[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-119 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH

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 Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Paul C. Broun, GA Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Dan Boren, OK
Dan Benishek, MI Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
David Rivera, FL CNMI
Jeff Duncan, SC Martin Heinrich, NM
Paul A. Gosar, AZ John P. Sarbanes, MD
Bill Flores, TX Betty Sutton, OH
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA Vacancy
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann, Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
TN
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

------
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

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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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
one-half 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.
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, energy-
efficient 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 quality 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 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 hydrologic 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 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, 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.
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 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.
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?
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
Outdoors, 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 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.
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.
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
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 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 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 high-risk 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, 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.
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.
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. 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 Geographic 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 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 reallocation, 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.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on this important
and long-overdue 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.
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 cold-bed 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 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 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 developers 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 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 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 approximately 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 Activity. 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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5119.001

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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5119.002

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 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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5119.003

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).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5119.004

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). 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 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.
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.

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.''

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5119.005

.epsScience 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 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 Eyjafjallajokull 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 request 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 long-standing
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----
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 certainly 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.
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.]