Page images

Mr. STARR. Yes, right.

We've collected the information, essentially, except for some boundary information.

Mr. YATES. Well, what other Federal agencies will be hurt by that cutback? And the slowdown?

Dr. PECK. Well, more and more land management agencies are using digital cartography and building geographic information systems in order to manage their land, like the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The Soil Conservation Service are users of this data.

We're generating it as fast as we can. We're also working on cooperative arrangements so that other agencies can generate that data to our standards. So, we're having a lot of discussion, for example, with the Forest Service, about a really major program of digital cartography data gathering.

We're also working with the Bureau of Land Management to develop standards and exchange formats to compare data. We're also working with State agencies. We have a neat arrangement with the Idaho Department of Transportation. They'll generate data to our standards, and we'll generate some that they need, too.

All of a sudden, the importance of standards has become greater and greater. We all need this digital data, but we need it in some way that we can use it.

So, standards and exchange formats

Mr. YATES. You're being shrunk by $30 million worth, your activities, aren't you?

Dr. "PECK. Well, a little over $20 million. But we are being shrunk. That's about a five percent cut. Yes.

This reflects the constrained budgets of the Federal Government. Mr. YATES. All right. Is the mapping on your wish list, too?

Dr. PECK. Yes, high on my wish list is the restoration of the cut in digital cartography.

As we discussed earlier, we're concerned about the EROS Data Center and the EROS project.

Mr. YATEs. All right, what other wish list items do you have?

Dr. PECK. Well, we're also concerned-it was a very trying budget-over major cuts made in the Water Resources Research Institute and the Water Research Grants Program. I think those programs are important in providing a focus in every State for water quality and water quantity concerns.

We've done a review of all of the institutes in the last several years, and I think they are contributing in a major way to the State and local expertise in water. So I think there's a shortage of money from any Federal agency for grants for research in the area of water.

Of course, very high on the wish list—and I hope on some others' wish lists-is the Coastal Erosion Program. We've got a good start in Louisiana in coastal erosion, as in the Great Lakes and in planning the execution of a program with the Fish and Wildlife Service looking at the wetlands.

I think actually, coastal erosion is a problem nationwide. There are a number of areas along the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic Coast, and Alaska where coastal erosion is a real problem. So I think more work needs to be done in that area.

Mr. YATES. How much money would you want?

Dr. PECK. Well, the program this year is at $3.5 million. That is zeroed out in next year's budget. It's focused on Louisiana and Illinois.


As far as the wish list, we did some discussion of oil and gas estimates. I learned this spring that there is a lot of interest in oil and gas estimates nationwide- {Laughter.]

It's important to do a good job in preparing oil and gas estimates. I think it might be important to restore the cut in our oil and gas estimates program so that we can continue some of the work that we've started this year and build up a staff with expertise so that we can make estimates that nobody will criticize.

Mr. YATES. Well, would your estimates include expanding the reserve?

Dr. PECK. We are one outfit that makes the estimates without an ax to grind. That's why I think it's important that we make estimates. If they end up low, so they're low. We'll just do the best job we can, and make them-

Mr. Yates. Well, somebody ground an ax for you.

Dr. PECK. Yes, and applied it liberally around the head and shoulders. [Laughter.]

Mr. YATES. Okay.

If you want to expand on your wish list, you may, and on any other things. We have a number of questions for you that we'll ask you to answer for the record.

Dr. PECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Questions and answers thereto follow:)



Question: The budget request reduces ongoing programs by $30,421,000 from the base as shown in detail on pages GS-18 and GS-19. If Congress were to add back that amount, in what priority sequence would you place the individual programs?

Answer: The budget proposed by the President represents a fair balance among the programs managed by the Geological Survey. The Survey supports the administration's efforts toward curbing unnecessary Federal spending and has prepared this budget request in keeping with that goal. Adding back the total amount proposed for reduction by the administration would conflict with the agreements reached between the administration and the Congress and would not support our mutual attempts to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The add backs referred to in testimony before the Committee are repeated here in priority order and represent my highest priorities for restoration.


Amount (000's)

Federal State Cooperative

2,886 Earthquakes Hazards

2,500 Digital Cartography

750 Coastal Erosion

3,500 State Water Resources Research Institute

2,977 Earth Resources Observation Systems

1,500 Oil and Gas Investigations

750 Ped. Program, Data Coll. and Analysis

2,162 National Water Resources Research Grants

2,571 National Geologic Mapping

Geographic Information Systems

National Water Data Information and Access Program 900
Uranium/Thorium Investigations (Radon Studies) 250
Geothermal Investigations

Coal Investigations (Availability Studies)

1,000 Image Mapping

500 Volcano Hazards

500 Regional Aquifer Systems Analysis

800 National Mineral Resources Assessment

400 Nuclear Waste Hydrology

750 Uranium/Thor ium Investigations


Pederal Program Data Collection and
Analysis (Acoma Pueblo)

Core Program Hydrologic Research (Oregon
Graduate Center)



Question: In addition to those items in the base, your request to the Department included additional amounts for "Small, Intermediate and Special Mapping", "National Geologic Mapping", and "Mineral Resource Surveys." What were the programs or projects for which the additional amounts were requested?

Answer: The requested increase in Small, Intermediate, and Special Mapping was $2,000,000 for Geographic Information Systems Research and Applications. The proposed increase was to support an expansion of three components in the Geological Survey's implementation of GIS technology:


Provide the hardware and software needed in regional GIS facilities.


Increase GIS research and development activities to facilitate use of large digital earth-science data bases.


Expand multi-discipline data applications using GIS technology for analysis of earth-science data.

The requested increase in the National Geologic Mapping Program was $2,000,000. of the requested $18,972,000, the Department recommended $17,734,000, and OMB allocated $17,403,000. The OMB passback included a $500,000 increase to the COGEOMAP Component of the National Geologic Mapping Program--an allocation that increased the COGEOMAP base from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 and accommodated a $500,000 increase added on by Congress to COGEOMAP in each of the 1986, 1987, and 1988 fiscal years. The OMB FY 1989 passback excluded approximately $1,500,000 that the Geological Survey originally requested to support other National Geologic Mapping activities.

The $1,500,000 million increase not included in the request to Congress was intended for three National Geologic Mapping activities, including Cooperative Geologic Mapping (COGEOMAP, $500,000), Federal Geologic Mapping (FEDMAP, $500,000), and modernization of geologic mapping (MODMAP, $500,000):

[ocr errors]

COGEOMAP Component--The Geological Survey originally requested that
the COGEOMAP base be increased by $1,000,000 to $2,000,000.
Depending on the scope of the projects proposed by the States, the
$500,000 increase will continue to fund between 5 and 15 projects
and the $1,000,000 increase would have provided funding for 5 to 15
additional COGEOMAP projects.

[ocr errors]

Federal Geologic Mapping Component--The FY 1989 request included
$500,000 to increase the level of Federal geologic-mapping
activities. This increase was in response to two issues: (1) a
response to preliminary contacts with other Federal agencies that
identified geologic-mapping requirements in support of their
missions, and (2) a response to the findings of the National
Research Council which, in a report released in 1987, recommended
that the Geological Survey increase the level of its geologic-
mapping activities and develop a coherent National policy regarding
long-term basic geologic mapping.

[ocr errors]

Modernization of Mapping Component--The FY 1989 request included
$500,000 to apply digital technology to the geologic-mapping
process. This effort presently is spearheaded by research and
development leading to a prototype geologic-mapping workstation.
The workstation is designed to generate a digital geologic-map file
that can be used to produce both paper and digital geologic-map
products. The geologic workstation is the front end of a broader
digital map-production system that the Modernization of mapping
Component will develop. The total system will include digital
geomap editing and processing components that still have to be
developed under this component. This modernization activity
complements the modernization activities of the National Mapping

The mineral-resource surveys request to the Department for fiscal year 1989 was $49,200,000, compared to the $46,300,000 requested from Congress. The difference of $2,900,000 represents two activities--$400,000 of the restoration to NAMRAP to accomplish BLM requirements and $2,500,000 to the Strategic and Critical Minerals Program for an initiative to develop airborne geophysical methods to explore for and assess mineral deposits.

Question: What are their priorities in relation to the priorities you are providing for the base programs which were reduced?

Answer: Generally, base programs or ongoing activities are considered to be higher priority than proposed additions. In this specific case, the priority list of the proposed decreases was reviewed in relation to the additional funding that had been requested for Small, Intermediate, and Special Mapping; National Geologic Mapping; and Mineral Resource Surveys. Continuing to fund the base programs was determined to be of a higher priority than proposing increases in the three areas listed above.


In the fiscal year 1988 budget, full-time equivalent employment was estimated to be 9,727 for both appropriated and reimbursable funds. Congress added over $27 million to the request. In spite of that the estimates in the fiscal year 1989 budget for the fiscal year 1983 are reduced to 9,461, a reduction of 266.


Why are PTE's reduced from the previous estimate?

Answer: PY 1988 FTE's were reduced from the 1988 budget to the 1989 estimate to: (1) align PTE target levels closer to the actual FTE usage experienced by the USGS over the last few fiscal years and (2) permit continued program operations within reduced funding levels.

Question: If they were reduced to cover operating costs, why vere operating costs underestimated? (1988 hearings, p.660)

Answer: During the development of the PY 1989 budget and the FY 1988 operating plan, it became clear that absorption and partial absorption of increases in fixed costs over a number of years had reduced the level of available operational funding to the point where program objectives might be

« PreviousContinue »