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

bases to make derivative maps to address specific earth-science questions.

The major components of the program include the following:

1. A federal program for geologic data acquisition.

2. A greatly expanded cooperative effort with state geological surveys through COGEOMAP.

3. A grants program to universities to utilize academic capabilities and aid in training graduate students in field mapping projects.

4. The development of new techniques for data acquisition, presentation, and publication.

Preparation of this program proposal is a clear indication that the USGS recognizes the need for a coordinated national geologic mapping program and that coordination is needed within and between their programs as well as outside their programs. The committee applauds this effort to move quickly to establish a much needed, coordinated national geologic mapping program.

Geologic mapping is a critical element in building a long-term national data base. Inherent in building this data base is the identification and recognition of the need for geologic information for solving problems and making decisions in an increasingly complex world concerned with the occurrence and abundance of natural resources and with environmental, social, and economic issues. With the exception of the Alaskan Branch and the Pacific Regional Geology Branch, the committee could not identify elsewhere in the the USGS a long-term program commitment or sense of mission expressing the importance of geologic mapping to the accumulation of a national data base. In the opinion of the committee, geologic mapping is a critical element in building a long-term data base, and it is the most efficient way to develop this data base. In addition, geologic maps are the most useful data mode for industry and government because of the variety of data that can be integrated into maps. Without a long-term commitment to geologic mapping, the committee fears that the rate at which information is being developed will not meet the future demand for its use.

Having conducted preliminary program reviews, the committee suspected that there is no single well-defined geologic mapping program in the USGS. This suspicion was confirmed by subcommittee interviews with USGS personnel: there is at present no central planned or managed program of geologic mapping in the USGS. The committee suspects there is a tendency for the various offices and the 20 or more programs to operate independently. The method and process of communication, data coordination, and compilation, and related activities, are not being monitored in any coordinated way out of any particular office or by any particular individual. In addition, the various programs are not necessarily coordinated with each other, but are conducted in response to needs that are reflected in the separate program objectives and priorities. The principal programs were discussed separately; geologic mapping done in programs of the Water Resources Division was not discussed. The published program (USGS Circular 1020) is the end product of these discussions.

Geologic Division appropriations over the period FY 1976 through 1986 indicate dollar increases in most key programs that conduct geologic mapping. The difficulty is in determining how many dollars under each program were committed to geologic mapping and of what kind. This could not be determined with certainty, which indicates once again that there is no single geologic mapping program, but rather that geologic mapping is spread over several programs and is not necessarily coordinated.

One means of maintaining a strong mapping capability is to provide continuity of personnel and programs in specific geologic provinces. The USGS has had, we believe by design rather than chance, a tradition for maintaining its expertise on both a regional and commodity basis. Thus, there developed a cadre of recognized regional experts who provided the USGS a broad base of geologic expertise on a national scale. These individuals served as mentors to younger generations, passing on their knowledge, techniques, and contacts, and providing continuity to the nation’s resource of geologic knowledge and expertise. It appears that, with the exception of the Branch of Alaskan Geology, this practice, one which the committee sees as vital to the nation’s and the USGS’s well-being, has been curtailed. We suspect that the mentor process may be a victim of the shift in emphasis away from geologic mapping and towards theoretical and laboratory research and to mandated programs. What appears to be the case is that the

mentors are an aging resource in danger of vanishing. As evidence of this it should be noted that the mean age of professionals assigned to Regional Geology is 51, 21 percent are over 60, and only 3 percent are younger than 35.

The fact that geologic mapping requires a long apprenticeship carries with it severe implications for the USGS’s long-range geologic mapping capabilities. As a part of this equation, it was pointed out that past investigators had more freedom. Constraints imposed by mandated programs have strongly affected the mentor program. Today, projects and areas change location and character rapidly in response to rapidly evolving needs. Thus, an individual may have several mentors and work in several areas. Nonetheless, there is not necessarily a conscious effort to sustain the mentor process, and demands on the organization argue against the process. The committee believes the mentor system is one method for maintaining the regional capabilities of the USGS. In sum, it appears the mentor system is used in some cases; however, there appears to be little deliberate effort to coordinate the mentor system with geography and geology on a national scale such as has been done with mineral commodities.

The mission of the Office of Regional Geology is to determine the geologic framework of the United States and to provide a basis for assessing the land as a resource. In the Office of Regional Geology, the principal program that conducts geologic mapping is Geologic Framework and Synthesis. The Geologic Framework and Synthesis (GFS) Program is one of three subdivisions under the Land Resources Surveys subactivity. Geologic mapping in this program is done under three categories—basic mapping, mapping related to process studies, and regional framework problems. The principal product of the basic mapping category is geologic maps. Ten to 12 maps at scales from 1:24,000 to 1:250,000 have been produced in the past several years. The rate of production is variable with time. These maps may be followed up by topical mapping and/or research.

In the category of mapping related to process studies, emphasis is on volcanic, metamorphic, sedimentary, plutonic, glacial, and

other processes. The regional framework problems category emphasizes multidisciplinary and integrated studies. These generally start with a mapping effort.

There is no explicit set of criteria for selection of projects in the GFS program. It is the committee’s impression that projects are not selected on the basis of a long-term plan, but rather are determined using a “ground-up” approach whereby staff make recommendations that are subject to approval at branch or office levels. The subcommittee inferred from a number of discussions that little “top-down” planning is involved in the project selection process. Coordination between divisions, offices, and branches, and programs tends to suffer from this process.

Geologic mapping priorities are set by the branch chiefs who are responsible for organizing programs in their areas of responsibility. Within the realm of the GFS program, mapping is done as part of regional, process, geochronological, and deep crustal studies, and COGEOMAP. The branch chiefs can program studies under any of these categories. The philosophy behind this approach is that the need for framework studies can be generated in any of the regional branches. The office chief, who oversees the branches, is the constraining/coordinating force and administers under the constraints of budget, missions, and direction from above. In truth, it was stated that within GFS, geologic mapping tends to get residual support after the requirements for principal mission and other activities are satisfied. Thus, GFS funds tend to be diverted to support mandated programs as needed.

The GFS program is popular even though, or maybe because, it lacks specific mission orientation, project deadlines, and constraints, and it affords the branch chiefs more flexibility. In consequence, it is widely dispersed and oversubscribed. The program is designed according to a management concept. Whereas projects are developed and organized in discussions between the branch chiefs and the project chiefs, ultimate approval is with the office chief. However, it was clearly stated that the process is not part of a comprehensive USGS national geologic mapping plan.

The diversion of funds from GFS projects to mandated and other programs and projects disrupts GFS program continuity. There are significant delays (up to 5 years) in the publication of geologic quadrangles. The commitment to GFS projects and programs appears to be less than that given to mandated and other programs.

COGEOMAP is administered under the GFS program. It is a federal/state cooperative initiative begun in 1985. The primary goals of COGEOMAP are publication of new geologic maps of high quality at scales from 1:24,000 to 1:100,000 and generation of new geologic mapping that fills gaps in state map programs. Specifically, the tasks of COGEOMAP are as follows:

1. Intermediate and large-scale (>1:100,000) mapping in areas of high hazard and/or resource potential.

2. Assisting in the planning and preparation of state geologic maps.

3. Mapping projects to clarify relations of geophysical features to basement/cover geology.

4. Promoting state geophysical maps utilizing digital data base.

5. Supporting studies contributing to relative and absolute chronologies of rock units within COGEOMAP project areas.

The program was funded in the amount of $1,000,000 for FY 1985. The USGS allocated $200,000 for state digital geophysical map projects, $400,000 in funds, and $400,000 in in-kind services; state geological surveys matched these offerings with $200,000 in funds and $800,000 in in-kind services.

In FY 1985, state requests for funding exceeded available funds by $1,200,000. There were 48 proposals from 35 states; funds were allocated to 23 projects in 18 states. Fourteen of the projects will continue into FY 1986; thus, there was only a modest opportunity for new starts in FY 1987. The $200,000 for state digital geophysical mapping was allocated to projects in 8 states—including 4 not included in the geologic mapping program.

The COGEOMAP program is rated the second priority behind toxic waste by the Geology Division. It is well-intentioned but severely underfunded. The USGS is working toward a $2,000,000 increase in the program in FY 1987.

COGEOMAP priorities are determined by the branch chiefs within the context of their programs. However, final decisions are subject to review and approval by the program coordinator. As with other programs, there is no overall management effort within the context of a specific USGS geologic mapping core program. However, COGEOMAP is the one program within the USGS that is clearly defined as being committed to the production of geologic maps in cooperation with state surveys. The response from

state surveys has been supportive and enthusiastic based upon the number of project proposals submitted.

The Office of Energy and Marine Geology has responsibility for both onshore and offshore minerals and consists of five branches: Onshore Coal Resources, Energy and Minerals, Oil and Gas Resources, Offshore Atlantic Marine Geology, and Pacific Marine Geology. The office is charged with determining the origin, size, and distribution of energy resources excepting geothermal but including sedimentary minerals. The philosophy of the Office towards geologic mapping of offshore areas is dictated by the desire of the Executive Office to bring the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) into development and for other areas by geologic process studies, which extend beyond land areas. In offshore areas, the office addresses a wide range of geologic issues such as topography, geomorphology, mineral resources, and hazards. Geologic mapping of onshore areas is done principally where more detail is required for assessment and interpretive purposes.

The amount and detail of geologic mapping completed depends on program/project requirements. In the offshore branches, reconnaissance geologic mapping of the EEZ is done at scales from 1:50,000 to 1:500,000. One-half of the marine budget ($8 million) is committed to mapping of the EEZ. Mapping by the onshore branches (some of which is done in wilderness areas) is budgeted at less than $1.5 million.

Onshore mapping is described as general purpose geologic mapping. Mapping of coal, uranium, and thorium is very limited; oil and gas mapping is principally in the subsurface. Although funding for mapping of coal resources has terminated, the USGS will complete projects in process (51 of original 80 coal folios will be completed). All those to be completed are in the west; none of the eastern folios will reach publication.

The budget commitment of approximately $30 million to energy programs rose by 52 percent from 1976 through 1982; since then, it has decreased 22 percent. Executive Office, congressional, and Department of the Interior support for certain energy programs, such as coal and oil shale, has waned. To counter this shift, the USGS in 1985 created the Evolution of Sedimentary Basins (ESB) Program, which is in a sense a multidisciplinary/integrated

approach to basin analysis with special emphasis on energy resources. It is intended to avoid the “boom-bust” problem associated with the coal, uranium, and oil-shale programs. It can be looked on as part of the USGS’s attempt to construct a core program.

In the ESB program, areas selected for study are determined by a management process. Teams are formed for specific basin studies, i.e., to look at the broad aspects of geology in a given basin. Such basin analysis is comparable to industry’s approach to exploration. The USGS intends to put out a comparable product. It sees the program as responsive to national needs. Of the ESB budget, 5 to 10 percent ($5M to $10M) goes toward geologic mapping that is mostly surficial, but with some subsurface.

The Office of Mineral Resources (OMR) program has the following goals (USGS Circular 949, p. 58):

• To assess the mineral resource potential of specific areas in the United States (particularly federal lands) for resource management and Congressional action.

• To identify new areas for exploration and develop new concepts of ore formation and distribution to increase our known mineral resources, particularly the strategic and critical minerals.

• To improve current methodology and develop new techniques for identifying and evaluating mineral resources and analyzing resource data more efficiently and more precisely.

Geologic mapping in the OMR is done for specific purposes rather than as part of a broader program of geologic mapping. The principal reason for geologic mapping in the OMR is to provide a base of geologic understanding. Mapping is also done to prepare multipurpose maps that can be used with specialized geophysical or geochemical maps to achieve a specific objective. The boundaries of geologic maps prepared by OMR are determined by geology and do not coincide with political or quadrangle boundaries. The emphasis of OMR programs is to map features that are relevant to understanding and defining mineral resources.

The OMR is divided into five funding programs as shown in Table 1. About 50 to 70 percent of geologic mapping in the AMRAP, CUSMAP, and MRPL is directed toward mineral resources

assessments. The emphasis is on all commodities in a given geographic area.

A principal purpose for the existence of geological surveys is to develop basic geologic data and to prepare maps and reports on the findings. The information produced in OMR mapping programs is basic to the eventual construction of traditional geologic maps. The data are important to the future and they should be recorded and preserved. However, it is not clear whether the maps and data developed in OMR are incorporated into a comprehensive plan for geologic mapping in the USGS. The subcommittee suspects that mapping in the OMR is done within the confines of its specific mission and objectives and that it is not considered in a planned context as an integral part of a “core” or framework geologic mapping program.

The Office of Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Engineering, the newest, is described as perhaps the most topical major unit within the USGS. By virtue of its subject area, it is and must be responsive to the demands of the public and of Congress. It is strongly mission oriented to the extent that essentially all its work is done within the context of its specific mission mandates (refer to USGS Circular 1000).

Geologic mapping in this office is done principally to define the character, extent, and risk of geologic hazards. Geologic hazards surveys “are conducted to acquire data useful in delineating and predicting hazards from earthquakes and volcanoes and to identify

engineering problems related to nuclear reactor siting and landslide hazards” (USGS Circular 1000, p. 15). Mapping is special purpose rather than general geological mapping in that it records structures, landslides, earthquakes, and similar features. The map products are regarded as special purpose and include derivative maps designed to satisfy specific needs.

Expenditures in geologic hazards programs are monitored by watch-dog congressional oversight committees. For a sense of budget commitment to geologic mapping in these programs, it is useful to note that of the $36.5 million allocated to the study of earthquake hazards in 1985 about 16 percent was directed to geologic studies and 3 percent to general geologic mapping. In the volcano program about 5 percent ($600,000) is committed to geologic mapping.

The activities of the hazards program are dedicated to specific missions; solving problems is their principal objective. This posture imposes strict real time/staff/resource constraints on the degree and character of mapping that can be done. It is recognized by the USGS that geologic mapping is fundamental to the objectives of the hazards program. However, they have great difficulty convincing those responsible for funding that this is the case.

The landslides program has shifted away from basic mapping and towards investigating processes that can be used to predict landslide potential. The committee stresses the need for basic geologic mapping to understand processes and that it should start with bedrock mapping. The USGS recognizes this need, but is convinced that the need is enormous and far beyond their capability to address. The success of the program depends on a sufficient multidisciplinary mapping capability.

The committee noted that geologic mapping in Geologic Hazards Programs is done quite strictly within the context of the mission and objectives of these programs. There does not appear to be coordination with other geologic mapping activities of the USGS in the sense that it is a part of a “core” program or a broader geologic mapping program. For this reason, it is not clear how and if the data developed in the Hazards Program is coordinated with or incorporated in other programs. The Hazards Programs rely quite heavily on geologic mapping. By the same token, the products of hazards studies can contribute to the eventual construction of regional geologic maps. What appears to be missing is an overall management strategy that sets the broader USGS objectives

and goals that should include a coordinated program of geologic mapping.

Coordination with state geological surveys is carried out by several means. One means is that the USGS provides state geologists with copies of project proposals/descriptions once they have been finally approved by the USGS. It was acknowledged that although some states provide the USGS with copies of their project descriptions, it would be most helpful if all states reciprocated. One problem with this process is that coordination of information after the fact does not allow much opportunity for cooperation and mutual planning. The USGS intends to add a space on their project description form to indicate that contact has been made with state surveys. However, it would be much more useful and constructive if the federal and state surveys could be brought together at the conceptual stage in project development. In this way both could take advantage of the potential for cooperation and coordination; conflict, disagreement, and duplication of effort could be avoided.

Another means of coordination with state surveys is the Cluster Meetings, which are sponsored annually in each region by the USGS. The Clusters are intended to provide the opportunity for discussion of issues of mutual concern and to provide the opening for cooperation. The Clusters are successful only insofar as the states are involved in their planning and to the extent the states are willing to participate. The level of success is somewhat uneven, but in general the Clusters are considered a useful means for communication on major issues such as program emphasis and potentials for cooperation including geologic mapping.

Coordination with state surveys is also done through semiannual meetings with the Association of American State Geologists’ Liaison Committee and the Interagency Coordinating Committee. These meetings provide a means for coordination and communication at the policy and program level, which can affect geologic mapping done by both the federal and state surveys.

Another means of coordination is field visitation wherein USGS project staff visit the state surveys to describe and discuss their programs and to learn something of related state survey