Mr. STARR. To answer the question, we have in our 1988 program, if I recall, the completion of Ohio and the Fort Wayne and Toledo areas as well. I can't tell you exactly when, but we could get that for the record. [The information follows:] OHIO SLAR COVERAGE It is anticipated that the Toledo and Ft. Wayne 1° × 2° quadrangles will be acquired in the fall of 1988 as part of the FY 1988 award. These quadrangles were specifically requested this year by Horace R. Collins, Division Chief and State Geologist, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, ". . . for mineral and energy exploration, hydrologic studies, seismic investigations, and required mapping programs.' Acquisitions of two other 1° × 2° quadrangles, Columbus and Cincinnati, will complete coverage of Ohio. These two quadrangels are high priority sites for any future acquisition. Mr. REGULA. Thank you. Mr. STARR. We have 13 areas scheduled in the program, and one of the major areas is the Ohio and Indiana area. Mr. REGULA. In 1988? Do you anticipate that most of Ohio would be finished in 1988? Mr. STARR. The 1988 contract probably won't be finished until 1989. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I'll submit the rest of my questions for the record. Thank you. OHIO RIVER OIL SPILL Mr. YATES. Is it your agency, or is it EPA, or is it another agency that determines whether the oil spill that went down the river has a lasting effect so that the communities along the river are affected by it? Dr. PECK. I'm not sure. I think we'll have Mr. Cohen come back up this way. Either the State EPA agencies or the Federal EPA Mr. COHEN. In most cases with issues of that sort, the greatest concern is the impact on potable water supplies. In most cases, the State environmental agencies and/or local agencies have the regulatory responsibilities. Mr. YATES. GS doesn't have anything to do with that? Mr. COHEN. Not in the regulatory sense. Mr. YATES. Well, do you furnish information to the regulatory people? Mr. COHEN. Yes, we do provide the basic flow data, which is critical. For example, it could move two miles. We also Mr. YATES. Well, how do you determine whether it has lasting effects? Mr. COHEN. In terms of the chemistry, we have no program in place that would be able to detect, on a consistent basis throughout the United States, the impact of oil spills of that type. We're doing a lot of work on related activities, which could be very analogous to that spill. But that work is centered at eight or nine experimental sites, as opposed to a uniform National program. Mr. YATES. Okay. So streamflow would be on your wish list? Dr. PECK. I think that at the top of my wish list would be the Federal-State Cooperative Program in water resources which supports streamflow measures and groundwater monitoring and various cooperative studies and interpretive studies. But again, on my wish list next would be earthquake hazards. EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM Mr. YATES. Has that been cut? Dr. PECK. That will be-the proposed budget is a decrease of $2.5 million from last year. Mr. YATES. Well, last year's was-what did we do last year? We added some money back. I don't think you lost too much money on that. But that was because of the threat to California, wasn't it? Dr. PECK. Your adding the money back was in part because of concern about California, and in part because of concern about a National seismic network and the cooperative program that we have with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the proposed budget, we'll be continuing that program with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and we'll be starting to buy some of those instruments and starting workshops with the local universities that are involved. The proposed budget will involve a certain cutback in monitoring deformation and seismicity. Mr. YATES. Well, tell us if you've still got the earthquake threat? Dr. PECK. We indeed have earthquake threats, Mr. Chairman. There were two major earthquakes in Southern California just this last year, one at the south end of the Salton Sea and one near the town of Whittier. The Survey has a National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, made up of the Geological Survey and University people. I asked them to reevaluate the threat of future earthquakes along the San Andreas fault. We have now a draft report in hand that we're reviewing and discussing with California officials. Indeed, there continues to be a serious threat of earthquakes in California, particularly in Southern California. Mr. YATES. Is that indicated by the tremors and the non-serious quakes that are taking place periodically? Or isn't that- Dr. PECK. Well, it's indicated by the deformation. We measure this with geodimeters and other devices. That continues to go of course because the Pacific plate and the North American plate continue to slide past each other. Mr. YATES. Well, what happens out in California? Do you have less warning devices, fewer than you had, say, five years ago? Do you have greater cause for alarm? Are we being derelict in not making more money available to deal with a potentially dangerous situation? Or any other place in the country? Dr. PECK. Five or ten years ago, we estimated that the threat of a truly major earthquake in Southern California - of a magnitude of eight or greater-had a likelihood of 50 percent chance in the next 30 years. Mr. YATES. How much of a chance in the next 30 days? Mr. PECK. I think it's about a five percent chance for five years, something like that. Mr. YATES. Do you want to bring your earthquake man up? Dr. PECK. Well, my Chief Geologist, who's a petrologist like me, has become, like me, an instant earthquake expert, and even more so today. Mr. YATES. Well, who knows. With the earthquake, you're liable to get some petrology. Dr. MORGAN. For the reduction of this program, we're reducing the earthquake monitoring and fault zone mapping by $1 million, and we'll reduce the funds available for our prediction program by $1.5 million. Mr. YATES. Does that make sense at this time? Dr. MORGAN. It would be very difficult, of course, for us to square that with what we consider the urgency of the program, but that's a decision that Dallas and the Interior Department and those people Mr. YATES. Well, why did Dallas do it? Dr. MORGAN. He has a gage that off against the rest of the budget that he has to manage, the total budget. We will try to keep our efforts up in the areas of— Mr. YATES. Well, let me-before you get to that-what actually will you do as a result of that $2.5 million reduction? What will you have to do? Dr. MORGAN. We'll be cutting back on such things as the geodetic and strain gage monitoring in Southern California, and some of the seismic stations will be cut back. Fault zone mapping- Mr. YATES. The number of seismic stations? Dr. MORGAN. Number of stations. Mr. YATES. How many stations do you have there? Dr. MORGAN. I don't have the exact number. I'll have to put that into the record. [The information follows:] Regional Seismograph Networks in the United States as of March 1988 (* indicates partial USGS support) (# indicates full USGS support) (NRC or DOE indicates USGS operated with full support from that agency) 736 networks receive total support from the USGS 400 networks receive partial support from the USGS 77 networks are operated by USGS but are supported by either DOE or NRC stations North-Eastern U.S. Seismic Network Lamont Doherty (Columbia University) others South-Eastern U.S. Seismic Network University of South Carolina (also USGS) Center for Earthquake Research (Memphis State University) 30 Tennessee Valley Authority others Central U.S. Seismic Networks St. Louis University Oklahoma Geophysical Observatory University of Michigan others Great Basin, Intermountain, and Rocky Mountain Networks University of Utah University of Nevada, Reno U.S. Geological Survey Southern Nevada (Denver, CO) 27 * 17 55 DOE 65 total 260 California Seismic Networks USGS Central and Northern Calif. Mr. YATES. Order of magnitude-what? Dr. MORGAN. About 400 run by us, and by—— Mr. YATES. Now, is this less in number than you had, say, five years ago? Dr. MORGAN. Yes, somewhat. Mr. YATES. Well, how many do you need for what you would consider to be reasonably adequate coverage? Dr. MORGAN. Well, in order to have adequate coverage, we have to do a number of operations, including seismic stations, strain gauge studies, and very detailed fault mapping. Mr. YATES. Have you not been cutting those back over the last five years? Dr. MORGAN. Some of that has been cut back, yes. Mr. YATES. Now why-is this just budgetary? Or can you get along without the money? Dr. MORGAN. Primarily, we cut back on those areas that are the longest term risk in terms of scientific investigations. This has to do with prediction. We try to concentrate on studies related to mitigation of the effects of earthquakes. This is by studying exactly where the faults are, where their periodicities are Mr. YATES. Have your studies been excessive? Dr. MORGAN. No, we have not felt they were excessive. Dr. PECK. Primarily it's a budgetary matter, Mr. Chairman. Mr. YATES. Well, what should your program be-here you've got-how much of a threat do you have there? You were starting to say, Dallas, that you have a prediction of a major earthquake at some time within the next 30 years. Is that correct? Dr. PECK. Yes. Mr. YATES. It could happen within the next 30 days, couldn't it? Dr. PECK. That's right. Mr. YATES. Okay. Dr. PECK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. YATES. And are you ready? Suppose it were to happen-what would be the result? If you do have that danger, are you doing everything that you should be doing in order to be in a position to warn the people of the region so that they can protect themselves against death and destruction and injury? Dr. MORGAN. We've done quite a lot, and we've been working with Mr. YATES. Well, you've done as well as you can within the budgetary allowances that you've had. Dr. MORGAN. Yes. And we've also-▬▬ Mr. YATES. Are you doing as well as you should do assuming that you had more funds available? Dr. MORGAN. No. Mr. YATES. All right. What should you be doing, if you had more funds available? Dr. MORGAN. We learned from the Whittier Narrows earthquake, which was in the central part of the Los Angeles area, that we and our colleagues at Southern California University and at Caltech were not prepared in an operational sense to respond to a major local earthquake. Mr. YATES. Why were you not? |