Miami. 

As the representative from South Florida, I am very concerned 

about news reports regarding exploration of resources off the coast 

of Cuba. And I am wondering if the USGS has conducted any recent research in coordination with the Cuban dictatorship regarding these resources, and if so, what has been the extent of those 

efforts? 

Dr. MCNUTT. USGS does have estimates of—you are talking 

about oil resources? 

Mr. RIVERA. Oil and natural gas. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes. 

Mr. RIVERA. Any type of resources that—— 

Dr. MCNUTT. Oil and natural gas. 

14 

Mr. RIVERA. Any research that may have been conducted in conjunction with the Castro regime. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. I am not sure to what extent that they are 

in conjunction with the Castro regime. I know that the most recent 

USGS estimate of undiscovered oil and natural gas is about 5 billion barrels of oil and about—I think it is about 10 trillion—— 

Mr. RIVERA. How long ago was that estimate? 

Dr. MCNUTT.—cubic—what is the—well, we will get back to you 

for on the record for that. But I don’t think that the numbers have 

changed. But we can get back to you on the record for that. 

Mr. RIVERA. So recently, and I would say—because my understanding is the last time there were any estimates was about a decade ago. And I am wondering if there are any recent efforts to do 

any research, and if so, if any of that has been in coordination with 

the Cuban government? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. I doubt that anything has been done in conjunction with the government. That would not be—no. 

Mr. RIVERA. So how would it be done? 

Dr. MCNUTT. The typical way that we do that is using geophysical data and using geological assessments of depositional environments and—— 

Mr. RIVERA. I have no idea what that means. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Ah, OK. 

Mr. RIVERA. Depositional environments. 

Dr. MCNUTT. OK. In other words, we understand based on knowing the kinds of environment that is around Cuba, knowing remote 

sensing data from gravity data and other data like that what the 

likely crustal structure is around Cuba. And knowing analogies in 

similar environments, we know the age of the sediments there. We 

know how they likely were formed. And there was industry spec 

seismic data that was from 2004 that was done. 

Mr. RIVERA. In 2004? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. 

Mr. RIVERA. OK. So to your knowledge right now, just here at 

this hearing, you are not familiar with anything recently that has 

been conducted, particularly not in coordination with the Cuban 

dictatorship? 

Dr. MCNUTT. No. 

Mr. RIVERA. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. I would now like to 

recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here. Now I have moved out of your line of sight. Sorry about that. 

Dr. MCNUTT. I can move. 

Mr. SARBANES. I first off wanted to echo Ranking Member Holt’s 

observation that the hydraulic fracturing issue is certainly going to 

be one that we give close attention to going forward. The industry 

is presenting it as holding great promise as a kind of bridge from 

traditional conventional sources of energy to, you know, renewable 

energy sources, and it is going to be that natural gas bridge arguably, and they are also clearly in a position to make huge profits 

from this as well. And my view is if the promise of this technology 

is all that it is being presented as, then the industry certainly is 

15 

in a position to make sure they do it right. And if that means kind 

of slowing things down and getting off of what appears to be a kind 

of pell-mell schedule operating with respect to the Marcellus Shale, 

then I think that is something that ought to be given real consideration, and I expect we are going to have a number of different opportunities to bring that issue to the Administration and to others. 

I did want to ask you—and you won’t be surprised probably by 

this question, as you attended the ribbon cutting at the Patuxent 

Wildlife Refuge Center when we were celebrating the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds that went to really address 

some very dilapidated structures there, and begin to renovate this 

incredible facility, which is operated by the USGS. As you know, 

it is the nation’s only national wildlife refuge which was established originally to support wildlife research. It was very instrumental in providing data on the effects of DDT, leading to the ultimate ban in 1972. Patuxent is celebrating its 75 anniversary this 

year, and I could go on and on about why it is a critical resource. 

I think you know those facts. 

But I guess I am aware from the line items of the budget that 

there are not the resources being put into kind of finishing out the 

project arguably that was begun by the ARRA funds. And I wanted 

to ask you to speak to that because the research that is being done 

there, the science that is conducted there, is so critical to the Nation that to not finish out this process, complete this project, I 

think is a real mistake. And I would be curious as to the thought 

process that went into that. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. The ARRA funds for the replacement of the 

infrastructure and the funding, basically it is done. We have the 

funding in place. 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, most of the ARRA funds, as I understand 

it, were going to some of the demolition, some of the design with 

respect to the new structures that need to be put there. And now 

it is a question of whether that piece of it is going to be finished 

out, which is going to rely on some non-ARRA resources. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. We worked out a partnership with Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Mr. SARBANES. Which will do what? 

Dr. MCNUTT. To put together the final funding for it. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. So you do expect that to happen then. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. I 

yield back my time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And I would like to now recognize the 

gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Fleischmann. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Director McNutt. I represent the Third District of Tennessee. I just 

have one question today, ma’am. The USGS budget provides for 

133.9 million for natural hazards, which is $5.1 million below the 

2010 enacted 2011 CR. As you all are cutting your budget for monitoring hazardous activity that could reduce fatalities in the immediate future, it appears that you all are increasing funds for programs and research that promote climate change prevention and 

doesn’t save lives in the near future. 

16 

Can you kindly provide an explanation of why you made these 

cuts? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Right. The climate change program actually has been cut substantially. I think there are a total of $9 million of cuts 

in the climate change program. So it actually sustained a much 

larger cut than the hazards program. And basically, quite a few 

programs had to take cuts. 

Our hazards program has been a program that we have been 

very loathe to cut over the years because it is something that is 

quite uniquely done by the USGS. And so it has been one that over 

the years has been perhaps taken fewer cuts than some of the 

other programs within the USGS. And just because of how tight 

the fiscal climate was for this coming year, it did have to take some 

hit, though perhaps less than some of the other programs. 

And the part of the hazards program which is being cut is the 

NetQuakes program in the Pacific Northwest, which was going to 

put out some low-cost accelerometers, which would help do some 

fine-scale understanding of how buildings and other infrastructure 

might respond to an earthquake in the Pacific Northwest. And also, 

it would impact some multi-hazards work and some work in Alaska 

as well. And those are the parts of the program which will be 

delayed. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And I would like to now recognize the 

gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Landry. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you. Ms. McNutt, do you know how long we 

have been using the fracking process in this country? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Oh, well, if you include generic fracking in terms 

of enhanced oil recovery, for probably decades. 

Mr. LANDRY. And it seems like after we use a system for decades, 

we would have a lot of data involved in the safety aspects and any 

risk that it may pose. Wouldn’t you agree with that? 

Dr. MCNUTT. I would suppose. 

Mr. LANDRY. I mean, 50 years, that is a long time. Well, it is 

maybe 60 years. I am trying to understand, you know, why people 

keep dealing with these fracking issues when, you know, if we were 

using natural gas to fuel our vehicles, we would be paying about 

75 cents a gallon. That is a little better at the pump right now, 

wouldn’t you think? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Some people do use natural gas to fuel their 

vehicles. 

Mr. LANDRY. That is right. I think we should use more of them. 

I guess the point I am trying to make is that, you know, we continue to pour resources sometimes in this government looking for 

an answer that we hope to find rather than one that is already in 

front of our face. I just wanted to make sure that me and you were 

on the same wavelength when it comes to how long we have been 

fracking for oil and gas in this country. 

My question to you is how will the changes in your budget affect 

your all ability to properly do the geological work necessary for 

lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico? 

Dr. MCNUTT. We don’t do geological work for lease sales. 

Mr. LANDRY. But you all provide the data, though, correct? 

17 

Dr. MCNUTT. We don’t—that is not actually our responsibility for 

doing—we don’t do any regulatory work. 

Mr. LANDRY. No, no, no. I know. But you all provide the data 

that is used to build—you all do geological surveys in the Gulf of 

Mexico, correct? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Well, it has been probably quite some time since 

we have done marine surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. I can’t remember the last time that we have done a marine survey in the Gulf 

of Mexico. It has been—— 

Mr. LANDRY. It has been a long time? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. Now, with the Director’s indulgence, we would like to have a second round of questions. We are 

only down to four of us, so that should be a little faster. And let 

me ask about two particular line items that are in the budget, just 

to better understand what these programs are about. Your agency 

has requested $166 million for ecosystems mission area support for 

America’s Great Outdoors program. Can yo explain what that 

money is going for? 

Dr. MCNUTT. The President and the Secretary have a new initiative, America’s Great Outdoors, where the purpose is to help restore some of the iconic landscapes, the Chesapeake, the Great 

Lakes, the Upper Mississippi, Puget Sound, some of the places 

where Americans live, work, and play. It is a very broad-based initiative in terms of helping people to get outdoors, to hunt, to fish, 

to recreate in these beautiful places, and also to make them more 

productive in terms of places where people farm and—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. That is exactly what I was understanding, 

and I am concerned about that. It sounds wonderful, but to me it 

does not sound like a core function of the U.S. Geological Survey. 

I mean, I just have to call in question the need for this department 

to be spending $166 million on sort of a nebulous program that is 

not related to the core mission of the Geological Survey. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. You know, we support America’s Great Out- doors, but we actually have no direct funds. I think the $166 million sounds like—that doesn’t sound like—166 million doesn’t 

sound like—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, I think this is accurate because it is from 

your testimony, your written testimony. 

Dr. MCNUTT. OK. In ecosystem restoration, we have a total of 9- 

1/2 million of funding, but that money goes to water programs. It 

goes to mapping programs. It goes to toxics and human health. So 

it actually goes to very core things that the USGS does in support 

of America’s Great Outdoors. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Well, maybe the testimony was a little ambiguous. 

Dr. MCNUTT. OK. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The written testimony. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The written portion of your testimony. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Because we will be doing the GIS, so the maps. We 

will be doing stream gauges, water—so it will go help to support 

our water programs. It will support our mapping programs. It will 

18 

support our toxics programs, our water quality programs. It will be 

supporting basic USGS programs that are therefore linked to 

America’s Great Outdoors. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. That explains it better. That huge amount for 

a nebulous program really concerned me. I understand a little better. I still have some concerns, but I do understand better the role 

of the Survey. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Right. 

Mr. LAMBORN. But second, there is the $106.4 million for climate 

and land use change activity, including completion of the Interior 

climate science centers. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And funding for new efforts associated with carbon sequestration in the California Bay Delta. Could you please explain that line item? 

Dr. MCNUTT. OK. The climate science centers are completing a 

series of science centers that are at universities, actually a consortia of universities that were put out by an RFP, in which in 

each section of the country we put out a call for proposals, and consortia of universities put in absolutely stellar proposals that were 

chosen then by peer review panels to bid on these. And these climate science centers actually work very closely then with groups, 

on-the-ground groups, of stakeholders that include state agencies, 

farming cooperatives, emergency managers, different groups, to say 

what kind of information do you want to know about what is coming in the next decade that will help you to decide what kind of 

water projects you need to do, what kind of communities you need 

to build, what kind of hazards you need to worry about, so that 

they can help them provide the science that will help them in their 

planning. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. And now I would like to recognize 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Holt. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. Let me clarify a point from that last discussion and make sure I understand. The figure of 166 million applies to the entire ecosystems mission area, does it not? 

Dr. MCNUTT. Right. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. And so it is not just in support of—— 

Dr. MCNUTT. America’s Great Outdoors. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Right. 

Mr. HOLT. And even what is in support of America’s Great Outdoors, it sounds to me like it is relevant to work that you would 

be doing anyway. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Right. 

Mr. HOLT. Stream gauges, et cetera. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Right. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. Thank you. The cut in the minerals line, can you 

assure us that this does not reduce any of your efforts in domestic 

rare earth geology? 

Dr. MCNUTT. The cut in the minerals area—and, you know, as 

I say, we are sorry to have to take a cut anywhere. It is kind of 

like which finger do you want to cut off. But the cut we are taking 

there is in our international—— 

Mr. HOLT. International. 

19 

Dr. MCNUTT.—minerals program, and it is to focus actually on 

our domestic minerals program because that is where we figure we 

really are vulnerable. We need to do something about that. 

Mr. HOLT. So you are assuring us that you are proposing no reduction in the domestic geology. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Right. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. Thank you. I spoke in my opening remarks about 

our call for the review of—for an expert, a standing, permanent expert body, to look at such things as oil flow from offshore drilling. 

And I just would like to have your word of whether or not you 

think USGS has the expertise to head that up, to provide the guidance, as we have proposed in the legislation. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes, we do. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. Thank you. And would you support congressional 

action to do—I am not sure whether you are familiar with our legislation. But would you support some kind of congressional action 

to have such permanent expert panel? 

Dr. MCNUTT. You know, I don’t think I can comment on pending 

legislation. 

Mr. HOLT. OK, fine. 

Dr. MCNUTT. But what I can say is that doing science during an 

ongoing emergency is never the right way to do it. And I think it 

is a good idea to vest within a science agency the authority to keep 

their eye on the ball and to be thinking in a strategic way about 

the next emergency, and constantly being nimble to have the answers ahead of time. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. In the time remaining, could you say a few words 

about Landsat 8? The USGS role, how the system will enhance the 

nation’s ability to collect information, and the extent to which that 

information contributes to national economic interests. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes. Well, Landsat 8 is scheduled to be launched 

in December of 2012. As you may know, we are sort of flying with 

a wing and a prayer with Landsats 5 and 7. They have both performed well beyond their design lives. And in fact, there has been 

a major failure of the land scanner on 7, which has compromised 

its ability to provide—— 

Mr. HOLT. If I may ask you to speed up a little bit. We have less 

than a minute remaining. 

Dr. MCNUTT. Oh, OK, sorry. 

Mr. HOLT. And I do want you to address the question of the economic value of—— 

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. The economic value of Landsat is many 

times its cost to the taxpayers, for farmers, for water use, for companies in terms of just the—for city planners in terms of looking 

at land use. We have this report that we would be happy to give 

you, which documents the dollars and cents and the value for planners, for developers, for agricultural communities, for government 

agencies. It gives all the dollars and cents in a recent survey. 

Mr. HOLT. If you would care to provide a page or two summary 

of that for the record—— 

Dr. MCNUTT. We can do that, yes. 

Mr. HOLT.—that would be good. And we will make sure that 

Members of the Subcommittee have access to the full report. Thank 

you. 

20 

Mr. LANDRY [presiding]. Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I 

yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. LANDRY. The witness is dismissed. 

Mr. HOLT. And if I may add, my thanks to the Director for her 

good testimony. 

Mr. LANDRY. Yes. I am sorry. Thank you for your testimony. At 

this point, we will begin questioning the witnesses. To allow Members to participate, and to ensure that we can hear from all of our 

witnesses today, we will limit them to five minutes. Let us see. 

[Pause] 

Mr. LAMBORN [presiding]. OK. We are now ready for our next 

panel of witnesses. I want to welcome Dr. Richard Aster, President 

of the Seismological Society of America and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; Mr. John Palatiello, Executive Director of MAPPS; Dr. Jonathan Price, State Geologist of Nevada, 

representing the American Association of State Geologists, and the 

Director of Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology at the University 

of Nevada, Reno; and Dr. Craig Schiffries, Director for Geoscience 

Policy with the Geological Society of America. 

All of the witnesses are reminded again that their complete written testimony will appear in the record, and you have five minutes 

to summarize it. Thank you for being here. And, Dr. Aster, you 

may begin. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD ASTER, PRESIDENT, SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, EES DEPARTMENT, NEW 

MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING AND TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. ASTER. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, Members 

of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify at this 

hearing on the mission of the U.S. Geological Survey and the President’s 2012 budget proposal. 

I speak today on behalf of the Seismological Society of America, 

an international scientific society devoted to the advancement of 

seismology and its applications in understanding and mitigating 

earthquake hazards. 

Some of the most important work of the USGS, as has already 

been acknowledged, is accomplished with a new natural hazards 

mission area, which includes earthquakes and volcanoes and other 

hazardous natural phenomenon. My testimony is on the USGS 

earthquake programs, and specifically reflects concerns about reductions in the President’s request for the Earthquake Hazards 

Program and the Global Seismographic Network. 

We ask this committee to reconsider these cuts and press for restoration of funding needed for the USGS to continue these science 

and public safety programs. Earthquakes pose significant risks to 

75 million Americans in 39 states, as well as Puerto Rico, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and a number of Pacific Territories. Under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, the USGS is the only Federal agency with 

responsibility for recording and continuously evaluating domestic 

and global earthquake activity. The USGS sets the world’s standard for providing the most accurate and timely information available from any source, including where and how strongly the ground 

21 

shook, immediate estimates on fatalities, and economic impact, and 

the likelihood of future significant shaking. 

Earthquakes also generate destructive tsunamis that threat tremendous loss of life and property. The same USGS seismographic 

monitoring system used for earthquake monitoring also provides 

vital data to tsunami warning systems operated by NOAA. Seismic 

monitoring and seismological science are critical elements of the 

USGS volcano hazards program that provides vital warnings to 

protect populations and aviation. 

Seismic monitoring systems supported by the USGS and its partners include the USGS Advanced National Seismic System, or 

ANSS, and the Global Seismographic Network, GSN. These systems provide indispensable baseline information on the interior of 

the earth and its dynamic natural processes that drive scientific 

understanding and advance the societal benefits. 

At the forefront of this monitoring and science capability is the 

National Earthquake Information Center located in Golden, Colorado, on the campus of the Colorado School of Mines. NEIC rapidly 

determines the location and size of all significant earthquakes on 

earth and disseminates this information immediately to concerned 

national and international agencies, scientists, critical facilities, 

and the general public. 

NEIC also collects and provides to scientists and the public an 

extensive seismic database that provides the foundation for scientific research. A sobering issue facing the U.S., as well as many 

other nations, is the increasing exposure to strong earthquake 

ground motion as the world economy and population grows. The results of poor building practices in seismically active regions can be 

catastrophic. Can I have the second slide, please? 

A recent example that has already been mentioned is the 2010 

magnitude 7 Haiti earthquake, which claimed over 230,000 lives. 

Events of this size occur roughly 20 times per year somewhere on 

earth. However, the Haiti earthquake struck a woefully underprepared nation and city with no seismic building codes. 

A stunning counter-example—next slide, thank you—is the Chile 

earthquake of 2010, which struck a nation with building codes that 

compare comparably with high-risk regions of the United States. 

The Chile earthquake released 500 times as much as seismic energy, shook a much larger area, and affected a larger population 

than the Haiti earthquake, but resulted in approximately 500 fatalities. That is .2 percent of the number of fatalities in Haiti. 

However, our database’s strong ground motion recordings and 

scientific studies of damaged cities is highly incomplete. Next slide, 

please. Keep going. Next one. Thank you. This is tragically demonstrated by recent events in New Zealand, which like Chile had 

similar building codes to those of high-risk regions of the U.S. A 

shallow earthquake about the same size of the Haiti earthquake 

struck near Christ’s Church on September 3, 2010, and resulted in 

not one fatality. 

However, on February 21st of this year, a much smaller magnitude 6 aftershock, which occurred much closer to the city, produced acceleration substantially exceeding that of gravity, or 1G. 

The result was widespread destruction. The number of fatalities is 

expected to exceed 250. There is no scientific reason to expect that 

22 

shallow, high-acceleration earthquakes similar to this event cannot 

occur beneath cities in a number of seismically active regions of the 

United States. Regions at risk include Alaska, California, the Pacific Northwest, the Inner Mountain West, parts of the Central 

U.S., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

In addition to activities performed by USGS staff, expertise in 

earthquake studies that exist outside of the Federal Government is 

applied through a substantial program of grants, cooperative agreements, and/or contracts with universities, State and local government agencies. The President’s 2012 budget calls for a $2 million 

cut to the external research component of the earthquake hazards 

program. This is fully one-third of the funding provided for these 

competitive external research grants and cooperative agreements. 

The students lost, the relationships severed, the data not obtained due to these cuts cannot easily be reclaimed in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions you or the Subcommittee may have at this 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Aster follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Richard C. Aster, President of the Seismological Society 

of America, and Professor of Geophysics, New Mexico Institute of Mining 

and Technology 

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify at this hearing on the mission of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) and the President’s FY2012 budget proposal. I speak today on behalf 

of the Seismological Society of America (SSA), an international scientific society, 

founded in 1906, devoted to the advancement of seismology and its applications in 

understanding and mitigating earthquake hazards. SSA was founded to promote research in seismology, the scientific investigation of earthquakes and related phenomena, to promote public safety by all practical means, and to enlist the support 

of the people and the government in the attainment of these ends. SSA is the largest and most respected society of earthquake seismologists in the world and is 

aligned with numerous other scientific and engineering organizations to promote 

earthquake risk reduction worldwide. 

The USGS is a science organization that provides impartial information on the 

health of our ecosystems and environment, the natural hazards that threaten us, 

the natural resources we rely on, the impacts of climate and land-use change, and 

the core science systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and useable information. Some of the most important work of the Survey is accomplished within the new 

Natural Hazards Mission Area, which includes earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides 

and coastal and marine geology, amongst others. My focus in this testimony is on 

the USGS programs regarding earthquakes, and reflects concern about the reductions in the President’s request for the Earthquake Hazards Program and the Global Seismographic Network. 

While it might seem that earthquakes are confined to a small segment of the nation, the fact is earthquakes pose significant risk to 75 million Americans in 39 

States. The USGS is the only Federal agency with responsibility for recording and 

continuously reporting earthquake activity nationwide and globally. The USGS, 

through its Earthquake Hazard Program, provides citizens, emergency responders, 

and engineers with the most accurate and timely information available from any 

source on where an earthquake occurred, how much the ground shook in different 

locations, immediate estimates on fatalities and economic, and on the likelihood is 

of future significant ground shaking. Because the seismic waves generated by earthquakes easily travel through the entire body of the earth, US Geological Survey 

rapid evaluations of earthquake size, damage, and other attributes, are the widely 

acknowledged worldwide standard for such information. 

Earthquakes can generate destructive tsunamis that span international boundaries the same USGS seismographic monitoring system used for earthquake monitoring also provides vital information on tsunami generation, and is critical to informing tsunami warning systems operated by NOAA. Seismic monitoring and seismological science also provide key measurements of unrest on volcanoes, and are 

23 

critical elements of the USGS Volcano Hazards Program that provides vital warnings to protect nearby populations and aviation. 

The USGS is a world leader in earthquake science, data collection and dissemination. The global seismic monitoring systems supported by the USGS and its partners include two critical elements, the U.S.-based Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS; which has many components operated in association with U.S. universities) and the Global Seismographic Network. Additionally, USGS has the assigned 

Federal responsibility for monitoring and notification of seismic activity in the 

United States. The USGS fulfills this requirement via the ANSS. These seismic 

monitoring systems provide the fundamental and scientifically indispensable baseline information on the interior of the earth, and on its dynamic natural processes 

that drives scientific understanding and advance societal benefits. These networks 

are very efficient and cost effective data collection and processing systems; as was 

noted in the 2008–2009 USGS Director’s Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory 

Committee (SESAC), ANSS is the highest scoring major information technology capital investment made by the Department of the Interior. In the report, the top recommendation for the USGS to be able to continue to carry out its mission and continue to provide essential data products to dramatically lower earthquake effects, 

calls for the full funding of ANSS, (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/sesac/reports.php). 

At the forefront of the USGS’ earthquake science capability is the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), located on the campus of the Colorado School of 

Mines in Golden, Colorado. The NEIC determines, as rapidly and as accurately as 

possible, the location and size of all significant earthquakes that occur worldwide. 

The NEIC disseminates this information immediately to concerned national and 

international agencies, scientists, critical facilities, and the general public. NEIC 

also collects and provides to scientists and to the public an extensive seismic database that serves as a solid foundation for scientific research, principally through the 

operation of modern digital national and global seismograph networks and through 

cooperative international agreements. The NEIC is the U.S. national data center 

and archive for earthquake information. As a research facility, the NEIC pursues 

an active program to improve its ability to locate earthquakes and to understand 

earthquake physics, geology, and effects. 

To not only survive a strong earthquake, but to be able to thrive afterwards, is 

a function of the size of the earthquake, its proximity to densely populated areas, 

and the construction of the buildings affected by the quake. To this end, science directs the essential operation of networks of sensitive seismographs that provide the 

core data for the detection and rapid assessment of earthquakes, and the more detailed analyses that follow. Additionally, science directs research into the nature of 

the geological processes involved and impacts on people and infrastructure. Science 

is employed to inform every recommendation to building codes to create more earthquake resilient buildings. Earthquake science and engineering saves lives, and the 

USGS is a cornerstone of US world leadership in this area. 

A sobering issue facing the U.S. (as well as many other nations) is the increasing 

exposure to strong earthquake ground motion from earthquakes as the world economy and population grows, and the necessity of mitigating this hazard. USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps form the baseline probabilistic estimates for mitigation 

in the U.S. 

In a poorly designed and built environment, the results of poor building practices 

can be catastrophic. A recent example of a too common situation worldwide is the 

January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake, which claimed over 230,000 lives. The earthquake was magnitude 7, and events of this size occur roughly 20 times per year 

somewhere on earth. However, the Haiti earthquake struck a woefully unprepared 

nation and city with no seismic building codes, and the result has been tremendous 

loss of life, civic devastation, and severe societal disruption. A stunning counterexample to the devastation of the Haiti earthquake was the magnitude 8.8 Chile 

earthquake of February 27, 2010. This earthquake shook a much larger area than 

the Haiti earthquake (and released approximately 500 times more seismic energy), 

but resulted in approximately 500 fatalities, which is 0.2% of the number of fatalities in Haiti. Chile has building codes that compare favorably with high-risk regions 

of the U.S. 

However, our record of strong ground motion recordings and scientific studies of 

damaged cities is highly incomplete, and we are far from fully understanding or acting on the threats posed to society by earthquakes. This is tragically demonstrated 

by recent events in New Zealand, which has similar building codes to those of highrisk regions of the U.S. A shallow earthquake of approximately the same size as the 

Haiti earthquake struck near New Zealand’s second largest city, Christchurch, on 

September 3, 2010, and resulted in not one fatality. On February 21st of this year, 

24 

as the city was still recovering from the 2010 event, a moderate-sized (magnitude 

6.3) earthquake again struck Christchurch. This event was much closer to the city 

center than the 2010 magnitude 7 event, and produced unexpectedly (near record) 

accelerations exceeding 1.8 times that of gravity. The result was widespread destruction within the city, and the number of fatalities is expected to exceed 250. The 

shaking was so extreme during this earthquake that it is likely that a third or more 

of the major business district buildings will be total losses. The experience of this 

February’s Christchurch earthquake tragically informs us that there is still much 

to learn through further research and forensic engineering about the potential for 

extreme ground motions and about their effects on the built environment. It is noteworthy that there is no scientific reason not to expect that shallow, high-acceleration earthquakes similar to the most recent Christchurch event cannot occur beneath cities in a number of seismically active regions of the United States, including 

Alaska, California, the Pacific Northwest, the intermountain west, and the Central 

US. 

The USGS plays a critical role in earthquake preparedness and planning by working with communities to develop earthquake scenarios and exercises. Earthquake 

scenarios provide a means to visualize community impacts from earthquakes without actually having the event occur. Scenarios provide a basis for communities to 

define their own level of acceptable level of risk and develop risk-reduction policies. 

Scenarios help answer questions like ‘‘Have we done enough?’’ and enable communities to identify appropriate actions to reduce their level of risk. 

With the success of the Great Southern California ShakeOut in California in 

2008, a scenario which simulated a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Southern California and had a record 5 million participants statewide (repeated in 2009 and 2010 

with 7 million and 8 million participants, respectively), other communities have 

taken the opportunity to increase awareness for earthquake hazards and implement 

their own ‘‘ShakeOut’’ operations. The Great Central US ShakeOut, scheduled for 

10:15 a.m. on April 28, capitalizes on the bicentennial of the large New Madrid, Missouri, earthquakes of 1811–1812 to raise public awareness of earthquake hazards 

in the heartland and increase preparedness. The Central US ShakeOut encompasses 

11 states (IL, IN, MO, KY, TN, OK, AR, MS, AL, GA, and SC) and already has 

850,000 registered participants. Exercises of this scale aim to incorporate all levels 

of the community, from schools, to businesses to government, and highlight the appropriate steps to take to prepare for an earthquake and remain safe if an earthquake strikes. 

In addition to activities performed by USGS staff, expertise in earthquake studies 

that exist outside the federal government is applied through a substantial program 

of grants, cooperative agreements and/or contracts with universities, state, regional 

and local government agencies, and private industry. Targeted research funding 

through the earthquake grants program has been key to the development of the 

USGS Seismic hazards maps, urban seismic hazards maps and the National Earthquake Information Center’s rapid response products used by emergency personnel 

and key decision makers to allocate emergency resources in the event of an earthquake. The President’s FY2012 budget calls for a $2 million cut to the External Research component of the Earthquake Hazards Program. This proposed cut eliminates 1/3 of the funding provided by Earthquake Hazards Program for competitive, 

peer-reviewed, external earthquake research grants and cooperative agreements 

with State governments, the academic community, and the private sector. 

Proposed cuts to external grants and other programs would directly impact: 

• The continued development of national and urban seismic maps that inform 

planners, builders, governments, and citizens. 

• The operation of the Global Seismographic Network 

• Cooperative agreements between the USGS and University and State partners in support of a prototype Earthquake Early Warning System in California that can provide up to tens of seconds of warning to areas of high vulnerability before strong ground motion begins. 

• State geological survey mapping in support of earthquake loss reduction in 

the New Madrid Seismic Zone, a highly vulnerable region of the nation’s midsection that has experienced strong earthquakes. 

• The use of LiDAR in the Pacific Northwest to identify faults under heavily 

forested landscapes, an activity that will greatly expand our understanding 

of the shallow earthquake hazard of that region. 

• The Southern San Andreas Fault Evaluation project at the Southern California Earthquake Center, a 40-institution research consortium that the 

USGS funds in partnership with the National Science Foundation to better 

understand the timing and slip, and the attendant seismic hazard, of the San 

Andreas fault system. 

25 

• Critical funding for graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and other 

young scientists necessary to maintain U.S. preeminence in this field, and to 

advance mitigation of earthquakes hazards in the U.S. 

CONCLUSION 

The USGS is a U.S. and world-leading science and science-driven agency dedicated to the furtherance of the understanding of our planet, its resources and how 

to best live and thrive on it. The USGS is an essential agency in ensuring that basic 

science results in applications that save lives. 

In these difficult economic times, when budget decisions aren’t between what to 

fund and what not to fund, but are instead centered on what to cut and what not 

to cut, we can’t lose sight of the incredible progress that science has made to the 

nation and do all we can to ensure we continue to invest in science. The budget cuts 

proposed in the President’s FY2012 budget hamstring core science programs within 

the Hazards Programs at the USGS, and undercut investment in future scientists 

that we hope will continue to both advance our scientific understanding and protect 

society from earthquakes. The students lost, the relationships severed, the data not 

obtained due to these cuts, cannot easily be reclaimed in the future. We ask this 

Committee to reconsider these cuts and press for restoration of the funding needed 

for the USGS to continue these valuable science and public safety programs. 

Mister Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I will be pleased to answer any 

questions you or the subcommittee may have at this time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Palatiello. And 

I believe your agency is the Management Association of Private— 

help me here, please. 

Mr. PALATIELLO. Photogrammetric. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Photogrammetric—— 

Mr. PALATIELLO. Surveyors. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Surveyors. OK. Thank you for being here, and 

please present your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN M. PALATIELLO, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAPPS 

Mr. PALATIELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

opportunity to present our views, to you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Holt. 

MAPPS is the national association of private geospatial firms. 

Photogrammetry is photography. Grammetry is measurement, so it 

is measurement or the making of maps from aerial photographs. 

Geospatial, that was the origin of our organization. Geospatial is 

much broader than that now, and so our membership includes the 

full spectrum of private firms in the broad geospatial field. 

In our view, there is a critical need to refocus the mission and 

the priorities of the USGS. As you mentioned in your opening 

statement, Mr. Chairman, the USGS operates primarily under authorization provided by the Act of March 3rd, 1879. It has been 

decades since Congress has enacted major surveying and mapping 

legislating affecting the USGS. 

The underpinning for where we believe the USGS priority today 

should be is in the national spatial data infrastructure. The NSDI 

was established by President Clinton by executive order and reaffirmed by President Bush, and it provides a framework for the 

geographic information needs that our nation has today. 

However, that priority is not reflected in the USGS budget. The 

national map is the key component of USGS in the NSDI. But we 

are deeply disappointed that partnerships to facilitate this activity 

is proposed to be cut in the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget. 

26 

I would like to call to your attention a very candid comment in 

the USGS budget justification, quote, ‘‘The reduction would result 

in reduced work for America’s geospatial industry, which benefits 

by fulfilling contracts for projects that result from agreements the 

national geospatial program makes with its cooperators,’’ unquote. 

Mr. Chairman, this is the last place we should be cutting the 

USGS budget. A reduction in partnerships will result in more duplication, less coordination, and less leveraging of scarce resources. 

As I have shown, I believe, in the first slide that I have—this is 

a USGS slide. By their own analysis, for every dollar invested in 

partnerships for geospatial data of appropriated funds to GS, more 

than eleven dollars in partnership dollars is leveraged. For things 

like imagery, it is 20 to 1. So when you reduce partnerships, you 

reduce that leveraging of resources. 

We are also opposed to the decrease in the funding for the Federal Geographic Data Committee. FGDC is a USGS office that is 

responsible for Federal coordination. As you mentioned before, Mr. 

Chairman, the need for better coordination was also identified by 

this Subcommittee in a 2009 hearing on a bipartisan basis, as well 

as in a recent U.S. GAO report. 

Perhaps most troubling as far as USGS trends are concerned has 

been its retrenchment from the utilization of the private sector. 

The data that we have shows that USGS is not even coming close 

to meeting the instructions of Congress that was established in the 

Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act for using the private sector. 

On the bright side, we are pleased that the budget includes the 

request of 48 million to support current and future Landsat. 

Landsat does not compete with the private sector and is an appropriate government investment. As you can see from the slides that 

I have, we have shown both in your district, Mr. Lamborn, and in 

your district, Mr. Holt, how Landsat is a useful tool in doing 

change detection analysis, where you can see where growth, development, change to impervious surface can be monitored over time 

so that appropriate planning and smart, intelligent land use and 

development can occur. 

Geospatial data contributes to national priorities and economic 

development, resource management, environmental protection, infrastructure, construction and maintenance, homeland security, 

and a variety of other needs and applications. 

USGS was once the world leader in this field. We don’t believe 

that is the case any longer. We look forward to working with the 

Subcommittee to reform USGS’s mapping and geospatial activities 

so we can once again be that national and international leader. 

Thank you again for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palatiello follows:] 

Statement of John M. Palatiello, Executive Director, MAPPS 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present our views on the priorities, mission and budget proposal for the U.S. Geological Survey. MAPPS (www.mapps.org) is a national association of private sector 

geospatial firms. Our 180+ member firms span the entire spectrum of the geospatial 

community, including satellite and airborne remote sensing, surveying, photogrammetry, aerial photography, LIDAR, hydrography, bathymetry, charting, aerial 

and satellite image processing, GPS, and GIS data collection and conversion services 

and companies that provide hardware, software, products and services to the 

geospatial profession in the United States and other firms from around the world. 

27 

A significant number of our member firms are prime contractors or subcontractors 

to USGS and other federal agencies, and to the state and local governments that 

receive grant monies from USGS. 

MAPPS believes there is a critical need to refocus the mission and priorities of 

the USGS, and to align its budget with this new direction. The USGS operates primarily under authorization provided by the Act of March 3, 1879 (codified in 43 

U.S.C. 31 et seq.). It has been decades since Congress last enacted major legislation 

affecting one of the original and core missions of the USGS—the surveying and 

mapping of the United States. As a result, surveying and mapping has proliferated 

among more than 40 federal agencies, resulting in duplication, a lack of coordination, gaps in coverage and the absence of a strategic approach to providing the basic 

geographic information needed in the 21st century for scientific research, as well as 

practical applications that contribute to the economic health, quality of life and safety and security of our Nation. The need for better coordination of Federal surveying 

and mapping activities has been well documented by previous Congressional hearings, including one by this Subcommittee in 2009, GAO reports, National Academy 

of Sciences studies, and investigations by the National Academy of Public Administration, OMB and other entities. 

The National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), established by President Clinton in Executive Order 12906 on April 11, 1994, and amended and reaffirmed by 

President Bush in Executive Order 13286 on March 5, 2003, provides a framework 

for the geographic information America needs today. However, this priority is not 

reflected in the USGS budget. 

The National Map is the key USGS component of the NSDI. We are surprised and 

deeply disappointed that funding for this activity, and the partnerships to facilitate 

this activity, is proposed to be cut in the President’s FY 2012 budget. I call to your 

attention the extraordinarily candid comment on page E–15 of the USGS ‘‘Green 

Book’’ FY 2012 Budget Justification: The National Map Partnerships (-$3,500,000/-4 FTE) 

The USGS proposes to reduce the funding for the Partnership Implementation component of the National Map by $3.5 million which is currently 

funded at $13.9 million. The proposed reduction eliminates all funds used 

to specifically leverage with Federal, State and local agencies to acquire 

new data. 

The proposed decrease would eliminate liaison positions responsible for 

partnerships in 13 States. These positions organize the agreements through 

which the USGS leverages its resources with those of State and local cooperators. They routinely provide coordination among Federal geospatial resources and those of State and local governments. Beyond these immediate 

outcomes, the reduction would result in reduced work for America’s 

geospatial industry, which benefits by fulfilling contracts for projects that 

result from agreements the NGP makes with its cooperators. 

Mr. Chairman, this is the last place we should be cutting the USGS budget. A 

reduction in partnerships will result in more duplication, less coordination, less 

leveraging of scarce resources, and increased unemployment in the private sector. 

It goes exactly in the opposite direction of what this Subcommittee, on a bipartisan 

basis, concluded was necessary in its 2009 hearing and the recommendations of numerous studies, including the National Research Council/National Academy of 

Sciences report National Spatial Data infrastructure Partnership Programs (2001). 

According to the USGS’s own analysis, for every $1 in funds appropriated to USGS 

for NSDI framework data, more than $11 in partnership dollars is leveraged. That 

is a return on investment that will be lost as partnerships are reduced. This is a 

penny wise and pound foolish reduction. 

Moreover, the FY 2012 budget request decreases funding for the Federal Geo- graphic Data Committee (FGDC) by $200,000. Last week, the GAO issued a report, 

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax 

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. While this report did not discuss duplication in Federal geospatial activities, previous studies have done so. GAO qualified its report by 

noting it did not provide an exhaustive or comprehensive list of Federal activities 

prone to duplication, but if it had, geospatial would be near the top of such a list. 

This point was also identified by this Subcommittee in its 2009 hearing, as well as 

in hearings in 2003 and 2004 by a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the 2004 GAO report, Geospatial Information: 

Better Coordination Needed to Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments. 

Mr. Chairman, I regret to report that since the Subcommittee held its hearing in 

July of 2009, the Steering Committee of the Federal Geographic Data Committee 

(FGDC) has not met. In fact, the FGDC Steering Committee, chaired by Secretary 

Salazar, has not met since the Obama Administration took office in January of 

28 

2009. The last meeting of the designated senior career or political officials of the 

government was in the final days of the Bush Administration. It is an unfortunate 

neglect of leadership and responsibility. We urge the Subcommittee to reinforce the 

need for coordination, partnerships, and a clear definition of roles and responsibilities so that tax dollars are not wasted, effort is not duplicated, and our economy 

is not stifled. 

Perhaps the most troubling trend in USGS has been its retrenchment from utilization of the private sector. In FY10, the appropriated amount from Congress for 

USGS National Geospatial Program was $70 million. However, only $5 million of 

the $70 million went to contract via the Geospatial Products and Services Contracts 

(GPSC). That is only 7% going to contract for data and related services. This is a 

reversal of a direction from Congress that USGS had previously implemented. In 

House Report 104–173, to accompany H.R. 1977 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, the Appropriations Committee instructed: 

‘‘The Committee expects the Survey to continue to increase its contracting 

of map and digital data production, with the goal of no less than 50 percent 

contracting by the end of fiscal year 1997 and no less than 60 percent contracting by the end of fiscal year 1999. The survey should not be competing 

with the private sector for map production contracts. When services of 

equal quality and cost are available from the private sector, the Survey 

should use the private sector.’’ 

Another USGS activity that has long upset MAPPS members is the Civil Applications Committee (CAC) (p I–36). The CAC is an interagency committee, chaired by 

USGS, and housed in a secure facility at the USGS headquarters in Reston, VA, 

that facilitates civil agency use of classified imagery and other data, officially known 

as National Technical Means (NTM) for ‘‘resource management, environmental, climate, natural disaster, and remote sensing applications.’’ This secret activity often 

duplicates and competes with the private sector. While the policy prescribes that 

NTM data is only to be used when commercially provided data does not exist, we 

have seen examples where the policy has not been followed, and the private sector 

has not been utilized. Also, there is no transparency to this activity and the private 

sector is often unaware of the CAC’s facilitation of the use of NTM when commercial 

solutions were indeed available. It should be noted that a number of MAPPS member firms work in GEOINT, or geospatial intelligence and have the cleared personnel and secure facilities to support classified data. We urge the Subcommittee’s 

oversight of the CAC, a reduction in its funding, and stronger enforcement of policies and procedures to prevent government competition with and duplication of the 

private sector. 

On the bright side, we are pleased the budget request includes an increase, or re- allocation, of $48 million to support the current and future mission of the National 

Land Imaging Program, principally through LANDSAT. The National Land Imaging 

Program includes funding for current satellites (LANDSAT 5 and 7), the LANDSAT 

Data Continuity Mission (LANDSAT 8), scheduled to launch in December 2012, and 

the development of LANDSAT 9 and 10, through a continuous program to ensure 

data continuity in the future. The moderate resolution data provided by LANDSAT 

does not compete with the private sector and is an appropriate government investment. It provides for data that is primarily used in research and scientific applications, much of it funded by the government, which compliments higher resolution 

satellite and airborne capabilities available from the private sector. This funding by 

the Obama Administration continues implementation of the ‘‘Future of Land 

Imaging’’ program initiated in the Bush Administration. We support this bipartisan 

program. 

Mr. Chairman, geospatial data, products, technology and services enhance and 

contribute to national priorities in economic development, resource management, environmental protection, infrastructure, construction and maintenance, homeland security and a variety of other national needs and applications. The USGS was once 

the envy of the word for its leadership in this field. I have pleaded with previous 

USGS leaders to ‘‘lead, follow or get out of the way’’. In the Committee’s Oversight 

Plan for the 112th Congress, this Subcommittee reported: 

Federal Mapping Programs—The federal government spends billions each 

year on new geospatial data—spending which is frequently duplicative and 

uncoordinated. During hearings last year, witnesses made clear that multiple Administrations have exerted little control, central oversight or effective management. The Subcommittee intends to examine this issue and 

may consider legislation to consolidate and streamline the geospatial programs to reduce waste and duplication. In addition, the Subcommittee intends to conduct oversight of federal agencies and how they track and monitor their land management responsibilities and purposes. 

29 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on this important and longoverdue review and reform of USGS’s mapping and geospatial activities. It is time 

to bring USGS into the 21st Century and align its programs and budget priorities 

to America’s contemporary and future needs to provide the spatial data infrastructure necessary for economic growth, sound resource management, solid science, and 

proper environmental stewardship. 

USGS should be focused on coordination; assisting with applying geospatial data 

to our Nation’s challenges; encouraging economic development, private sector job 

creation and export promotion; driving a research agenda that is responsive to the 

private sector’s needs; working to assure a geospatial workforce that will meet the 

demands of the nation; and contracting with the private sector and partnering with 

other government entities to build and then maintain the NSDI. We believe this is 

where USGS’s budget priorities should be placed and we are committed to working 

with you and the Administration to build a stronger USGS that once again lead’s 

the Federal government’s geographic information activities. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for your testimony. Dr. Price, you may 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JONATHAN G. PRICE, STATE GEOLOGIST 

AND DIRECTOR, NEVADA BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, 

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF 

THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the 

value of USGS programs. The President’s budget would devastate 

many of the most successful and effective programs run by the 

USGS. These are programs that stimulate economic development, 

save lives and property from natural disasters, and protect the environment and public health. Cutting these programs would cost 

the government money through loss of general revenue that is created from the economic stimulation that these programs provide. 

These are also Federal programs that directly benefit from collaboration with experts outside the Federal Government. Through 

competitive grants, which would be eliminated or reduced in the 

President’s budget, the USGS is engaging the nation’s best and 

brightest scientists and local area experts in their mission-oriented 

work. 

The foremost of concern to our Association of American State Geologists is the national cooperative geologic mapping program. The 

President’s budget proposes cutting this by 10 percent, but disproportionately cuts the cooperative components with states and 

universities, which bring non-Federal matching dollars to the 

projects. We believe that this program should not be cut at all. 

Large parts of the United States do not have modern detailed geologic maps. 

Geologic mapping at the scale and overall coverage done by the 

USGS and the State Geological Surveys is clearly a role for government because the public benefits in many ways, and the private 

sector must limit its work to small areas of immediate interest to 

their businesses. Geologic mapping generally engages the use of 

private sector base mapping efforts, but must rely on the knowledge of geologists at government agencies and universities to build 

the geological history and four-dimensional framework of an area. 

A cost-benefit analysis calculated the value of geologic maps to 

be 25 to 39 times the cost of the mapping. Therefore, a program 

of 28 million has a potential to generate $700 million to $1.2 billion 

in value. 

30 

The Colorado State geologist, Dr. Vince Matthews, has documented some recent successes in economic development and increased State and Federal revenue through geologic mapping. Mapping in the San Juan Basin provided industry and regulators with 

sound science on how to most efficiently and safely develop coldbed methane, which currently accounts for approximately 40 percent of Colorado’s natural gas production. 

The New Jersey State geologist, Dr. Karl Muessig, noted that 

geologic mapping guided the drill testing for a new underground 

explosive testing facility at the Picatinny Arsenal. It resulted in 

drilling into competent crystal and rocks, compared to the initial 

fractured rock target, saving the Army the cost of extra exploration 

and drilling, and millions of dollars for a possible failed facility. 

The President’s budget proposes elimination of the national geological and geophysical data preservation program. These data and 

samples are used in exploration for domestic mineral and energy 

resources, including geothermal and wind, groundwater protection, 

and investigation of the potential for carbon sequestration in geological formations. The program should grow, not suffer elimination. 

In making the case for support of the energy and minerals program of the USGS, please refer to the four graphs at the end of 

my written testimony. These graphs use critical data collected and 

reported by the USGS. Only the USGS compiles the vast amount 

of mineral resource data used by our decision makers. 

The USGS has a vital role in documenting domestic production 

and reserves, and in assessing the likelihood of future discoveries. 

Recent external reports by the National Academy of Sciences and 

by the American Physical Society have documented the importance 

of continuing to collect and analyze mineral resource data for both 

the economic health and national security of America. 

We believe neither the minerals program nor the energy program 

should be cut. There are several other USGS programs that we believe are vital to the Nation and should not be reduced. We strongly support increased funding of the USGS hazards programs, including earthquakes, volcanos, and landslides. Geologic mapping is 

a key to reducing risk from these hazards, which brings me back 

to our key concern, funding for the geologic mapping program. 

It and the comparably important data preservation program provide the basis for other USGS activities. They are integral to economic development, reducing risk from natural hazards, and stewardship of the environment. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Price follows:] 

Statement of Jonathan G. Price, State Geologist and Director, Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology, Association of American State Geologists 

My name is Jonathan G. Price. I am the Nevada State Geologist and Director of 

the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, which is the state geological survey and 

a research and public service unit of the Nevada System of Higher Education at the 

University of Nevada, Reno. As past president of the Association of American State 

Geologists, I am testifying today on behalf of that organization, which represents 

the geological surveys in the 50 states and Puerto Rico. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the budget of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) and the value of their programs. 

The President’s budget would devastate many of the most successful and effective 

programs run by the USGS. These are programs that stimulate economic developVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65119.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
31 

ment, save lives and property from natural disasters, and protect the environment 

and public health. Cutting these programs would cost the government money 

through loss of general revenue that is created from the economic stimulation that 

these programs provide. 

These are also federal programs that directly benefit from collaboration with experts outside the federal government. Through competitive grants, which would be 

eliminated or reduced in the President’s budget, the USGS is engaging some of the 

Nation’s best and brightest scientists and local-area experts in their mission-oriented work. 

Foremost of concern to the Association of American State Geologists is the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP), a subactivity within the 

Core Science Systems Activity, funded at $28.2 million in FY 2010. The President’s 

budget proposes cutting this by 10% in FY 2012, but disproportionately cuts the cooperative components with states and universities, which bring non-federal matching dollars to the projects, by 14%, while cutting the federal component by 8%. We 

believe that this program should not be cut at all in FY 2012. Given its proven 

record in stimulating economic development and generation of tax revenues for federal, state, and local governments, the program should grow to its fully authorized 

level of $64 million per year in the upcoming years. Large parts of the United States 

do not have modern, detailed geologic maps. The program locates, characterizes, and 

assembles the vital information upon which economic decisions involving land and 

water are made. Virtually all mineral, energy, water, industrial construction, public 

works, and urban development projects require a geologic map. 

Geologic mapping at the scale and overall coverage done by the USGS and the 

state geological surveys is clearly a role for government, because the public benefits 

in many ways, and the private sector must limit its work to small areas of immediate interest to their businesses. Geologic mapping generally engages the use of 

private-sector base-mapping efforts (such as aerial photography and topographic 

mapping, nowadays using light detection and ranging, LiDAR) but must rely on the 

knowledge of geologists at government agencies and universities to build the geological history and four-dimensional framework of an area. 

Cost-benefit studies show that the existence of a modern geologic map saves de- velopers and engineers about $50,000 for every project occurring within a standard 

mapping area of 56 square miles. Typically, many projects utilize a single map, multiplying these cost savings many times over. The maps, and data collected to make 

them, are of great value because society can use them in perpetuity. A cost-benefit 

analysis done on a state fortunate to have completed modern geologic map coverage 

calculated the value of the geologic maps to be 25 to 39 times the cost of the mapping. Therefore a FY 2012 program of $28 million has the potential to generate $700 

million to $1.1 billion in value. Also, through this program, 850 students at 140 universities have been trained in the essential skills of geologic mapping, skills that 

are much in demand in the United States. 

The Colorado State Geologist, Dr. Vince Matthews, has documented some recent 

successes in economic development (and increased state and federal revenue) 

through geologic mapping. Geologic mapping in Archuleta and La Plata Counties 

along the northern outcrop of the San Juan Basin provided industry and regulators 

with sound science on how to most efficiently and safely develop coalbed methane, 

which currently accounts for approximately 40% of Colorado’s natural gas production. Geologic mapping by the Colorado Geological Survey is a key component of an 

$11 million research project on carbon capture and storage centered in northwestern 

Colorado. Partners include the Colorado Geological Survey, Tri State Generation 

and Transmission, Shell Production Company, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and 

other state geological surveys and universities. 

The New Jersey State Geologist, Dr. Karl Muessig, provided the following example of how geologic mapping saves the federal government money. Mapping data 

gathered under the NCGMP guided the drill testing at the Picatinny Arsenal for 

a new underground explosives testing facility. It resulted in drilling into competent 

crystalline rocks (compared to the initial fractured rock target), saving the Army the 

cost of extra exploration drilling and millions of dollars for a possible failed facility 

or for additional grouting. 

Geologic maps and related reports on applied research are excellent incentives for 

economic development. As another example, geologic mapping and related interpretation of the regional geological structures were an integral part of the discovery of 

the Carlin gold deposit in 1961. The geologic mapping was done by USGS geologists 

in a cooperative program with the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, but the 

discovery was made through the additional investment by the private sector for 

drilling and assaying. In the last 35 years, mining companies in Nevada have produced tens of billions of dollars’ worth of gold and silver from deposits of this type 

32 

and have directly and indirectly provided tens of thousands high-paying jobs. There 

is still much mineral wealth to be found in the United States. In 1988, I estimated 

that the undiscovered mineral resources in Nevada were likely to have a value in 

the range of $120 billion to $1.2 trillion, and those figures still provide a reasonable 

estimate of the untapped mineral wealth of that one state. Nevada’s gold production 

of over 167 million troy ounces since the Carlin deposit began operation in 1965 

would have a value of over $230 billion at current prices. 

Another reason why the STATEMAP and EDMAP components of the National Cooperative Geological Mapping Program should be increased, rather than cut, is the 

fact that these components require that non-federal dollars be added to the federal 

investments, thereby at least doubling the overall effort. In addition, each state engages stakeholders (including federal land managers, resource and urban development industries, local governments, water districts, other state agencies, and conservation groups) in setting priorities for new geologic maps, thereby assuring that 

the highest priority areas are covered as soon as possible. 

The President’s budget proposes elimination of the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDPP), also a subactivity within the Core 

Science Systems Activity, funded at $1.0 million in FY 2010. This is another cooperative program with states, which double the federal investment. The 2002 National 

Academy of Sciences report on Geoscience Data and Collections—National Resources 

in Peril made the case for preserving these irreplaceable data and physical samples and led to Congressional authorization of this program at $30 million per year within the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We have seen uses for these data and samples 

in exploration for domestic mineral and energy resources (including renewable geothermal energy sources), groundwater protection, and investigation of the potential 

for carbon storage in geological formations. The program should grow, not suffer 

elimination. 

An example of how both data preservation and geologic mapping create jobs in 

the private sector and revenues for the federal government comes from New Jersey. 

Coastal mapping supported by NCGMP and offshore mapping by the Department 

of Interior, along with drilling data preserved through the NGGDPP, have provided 

baseline data for siting proposed offshore wind energy facilities. This is generating 

jobs in the alternative energy industry and future federal leasing revenues. 

Many states have considerable amounts of public land managed by the federal 

government. In contrast to Canada and Australia, which help stimulate exploration 

for natural resources and eliminate unnecessary environmental degradation that 

can occur from duplication of efforts on the ground, the United States has no significant program to preserve information gathered from leases or mining claims on public lands, other than the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation 

Program. We have experienced many cycles of exploration, when commodity prices 

rise and fall. Preserving data from past exploration clearly stimulates private investment and economic development when commodities are in high demand. 

In making the case for support of the Energy and Minerals Programs of the 

USGS, please refer to four graphs at the end of this testimony. The continuing historical rise in demand for copper, an example of a mineral commodity needed for 

modern society, is documented in Figure 1. To meet global demand, the world needs 

to mine the equivalent of one huge copper deposit each year and find a new one 

to replace the depleted reserves. Although conservation and recycling can lessen the 

demand for newly mined copper, the increases in both global population and average 

standard of living require more mining. Domestic resources for most mineral commodities occur in the United States, where they are mined using the world’s best 

practices for environmental stewardship and health and safety for workers and the 

public. The USGS has a vital role in documenting domestic production and reserves 

and in assessing the likelihood of future discoveries that will add to the mineral and 

energy resources of our country. 

Global iron-ore production and, by that measure, the rise of China as a major economic power, is shown in Figure 2. The dominance of China as a producer of mineral and energy commodities today is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. These graphs 

use critical data collected and reported by the USGS. No other agency, foreign government, or private company does this. Although foreign governments, domestic 

state governments, and private companies collaborate with the USGS in the data 

collection, only the USGS compiles the vast amount of mineral-resource data used 

by our decision makers. China’s dominance in the minerals arena, as documented 

by the USGS data, presents challenges, threats, and opportunities for the United 

States. 

Within the USGS’s Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health Activity, the 

Mineral Resources Subactivity would be cut 18% below the FY 2010 level, from 

$53.8 million to $44.2 million in FY 2012. The Mineral Resources External Research 

33 

Program (only $250,000 in FY 2010) would be eliminated, thereby losing collaboration with subject experts that can fill gaps in expertise within the USGS. The Minerals Information Function, considered to be an essential government function in 

two 2008 National Academy of Sciences reports (titled Minerals, Critical Minerals, 

and the U.S. Economy, and Managing Materials for a Twenty-first Century Military) 

and in a 2011 report by the American Physical Society (titled Energy Critical Elements: Securing Materials for Emerging Technologies), would suffer a 17% cut. 

These recent external reports have documented the importance of continuing to collect and analyze these data for both the economic health and national security of 

America. We believe these are programs and functions that should not be cut. 

The President’s budget for the USGS’s Energy Resources Subactivity would be ap- proximately the same as last year (increasing from $27.2 million in FY 2010 to 

$27.4 million in FY 2012), but funding for the State Coop to maintain and improve 

the National Coal Resources Data System would be eliminated. Coal continues to 

be a major supplier of inexpensive electricity for America. Research on new technologies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, storing carbon dioxide underground, 

and adapting to climate changes is needed, because coal and other carbon-based energy fuels (including unconventional sources of oil and natural gas) are likely to 

dominate the global energy supplies for many years. Whereas the Energy Information Administration in the Department of Energy does a good job of collecting statistics on domestic energy production, the USGS’s role in long-term forecasting of energy supplies (including fossil fuels, nuclear fuels, and geothermal resources) is 

unique and necessary for long-term planning. Much of this work is done in collaboration with states, and the Association of American State Geologists supports this 

working relationship. 

There are several other USGS programs that we believe are vital to the nation 

and should not be reduced. The President’s budget for the Earthquake Hazards Program (within the Natural Hazards Activity) calls for an 8% overall decrease and a 

much larger percentage cut to the external Earthquake Grants program, which has 

successfully engaged leading scientists and engineers through a peer-reviewed grant 

process. The President’s budget would also put on hold progress to build a prototype 

earthquake early warning system. This system would warn people within seconds 

after a major earthquake starts to shake the ground, in time for many people to 

take cover, protect their children, and automatically implement electronic safety 

measures (such as opening firehouse doors, slowing trains, and backing up computers). Japan already has a functional system in place, but the President’s budget 

calls for the United States to stall its efforts. The system that we need would surely 

save lives and facilitate a rapid recovery after the inevitable earthquakes that will 

strike not only California, Alaska, Nevada, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, 

but many other states, including ones in the eastern and central parts of the country. The Earthquake Hazards Program also needs funding to take advantage of new 

technologies (such as better seismic instrumentation, more geodetic measurements, 

and more use of LiDAR in mapping faults) that are improving our abilities to reduce 

risks from earthquakes. 

The National Science Foundation’s EarthScope-US Array experiment, which has 

been deploying seismic instruments across the country, but for only 18 months at 

a given site, has demonstrated how useful a robust national seismic network could 

be. For example, the US Array instruments helped to detect a magnitude 3.7 earthquake in the same area as, but approximately one year before, the magnitude 6.0 

earthquake that damaged the town of Wells, Nevada on February 21, 2008. Unfortunately, the US Array instruments in most western United States have been 

moved eastward in NSF’s experiment, and the USGS-supported seismic network can 

no longer detect the small events that might help us eventually predict earthquakes 

or that might be critical for an early warning system for many urban areas throughout the country. That is, USGS support of a national seismic and geodetic network, 

with collaboration from state and university-based regional networks, is vital. 

The Landslide Hazards Subactivity and the Volcano Hazards Subactivity of the 

USGS’s Natural Hazards Activity are slated for 4% reductions in the President’s 

budget. As indicated in recent USGS and National Academy of Sciences studies, 

landslides (and related land-surface movements such as debris flows, shrink-swell 

soils, sinkholes, and subsidence) cause billions of dollars of damage per year, yet not 

enough has been done to map and understand the hazards, a key step to risk reduction. The Association of American State Geologists strongly supports increased funding of USGS hazards programs, including earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides. 

Geologic mapping is a key to reducing risks from these hazards, which brings me 

back to our key concern—funding for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping 

Program. It and the comparably important National Geological and Geophysical 

Data Preservation Program, are housed in the USGS’s Core Science Systems ActivVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65119.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
34 

ity. They both provide the basis for other USGS activities. They are integral to economic development through work that stimulates the responsible development of energy, mineral, and water resources; reduces risks from natural hazards; and guides 

our stewardship of the environment. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity to comment on the value of USGS programs. 

Figure 1. Global production of copper compared with world population and per capita consumption (production divided by population), a measure of average standard 

of living, from 1900 to 2010 (mineral production data from USGS). Demand for 

nearly every mineral and energy commodity is high, in part because of increasing 

world population and in part because of increasing standards of living in many 

parts of the world. While world population increased four-fold from 1900 to 2010, 

per capita copper consumption increased eight-fold, such that annual copper production in 2010 was 33 times more than in 1900. Global copper production in 2010 was 

a record high, at 16.2 million metric tons, approximately the same as the cumulative 

historical production, since 1906, from the Bingham Canyon copper mine in Utah. 

Copper is used primarily to conduct electricity. 

Figure 2. Iron-ore production by country (in millions of metric tons) from 1929 to 

2010 (data from USGS). Global annual iron-ore production also reached an all- time 


65119.001.eps 65119.002.eps
35 

high in 2010. Iron is used primarily in steel. Most of the iron-ore production from 

Australia and Brazil has fed the steel industry in China. 

Figure 3. Percentage of global population by country. With approximately 20% of the 

world’s population, China produces well over 20% of the world’s supply of many 

mineral and energy commodities, some of which are highlighted on this graph (population data from CIA, coal production data from EIA, other mineral commodity 

data from USGS; DRC = Democratic Republic of Congo). 

Figure 4. Average price in 2010 versus abundance of various chemical elements 

(data are mostly from USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2011 for prices and 

from the 85th edition of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics for abundances). The dashed lines illustrate the general trend of increasing price for rarer 

elements. In 2010, China was the leading producer of 25 (circled) of the 46 mineral 

commodities plotted and among the top three producers of another five (underlined). 


65119.003.eps 65119.004.eps
36 

These include silver (Ag), aluminum (Al) metal and ore, arsenic (As), gold (Au), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), carbon (C, as coal), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), 

iron (Fe) as both ore and steel, gallium (Ga), germanium (Ge), mercury (Hg), indium 

(In), lithium (Li), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), phosphorus (P), lead (Pb), 

scandium (Sc), tin (Sn), vanadium (V), tungsten (W), zinc (Zn), and the rare earth 

elements, with dysprosium (Dy), lanthanum (La), neodymium (Nd), and samarium 

(Sm) shown on this graph. The United States was the top producer of two, beryllium 

(Be) and helium (He), and among the top three producing countries for 13 commodities. Russia was the top producer of three, industrial diamonds (another form of 

carbon, C), nickel (Ni), and palladium (Pd), and among the top three for 12. Australia was the top producer of two, aluminum (Al) ore and titanium (Ti), and among 

the top three for 10 mineral commodities. Other global leaders include Chile for copper (Cu), lithium (Li), and rhenium (Re); South Africa for chromium (Cr) and platinum (Pt); Democratic Republic of Congo for cobalt (Co); Mexico for silver (Ag); Turkey for boron (B); Brazil for niobium (Nb); Canada for potassium (K); Kazakhstan 

for uranium (U); and Japan, from its smelting of imported copper ores, for selenium 

(Se) and Tellurium (Te). Thallium (Tl) is a byproduct of copper, zinc, and lead processing. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for your testimony. Dr. Schiffries. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CRAIG M. SCHIFFRIES, DIRECTOR FOR 

GEOSCIENCE POLICY, GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA 

Dr. SCHIFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Holt, and Members of the 

Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

today about the U.S. Geological Survey. My name is Craig 

Schiffries, and I serve as Director for Geoscience Policy at the Geological Society of America. 

Quite simply, the USGS is one of the nation’s premiere science 

agencies. It addresses many of society’s greatest challenges, including mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, and water resources. The USGS benefits every American every day, or at least 

those of us who use water, energy, minerals, or maps. 

The devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12th, 2010, that 

killed more than 200,000 people, and the small volcanic eruptions 

in Iceland that disrupted global air travel in April 2010 emphatically demonstrate the value of robust natural hazards monitoring 

and warning systems, and symbolize the need for increased Federal 

funding for the USGS. 

Nevertheless, funding for the USGS has stagnated in real dollars 

for more than a decade, as shown on this figure. The USGS budget 

would be even weaker if Congress had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts during this time. We urge Congress to again restore proposed budget cuts for the USGS. 

The broad rationale is that science and technology are the engines of economic prosperity and national security. Federal investments pay substantial dividends. According to the National Academies’ report, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm,’’ economic studies have shown that as much as 85 percent of the measured growth 

in U.S. income per capita was due to technological change. And, of 

course, technological change is driven by science and technology. 

In 2010, the National Academies issued an updated report, which 

says, quote, ‘‘It would be impossible not to recognize the great difficulty of carrying out the gathering storm recommendations, such 

as doubling the research budgets, in today’s fiscal environments. 

However, it is emphasized that actions such as doubling the research budget are investments that need to be made if the Nation 

37 

is to maintain the economic growth to provide for its citizens 

healthcare, Social Security, national security, and more.’’ 

One seemingly relevant analogy is that a non-solution to making 

overweight aircraft flight worthy is to remove an engine. Likewise, 

the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, 

headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson said, ‘‘Cut and invest 

to promote economic growth and keep America competitive. We 

should cut red tape in unproductive government spending that 

hinders job creation and growth. But at the same time, we must 

invest in education, infrastructure, and high value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, 

and make it easier for businesses to create jobs.’’ 

Earth science is a critical component of the overall science and 

technology enterprise, and growing support for earth science in 

general and the U.S. Geological Survey in particular is required to 

stimulate investments that fuel the economy, provide security, and 

enhance the quality of life. 

I would like to call your attention to the combination of two recent developments that have advanced both science and scientific 

integrity at the Department of the Interior. Secretary Salazar 

issued a new five-year strategic plan that for the first time elevates 

science to one of five mission areas for the entire department. 

The Interior Department also adopted a comprehensive scientific 

integrity policy that sets clear expectations for all employees, including political appointees, public affairs officers, and scientists. 

GSA is pleased that science has been elevated to a mission area 

in the Interior Department’s strategic plan, and hopes that this development will guide investments and the allocation of resources 

that are reflected in the budget for the U.S. Geological Survey. It 

is critically important for Congress to restore proposed cuts in the 

USGS budget request. I would like to focus on just two examples. 

Natural hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts, wild fires, and hurricanes remain a major 

cause of fatalities and economic losses worldwide. An improved scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future losses 

through better forecast of their occurrence and magnitude. 

The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland and the earthquake in 

Haiti emphatically demonstrate the value of robust natural hazards monitoring and the need to provide funds to the USGS to 

modernize, expand, and maintain these networks. Mineral and 

energy resources are critical to the functioning of society and to national security, and have positive impacts on local, national, and 

international economies and the quality of life. 

But energy and minerals are critically linked in important ways. 

For example, widespread deployment of clean energy technologies 

can reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate climate change. But many emerging technologies, such as wind turbines, solar cells, and electric vehicles depend on rare earth elements and other scarce elements that currently lack diversified sources of supply. A renewed Federal commitment to funding innovative research, information, and education on minerals is needed to address these issues. 

38 

In conclusion, the Geological Society of America urges Congress 

to restore the proposed cuts in the USGS budget. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Schiffries follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Craig M. Schiffries, Director for Geoscience Policy, 

Geological Society of America 

Summary 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is one of the nation’s premier science agencies. It addresses many of society’s greatest challenges, including mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, climate change, and water resources. The USGS 

benefits every American every day. The devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 

12, 2010 that killed more than 200,000 people and the small volcanic eruptions in 

Iceland that disrupted global air travel in April 2010 emphatically demonstrate the 

value of robust natural hazards monitoring and warning systems and the need for 

increased federal funding for the USGS. Nevertheless, funding for the USGS has 

stagnated in real dollars for more than a decade (Figure 1). The USGS budget would 

be even weaker if Congress had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts during 

that time. 

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports strong and growing budgets for 

the U.S. Geological Survey. Increased federal funding for Earth science is needed 

to stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide national security, and enhance the quality of life. The USGS has a unique combination of assets that enables 

it to address interdisciplinary research challenges that are beyond the capabilities 

of most other organizations. GSA urges Congress to restore proposed cuts in USGS 

programs in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2012. 

The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific society with 

over 24,000 members from academia, government, and industry in all 50 states and 

more than 90 countries. Through its meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the 

service of humankind. GSA encourages cooperative research among earth, life, planetary, and social scientists, fosters public dialogue on geoscience issues, and supports all levels of earth science education. 

Rationale 

Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity, environmental quality, 

and national security. Federal investments in research pay substantial dividends. 

According to the National Academies’ report Rising Above the Gathering Storm 

(2007), ‘‘Economic studies conducted even before the information-technology revolution have shown that as much as 85% of measured growth in US income per capita 

was due to technological change.’’ In 2010, the National Academies issued an updated report, Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited, which says: 

It would be impossible not to recognize the great difficulty of carrying out 

the Gathering Storm recommendations, such as doubling the research budget, in today’s fiscal environment . . . with worthy demand after worthy demand confronting budgetary realities. However, it is emphasized that actions such as doubling the research budget are investments that will need 

to be made if the nation is to maintain the economic strength to provide 

for its citizens healthcare, social security, national security, and more. One 

seemingly relevant analogy is that a non-solution to making an over-weight 

aircraft flight-worthy is to remove an engine. 

Likewise, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed 

by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, said: 

Cut and invest to promote economic growth and keep America competitive. 

We should cut red tape and unproductive government spending that 

hinders job creation and growth. At the same time, we must invest in education, infrastructure, and high-value research and development to help our 

economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for businesses to create jobs. 

Earth science is a critical component of the overall science and technology enterprise. Growing support for Earth science in general and the U.S. Geological Survey 

in particular is required to stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life. Earth Science provides knowledge and data 

essential for developing policies, legislation, and regulations regarding land, mineral, energy, and water resources at all levels of government. 

39 

Advancing Science and Scientific Integrity at the Department of the 

Interior 

Science and scientific integrity advanced through the combination of two recent 

developments at the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). Secretary of the Interior 

Ken Salazar issued a new five-year strategic plan that for the first time elevates 

science to one of five mission areas for the entire department. The Interior Department also adopted a comprehensive scientific integrity policy that sets clear expectations for all employees, including political appointees, public affairs officers, and scientists. 

‘‘These developments are cause for optimism because they emphasize the critical 

importance of science and demand the utmost integrity in its conduct and application,’’ said Geological Society of America President Joaquin Ruiz. ‘‘GSA is pleased 

with the inclusiveness of the [scientific integrity] policy, which covers virtually everyone using scientific and scholarly information in relation to the Department of 

the Interior,’’ said Ruiz. ‘‘In addition, the policy clarifies and documents the ability 

of federal scientists to serve their professional societies on boards and advisory committees. This is extremely important, both to the societies who benefit from their 

expertise, and also for the career advancement of scientists working in the federal 

government.’’ 

Science was not included as a mission area in the draft DOI strategic plan that 

was released for public comment in 2009. However, science was elevated to a mission area in the final version of the DOI strategic Plan. When he announced the 

final version of the strategic plan on 26 January 2011Secretary Salazar said, ‘‘This 


65119.005.eps
40 

new strategic plan ensures science has its rightful place as a primary source for the 

Interior Department’s decision making process.’’ 

GSA is pleased that science has been elevated to a mission area in the Interior 

Department strategic plan and hopes that this development will guide investments 

and the allocation of resources that are reflected in the budget for the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Broader Impacts of the Earth Sciences 

It is critically important for Congress to restore proposed cuts in the USGS budget 

request in order to meet challenges posed by human interactions with Earth’s natural systems and to help sustain these natural systems and the economy. Additional 

investments in the USGS are necessary to address such issues as natural hazards, 

mineral and energy resources, water resources, and climate change. 

• Natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods, 

droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes, remain a major cause of fatalities and economic losses world-wide. An improved scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future losses through better forecasts of their occurrence and 

magnitude. The devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010 that 

killed more than 200,000 people, the damaging earthquake in New Zealand on 

February 21, 2011, and the small eruptions of Eyjafjallajo ̈kull volcano in Iceland that disrupted global air travel in April 2010 emphatically demonstrate 

the value of robust natural hazards monitoring and warning systems and the 

need for increased federal investments in the USGS. 

• Energy and mineral resources are critical to the functioning of society and to 

national security and have positive impacts on local, national, and international 

economies and quality of life. These resources are often costly and difficult to 

find, and new generations of geoscientists need the tools and expertise to discover them. In addition, management of their extraction, use, and residue disposal requires a scientific approach that will maximize the derived benefits and 

minimize the negative effects. Improved scientific understanding of these resources will allow for their better management and utilization, while at the 

same time considering economic and environmental issues. This is particularly 

significant because shifting resource demands often reframe our knowledge as 

new research–enabling technologies become available. For example, widespread 

deployment of clean energy technologies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

mitigate climate change, and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Many emerging 

technologies—such as wind turbines, solar cells, and electric vehicles—depend 

on rare earth elements and other scarce elements that currently lack diversified 

sources of supply. China accounts for 95 percent of world production of rare 

earth elements although it has only 36 percent of identified world reserves 

(USGS, 2010). A renewed federal commitment to innovative research, information, and education on minerals is needed to address these issues. 

• The availability and quality of surface water and groundwater are vital to the 

well being of both society and ecosystems. Greater scientific understanding of 

these critical resources—and communication of new insights by geoscientists in 

formats useful to decision makers—is necessary to ensure adequate and safe 

water resources for the future. 

• Forecasting the outcomes of human interactions with Earth’s natural systems, 

including climate change, is limited by an incomplete understanding of geologic 

and environmental processes. Improved understanding of these processes in 

Earth’s history can increase confidence in the ability to predict future states 

and enhance the prospects for mitigating or reversing adverse impacts to the 

planet and its inhabitants. 

• Research in earth science is also fundamental to training and educating the 

next generation of earth science professionals. 

The U.S. Geological Survey should be a component of broader initiatives to increase overall public investments in science and technology. For example, earth 

science research should be included in a recommendation by the National Academies 

to ‘‘increase the federal investment in long-term basic research by 10% each year 

over the next 7 years . . . ’’ (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2007). Likewise, 

when Congress reauthorizes the America COMPETES Act, it should broaden the act 

to include a new title that puts the USGS budget on the same doubling track as 

other key science agencies. 

Budget Shortfalls 

President Obama’s FY 2012 budget request for the U.S. Geological Survey is 

$1.118 billion, a decrease of $15 million or 1.3 percent below the USGS budget reVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65119.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
41 

quest for FY 2011, and an increase of $6 million or 0.5% above the FY 2010 enacted 

level. 

Although there is a $6 million increase in the total USGS budget request for FY 

2012 compared to the FY 2010 enacted level, the FY 2012 budget request contains 

significant cuts in many programs that are offset by increases in other areas, including a $59.6 million increase in a new account for National Land Imaging. The USGS 

budget request for FY 2012 includes $89.1 million in program reductions in longstanding programs. The proposed budget cuts would have significant impacts on 

USGS programs. Proposed budget cuts in the FY 2012 USGS budget request include 

-$9.8 million for Biological Information Management and Delivery, -$9 6 million for 

Mineral Resources, -$8.9 million for National Water Quality Assessment, -$6.5 million for Cooperative Water Program, and -$4.7 million for Earthquake Hazards. 

The USGS budget has been reorganized to reflect the agency’s new structure. The 

FY 2012 budget is now organized along the six crosscutting themes from the USGS 

science strategy, Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in 

the Decade 2007–1017 (USGS, 2007), rather than the traditional disciplines. The 

budget request also includes a new National Land Imaging account that focuses on 

the Interior Department’s role in Landsat. Underfunding of uncontrollable cost increases over many years has compromised the scientific capacity of the USGS. 

The USGS budget has been nearly stagnant in real dollars since 1996 (Figure 1). 

The USGS budget for FY 2010 was below the USGS budget for FY 2001 in real dollars. The decline in funding for the USGS during this time period would have been 

greater if Congress had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts. Federal funding for non-defense R&D has increased significantly while funding for the USGS 

stagnated for more than a decade. 

We urge Congress to restore proposed cuts in the USGS budget request, to provide full funding for uncontrollable cost increases, and to provide new funds to enable the agency to address a growing backlog of needs for USGS science and information, accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical projects, and undertake 

new initiatives that address new challenges. 

The Geological Society of America is grateful to Congress for its leadership in restoring proposed cuts in the USGS budget in increasing the budget for the U.S. Geological Survey. We remain grateful to the subcommittee for its leadership in providing $143 million in stimulus funds for the USGS under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our 

request. For additional information or to learn more about the Geological Society of 

America—including GSA Position Statements on water resources, mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, and public investment in earth science research— 

please visit www.geosociety.org or contact Dr. Craig Schiffries at 

cschiffries@geosociety.org. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for your testimony. Thank all of you 

for being here today. We appreciate your coming and sharing your 

knowledge with us. Now for a round of questions, and I will begin. 

Dr. Price, in your opinion, what value do the energy and mineral 

programs at the USGS provide to the taxpayer? 

Dr. PRICE. It is a tremendous amount of value. The programs are 

giving us information that is basic for exploration, for new resources. It helps us to figure out how we can most environmentally 

responsibly develop those resources. And all of that adds to greater 

economic development within our country. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So if someone were to propose reducing those 

budget amounts in the upcoming budget, you wouldn’t be happy 

with that. 

Dr. PRICE. Not at all. I think it is actually quite a stimulus to 

economic development, and cutting back on that funding would in 

fact be hurting us more than helping us. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. And, Mr. Palatiello, you mentioned government duplication in the mapping area. Can you be 

more specific on what can be done to avoid this duplication and the 

expense that goes along with duplication? 

Mr. PALATIELLO. Mr. Chairman, I—— 

42 

Mr. LAMBORN. And I would like to say, I approve of what—and 

am happy that President Obama in his State of the Union address 

addressed duplication. He was talking about salmon, I think, and 

two different programs. And he used a humorous example, but it 

is unfortunate that we have to, in this time of huge debts, pay 

money for duplicative programs. Please continue. 

Mr. PALATIELLO. You are exactly right, and the President did say 

that salmon in the freshwater are the responsibility of the Interior 

Department, and once it reaches saltwater, it is the Commerce Department. And then he said he hears it gets more complicated once 

they are smoked. 

Well, the same thing can be said about mapping. You want a 

topographic map? You go to USGS. You want to add a flood plain? 

You go to FEMA. You want to show the shoreline? You go to 

NOAA. So the same type of stovepiping and lack of coordination 

that the President was talking about with regard to salmon is a direct corollary to the same problem we have with regard to mapping. 

Now, to the Administration’s credit, they have launched something called the geospatial platform, which is an attempt to build 

a cloud computing environment for sharing of data. And I think 

that is a very good step in the right direction. 

The problem is the structure, though. When you have 40-plus 

Federal agencies doing a variety of different types of mapping, that 

is a problem. 

Let me add one other point, too, because I don’t mean to beat on 

the Administration. And this is a problem that long precedes the 

Obama Administration, as you well know, Mr. Chairman. But the 

problem is right up here on Capitol Hill as well. There are over 40 

different committees and subcommittees of Congress that have jurisdiction over different mapping activities. 

So some sort of better coordination, perhaps a consolidation, we 

think, is definitely worth exploring. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. And, Dr. Aster, USGS proposes 

to cut the national volcano early warning system that would eliminate a national scale system. Is this an advisable proposal? 

Dr. ASTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say definitely not. 

I mean, we face a very significant threat from volcanos in this 

country. And part of that program was not only to address immediate needs, but also to produce a more viable, cost-effective scientific system for making scientific and public hazard advances on 

volcano studies, which in many ways are more complex and somewhat lag behind our understanding of earthquakes. 

So I would be a very strong proponent of finding ways to push 

for increased and restored funding for the NVEWS program. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. And at this point, I would like 

to yield to the Ranking Member from New Jersey. 

Mr. HOLT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Price, in your opinion, 

does USGS do a good job mapping? And let me extend that and ask 

whether USGS has the best technology—has fully up-to-date technology, or whether we need more investment in that. 

Dr. PRICE. As far as the scientific capabilities of their geologic 

mappers, they are pretty much first rate. They have some very 

good people involved with their part of the program. There cerVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\65119.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

tainly is a huge amount of land that still needs to be adequately 

mapped. In my State, in Nevada, we estimate it to be about 80 percent of the land hasn’t been mapped yet adequately. So there is a 

very large effort that is necessary. 

So as far as quality goes, they are just fine. As far as new technology goes, they indeed have some lacking. One of the newest 

technologies—— 

Mr. HOLT. May I interrupt you? Could you put LIDAR in perspective? 

Dr. PRICE. I was just about to mention LIDAR. That is one of the 

newest technologies that is really enhancing our ability to accurately locate faults. It leads into the earthquake hazard arena. It 

does a much better job of detailed topographic mapping. We can 

map flood plains a lot more easily with that technology. It has a 

huge amount of opportunities for new geologic mapping, as well as 

other kind of mapping. And it is also something that engaged the 

private sector more fully as well. So it addresses some of the 

MAPPS concerns as well. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. Dr. Schiffries, do you think the effects of 

hydraulic fracturing is something that needs to be examined further? 

Dr. SCHIFFRIES. I think that greater research needs to be done 

in this area, and perhaps greater transparency in what is being 

used in some of these fluids. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. And, Dr. Aster, last week the Arkansas 

Oil and Gas Commission unanimously voted to approve an emergency order to temporarily shut down wastewater injection operations associated with hydraulic fracturing. It came after Arkansas 

had already imposed a moratorium on permitting any new injection 

wells. 

Should USGS be playing a role in studying the recent earthquake swarm in Arkansas? If not USGS, who? Or do we know all 

we need to know there? 

Dr. ASTER. There is a lot we don’t know about induced seismicity, 

although we have known since the 1960s in fact that people can 

with surprising ease generate earthquakes with mechanisms like 

fluid injection that change the pressure and affect the forces on 

faults deep within the earth. There is a lot we don’t know about 

the susceptibility of various areas to induced seismicity, and to 

some extent, how large such earthquakes might be. So this is very 

much an appropriate area to be studied, everywhere from the fundamental physics to using the extensive USGS records of background seismic activity before these activities occur to see if there 

are statistically significant increase in seismicity due to these sorts 

of activities. 

So, yes, this is a very appropriate area of study. 

Mr. HOLT. For USGS. They are the appropriate agency to be 

looking at this? 

Dr. ASTER. Indeed they are, along with their usual partners in 

academia and through their external grants programs. This is very 

much—in my opinion, it falls into the purview of the USGS as the 

principal Federal agency for studying earthquakes and related seismic phenomena. 

44 

Mr. HOLT. And is this something that—is there an urgency in 

studying this? I am trying to put this in perspective with respect 

to geothermal, to prospecting for gas or oil. How serious is it? How 

urgent is it that we understand this better? 

Dr. ASTER. Indeed, this is a large and urgent issue, both for geothermal and for hydrocarbon extraction. As you are aware, there 

have been some very significant projects shut down in Europe 

when damaging earthquakes were generated from hot dry rock 

type—hard rock geothermal activities, and there was great concern 

recently in the geysers region of California about induced seismicity from geothermal exploration activities. 

So this is a very important area of research in the earthquake 

community. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. I would like to thank the witnesses 

for their valuable testimony and their patience and for being here 

today. This has been a very helpful and informative hearing. I 

would like to thank Members and staff for their participation and 

preparation. 

Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for 

the witnesses that they would supply to you in writing, and we 

would ask that you respond to those in writing as well. The 

hearing record will be kept open for 10 days to receive any such 

responses from you. 

If there is no further business, then without objection the 

Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ