Geologic Mapping in the U.S. Geological Survey (1987)

Insofar as was possible, the committee sought to determine the extent to which these already exist within the USGS.

The committee has identified certain key concerns that bear on geologic mapping activities in the USGS. These follow in an unprioritized order.

The committee found that no separate, single, national geologic mapping program exists in the USGS. Although much of the geologic mapping done by the USGS is done in the Geologic Framework and Synthesis Program, a large amount is also done within the context of the missions and objectives of the various other branches and programs. There is no overriding guidance or management that regularly assesses and coordinates the many different geologic mapping efforts and products in the USGS. The committee believes that coordination of these many activities as part of a well-defined national geologic mapping program would serve the prospective needs of the USGS and the nation.

The USGS should develop and adopt a long-term, stable, and evolving national program to coordinate its geologic mapping activities and the preparation of geologic maps among its branches and programs. Such a program should include a clear statement of long-term geologic mapping mission and objectives, a definition of methods, assignment of responsibility for coordination of activities, a process for setting priorities, and a mechanism for annual assessment of progress. In addition, there must be more cooperation between the USGS and state surveys and universities who are involved in geologic mapping.

Geologic maps provide basic information that is critical to solving problems and making decisions in an increasingly complex world concerned with the occurrence and abundance of natural

resources and with environmental, economic, and social issues. In spite of this need, geologic mapping is on the wane in the USGS and has been decreasing (see Figures 1 and 2) for some map types since 1963. The decrease is most notable for all maps since about 1978. The previous rate of mapping was inadequate to satisfy map needs for purposes of mineral resource evaluation/assessment, identification of geologic hazards, construction siting, utility routing, waste disposal, or pollution assessment, to name only some of the applications. The reduced rate of mapping since 1963 has amplified the problem.

The USGS should review and augment their geologic mapping program(s) within the context of the general need for geologic maps, and should fashion budget requests to reflect the need for these maps as essential tools for solving resource and environmental problems, as, for example, with mandated programs that require geologic maps.

The incentives for geologic mapping among USGS personnel are minimal, given the slower rates of accomplishing field studies, publication, and promotion. Thus, geologic mapping tends to be viewed as less rewarding than other activities in the USGS and is not approached with the same enthusiasm as other activities and assignments. This attitude reflects on both staff and management and affects programs to the extent that geologic mapping tends to be deemphasized. Many experienced geologic mapping specialists have retired recently and few younger geologists have been hired to take their places.

The USGS should emphasize the importance of geologic mapping to its programs and to the national welfare by adopting an incentives and rewards policy for this activity. Publication of maps and scientific papers from geologic mapping programs should receive recognition equal to that enjoyed by scientific papers from other USGS program activities.

The USGS, with the exception of mandated programs, tends to internalize area and problem identification, prioritizing, budgeting, and staffing decisions on geologic mapping. A notable exception is the USGS request to the National Research Council to create the committee Advisory to the USGS. This internalization does not take advantage of a wealth of knowledge and support available in state surveys and educational institutions that could be used in support of a geologic mapping program.

There should be a standing subcommittee on geologic mapping established under the auspices of the Committee Advisory to the USGS. The purpose of the subcommittee would be to provide support for long-term program consistency and intellectual continuity; to review and provide advice and assistance on program priorities; to review program goals and objectives for possible duplication of effort; and to provide greater national visibility by highlighting the importance of geologic mapping to the nation as well as to the success of other USGS programs.

It is further recommended that the structure of the subcommittee be comparable to that of the Subcommittee on Earthquake Research. It should consist of representatives from industry, state surveys, and academia, appointed on staggered terms. Three of the members, one from each constituency, should be drawn from the parent committee and one of these should be appointed chair-person. This would assure continuity and consistency with the parent committee. To gain a nationwide perspective, the subcommittee should, at least initially, consider meeting in each of the three regional USGS facilities once each year. At the conclusion of each meeting, the subcommittee would submit a letter report of their findings and recommendations to the USGS. The chief geologist, in turn, would provide a response to the subcommittee prior to the next meeting.

The USGS has no well-defined program to involve universities in geologic mapping activities. A significant amount of high-quality mapping is being conducted by and supported by colleges

and universities. Such activities, if coordinated with and at least partially supported by the USGS, could enhance a national mapping program by utilizing an untapped reservoir of competent and willing talent. If done within the context of the USGS mission and programs, the rate of national mapping at USGS standards would be increased. In addition, the pool of students would provide a well evaluated source of professional manpower.

The USGS should establish a competitive grants program to colleges and universities for the purpose of supporting geologic mapping and related research within the context of the USGS Geologic Mapping Program. The program should be modeled after the university component of the USGS Earthquake Program, which embodies the following elements: (1) grants to be awarded on the basis of competitive peer review; (2) budget for university program to be set at a fixed fraction of the budget of the USGS program; (3) on the basis of availability, USGS facilities to be made available to aid with the mapping performed under terms of the grant; and (4) Faculty Principal Investigator and his or her university to assume responsibility for completing the program of the grant. In addition, it is recommended that because of the need to coordinate geologic mapping with state surveys, mapping under this program should be coordinated by the USGS with the state surveys.

The USGS formerly operated under a mentor program, which provided for the training of new employees under the direction of senior staff. With severe staff reductions and the added burden of mandated programs, the mentor program has declined and nearly disappeared except for the Alaskan Branch. A mentor program provides for continuity of contacts and programs, for consistency of methods, and for on-the-job training under the direction of experienced senior staff. All of these factors dictate that the program should be encouraged.

The USGS should strive to use the mentor process for training new employees wherever time and staffing permit.

There are very significant delays of 36 or more months in the time between approval of a map for publication and actual publication. Such a delay is unnecessary and unwarranted, and poorly serves the national need.

The USGS should take whatever steps are necessary to reduce the time required for publication of geologic maps including the broader use of computer technology such as is being used in the Central Region for individual projects and in the Western Region in the Hazards Program.

Most state geological surveys have ongoing geologic mapping programs designed to respond to individual state needs. Many of these programs are substantial in terms of budget and personnel commitments, and, taken in toto, would rival and possibly exceed that of the USGS. In addition, most state programs, and thereby federal programs, could benefit substantially by closer cooperation in geologic mapping activities to achieve maximum benefit from available budgets, personnel, facilities, and capabilities. The USGS has recently initiated the Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (COGEOMAP) to support projects of mutual federal and state interest. Although COGEOMAP is conceptually significant, it suffers from a lack of adequate funding and is a minor part of the total commitment of USGS program funding and personnel to geologic mapping.

In the past, coordination of USGS geologic mapping activities with those of state geological surveys tended to be after the fact. The USGS has taken steps to improve communication and coordination by means of direct notification and by conferences such as Cluster meetings. This process of early notification has tended to improve coordination to the extent that if problems occur they