MARCH 2001 Volume 38, Number 3 The Professional …96.93.209.186/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2001_TPGMar.pdfThe Professional Geologist(USPS 590-810 and ISSN 0279-0521) is published monthly

• BALLOT ISSUE

• CAMP Update 2001

• Student Mentorship

• AIPG’S LONG RANGE PLAN

• AIPG Scholarships Awarded for 2000

• PROPOSED AIPG POSITION STATEMENTS

• Instant Wilderness: When a Road is not a Road

• Integrated Pump-and-Treat and Reinjection System forCleanup of Dissolved Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

• CERTIFICATION AFTER REGISTRATION—IS IT NECESSARY?

The Professional

GEOLOGIST

MARCH 2001

Volume 38, Number 3

The Professional

GEOLOGIST

A publication ofThe American Institute of Professional Geologists

A publication ofThe American Institute of Professional Geologists

The Professional Geologist (USPS 590-810 and ISSN 0279-0521) is published monthly by theAmerican Institute of Professional Geologists, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, CO80031-3681. Periodicals Postage Paid at Arvada, Colorado and additional mailing offices.POSTMASTER: The Professional Geologist, AIPG, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200,Westminster, CO 80031-3681.Subscriptions for all Members and Adjuncts in good standing are included in annual member-ship dues. Subscription prices are $40.00 a year for Members’ additional subscriptions and $60.00a year for non-members for 12 issues (for postage outside of the U.S. add $12.00 for Canadaand $20.00 elsewhere). Single copy price is $4.00 for Members and $6.00 for non-members.Claims for nonreceipt or for damaged copies are honored for three months.

Entire contents copyright 2001 by The Professional Geologist. Original material may be reprint-ed with permission. Deadline for articles and advertisements is six weeks preceding publication.Advertising rates available upon request. Opinions and views expressed by the authors are theirown and do not necessarily reflect those of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, itsstaff, or its advertisers.

2001 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OFFICERS

PRESIDENT PRESIDENT-ELECTRobert H. Fakundiny, CPG Lawrence A. Cerrillo, CPG3288 River Rd., 9-J 6122 King DriveRensaelaer, NY 12144 Evergreen, CO 80439O: (518) 474-5816 O: (303) 674-6484Fax: (581) 486-3696 Fax: (303) [email protected] [email protected]

PAST PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENTDennis Pennington, CPG Robert G. Corbett, CPGNational Envir. Tech. Corp. Dept. of Geography-GeologyP.O. Box 204 Campus Box 4400Telford, PA 18969-0204 Normal, IL 61790-4400O: (215) 723-9300 O: (309) 438-7649Fax: (215) 723-9344 Fax: (309) [email protected] [email protected]

SECRETARY TREASURERMichael D. Lawless, CPG Madhurendu B. Kumar, CPGDraper Aden Associates 5802 Highland Road2206 S. Main St. Baton Rouge, LA 70808Blacksburg, VA 24060 O: (225) 342-5501O: (540) 552-0444 Fax: (225) 342-4438Fax: (540) 552-0291 [email protected]@daa.com

EDITORVirginia T. McLemore, CPGNM Bureau of MinesNew Mexico TechSocorro, NM 87801O: (505) 835-5521Fax: (505) [email protected]

ADVISORY BOARD REPRESENTATIVESKelvin J. Buchanan, CPG K. V. Duke Clem, CPGHB Engineering Group 5408 Highlands Vista CircleP.O. Box 2391 Lakeland, FL 33813Reno, NV 89505-2391 O: (863) 773-0136O: (775) 786-4515 Fax: (863) 767-0360Fax: (775) 786-4324 [email protected]@aol.com

Robert M. Rohlfs, CPG Dave A. Sadoff, CPG1889 Current St. 18309 Pepper St.Liberty, MO 64068-8469 Castro Valley, CA 94546O: (816) 421-7766 O: (510) 690-9109Fax: (816) 421-8444 Fax: (510) [email protected] [email protected]

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200

Westminster, CO 80031-36817:30 AM - 4:30 PM MDT; M-F

(303) 412-6205 • Fax (303) 412-6219e-mail: [email protected] • internet: http://www.aipg.org

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PUBLICATIONS/WEBSITEWilliam J. Siok, CPG Wendy J. [email protected] [email protected]

MEMBERSHIP SERVICESCatherine A. O’Keefe

[email protected]

INSURANCE PROGRAMLife and Health - (800) 424-9883Seabury & Smith - Stephen Lovell or Debbie BrownProfessional Liability Broker - (301) 770-0880The Novick Group - Margretta Glock

RENTAL CARSALAMO RENTAL CAR - (800) 354-2322 - Member #BY-218167AVIS RENTAL CAR - (800) 222-2847 - Member AWD #L123443

AIPG FOUNDATIONKel Buchanan, CPG

HB Engineering GroupP.O. Box 2391

Reno, NV 89505-2391(775) 786-4515/FAX (775) 786-4324

[email protected]

MARCH 2001

Volume 38, Number 3

The Professional

GEOLOGISTSTUDENT MENTORSHIPRobert H. Fakundiny, CPG-04977 3BALLOT ISSUE 3Certification After Registration—Is It Necessary?Robert Colpitts, CPG-07702 5-7Past President’s Recommendations to the2000 National Executive CommitteeTom Fails, CPG-03174 7CAMP Update 2001Tom Fails, CPG-03174 8-9PEER REVIEWED ARTICLEIntegrated Pump-and-Treat and Reinjection System forCleanup of Dissolved Chlorinated HydrocarbonsNoori Alvavi, CPG-07939, Bill Breedlove, Mark ThomasMichael Gonzales, Michael Pound, and Larry Leake 10-19BYLAWS AMENDED 19Instant Wilderness: When a Road is not a RoadDon Fife, CPG-04735, and Ralph Pray 20PROPOSED AIPG POSITION STATEMENTS 21AIPG National Scholarship Program

AIPG Scholarships Awarded for 2000 22Summary of the January 2001AIPG Executive Committee MeetingRobert M. Rohlfs, CPG-09999 30AIPG’S LONG RANGE PLANAIPG 2001 National Executive Committee 31FRONT COVER—Havasu Fall, Havasu Canyon, Arizona.Photograph by Daniel R. Heidenreich, CPG-10085.BACK COVER—Photography is provided courtesy of the St. LouisConvention & Visitors Commission.

DEPARTMENTSPRESIDENT’S MESSAGE—The Agenda–The Timing 2AIPG BENEFITS 4EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMN—What’s It All About? 2 3LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING GEOLOGY 2 4AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MONTHLY REVIEW 25-26PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES—Column 62 27-28PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIRECTORY 32-34CALENDAR 3 5NEW MEMBERS, APPLICANTS, ETC. 3 6

2 The Professional Geologist • MARCH 2001

In my June, 1999, essay “The Agenda is Tough—TheTime to Act is Now,” I laid out four goals for AIPG to addressimmediately. These are to increase revenues, expand mem-bership, improve services to members, and enhance visibili-ty on the national geologic scene. During the last year, theExecutive Committee decided to shift into high gear by set-ting up another planning process to revitalize AIPG. (Thelast plan is now more than 10 years old, and much of its sug-gested program has been accomplished.) Knowing the diffi-culties of producing a long-range plan, and fearing the all-to-common result of plans not leading to action, the PlanningCommittee started the process at the January 19-20, 2001,Executive Committee Meeting. Unsurprising to me, the fourcritical issues in need of immediate action were judged to bedirect services to members, development of new revenuesources, marketing within the association and within theentire geologic community, and advocacy of the geologic pro-fession. (We could hardly have excluded the fourth one afterreading Lee Gerhard’s essay in the October, 2000, TPG.) Wenow have a Vision Statement (how we would like the pro-fessional geology world to be) and a Mission Statement (howAIPG will go about making that world) for you to considerand react to. In the meantime we are moving on severalfronts.

In the areas of direct services to members and develop-ment of revenue sources, I am asking the MembershipServices Committee to (1) review the items identified by thePlanning Committee as most critical to initiate, and (2) sug-gest other services for that list. The Committee members willalso revise and update current services, where appropriate.Many services are already being provided, but these are notuniversally known or appreciated by the membership. Abrochure is being generated for use in recruiting, marketing,and advocacy. We also are exploring ways to obtain the serv-

ices of a grant writer who will seek outside sources of rev-enue to fund a third staff person at Headquarters; this newstaff member most probably will work on development of newrevenue resources and on marketing our products.

Advocacy was high on the Planning Committee’s list ofurgent activities. Our advocacy team consists of John Talley,National Affairs Committee Chair; Carl Smith, John’s advi-sor, partner, and helper; and President-Elect Larry Cerrillo.Their main task at the moment is to plan and coordinate theWashington, D.C. Fly-In this coming May. Larry will be theliaison between the National Affairs Committee and theExecutive Committee. This is a function that I would like tosee formalized for each incoming President-Elect. The liai-son gives the new President-Elect an initial briefing of thenational issues before AIPG and introduces the President-Elect to the Washington contacts that will be needed duringthe presidency. The team is now at work, and all indicationsare that this year’s Fly-In will be among the best ever.

Our Membership Committee Chair is Tom Berg. He hasthe contacts with the sections (where most recruiting occurs)and has the resources to work on membership this year. Mycharge to him is to increase the number of applications forthe year to 500; this would put us on schedule for my goal ofdoubling our size within 7 years, but he will need your helpto accomplish this task. We will also need to create an incen-tive program for the members to urge them on in recruiting.The Executive Committee has given us approval of the incen-tive concept and will review the plan as soon as it is gener-ated. (I hope this will be before the next TPGso that we canannounce it then.)

As you can see, we are starting to move. We need yourthoughts and help to achieve this new agenda, which mustbe put into action now. Please review the Vision and MissionStatements and the list of immediate issues that VirginiaMcLemore presents in this TPG, and the new position state-ments that the Executive Committee has approved for pub-lishing in TPG for your critique, so that we can take themto Washington in May. I will try to keep you apprised of ourprogress through this column each month. Your response ismy report card.

I wish to thank all members of the Planning Committee,the members who attended the January 20, 2001 ExecutiveCommittee meeting and helped us there, Carl Pabst (ourfacilitator), and all of the other members who have giventheir time and effort to make this long-range planning processsuccessful May AIPG and the professional geological com-munity thrive.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

THE AGENDA—THE TIMING

Robert H. Fakundiny, CPG-04977

MARCH 2001 • The Professional Geologist 3

BALLOT ISSUEAs a Professional Geologist Certified by

AIPG, please advise the Executive Committeeof your opinion regarding a mandatoryContinuing Professional Development (CPD)requirement for maintenance of CPG status, oradvancement to Certified Master ProfessionalGeologist (CMPG) status for “new” CPGs cer-tified after the relevant Bylaws are adopted. TheCPD requirement is that proposed by the TaskForce for CPD and described by Task ForceChairman Tom Fails in TPG (May 2000, pp. 4-7; June 2000, pp. 3-11; August/September 2000,pp. 15-16; and March 2001, pp. 7-8. The resultsof the poll are not binding, but will guide theExecutive Committee in its decision making onthis very important issue.

oAIPG should implement the CPDrequirement as proposed by theProfessional Education Committee anddescribed by Committee Chairman TomFails in TPG (May 2000, pp. 4-7, June2000, pp. 3-11, and August/September2000, pp. 15-16.)

oAIPG should institute a CPD require-ment but less complex than that pro-posed by the Professional EducationCommittee as described by CommitteeChairman Tom Fails in TPG (May 2000,pp. 4-7, June 2000, pp. 3-11, andAugust/September 2000, pp. 15-16.)

oAIPG Should

Articles referring to this subject areon pages 4-8 of this issue.

STUDENTMENTORSHIP

Robert H. Fakundiny, CPG-04977

I read an article in the January 19,2001, issue of SCIENCE by JeffreyMervis that describes a study of the pro-fessional expectations of graduate stu-dents in science. With the caveats that goalong with quoting items out of context,I would like to share some findings fromthat study that are germane to my con-cern for students. This study reports a

“…three-way mismatch between stu-dent goals, their training, and their actu-al careers.”

The study also

“…recommends major changes to bet-ter prepare graduate students for today’seconomic realities, including a greateremphasis on teaching, more informationabout the job market, and support forthose interested in nonacademic careerpaths...The problem, however, is thatmost graduates need more than that (howto do independent research) to competein today’s economy.” (italics mine.)

Graduate students

“…also would like to take more cours-es in related fields and outside their dis-cipline, such as languages, and business.Their training in professional practices isalso inadequate, the students report, withlarge numbers unclear about subjectsranging from assigning authorship onpapers to avoiding financial and ethicalconflicts of interest.” (italics mine.)

Although the National Association ofGraduate-Professional Students is tryingto cope with these issues, I know of noprofessional society other than AIPG thatis an advocate for curricula in higher edu-cation that addresses these student con-cerns. We have a role to play and a voidto fill.


AIPG• OFFERS PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION

• ENGAGES in NATIONAL ADVOCACY

• PROMOTES ACADEMIC LIAISON

• AWARDS STUDENT SCHOLARSHIPS

• FACILITATES NETWORKING

• ACTS as OMBUDSMAN for GEOLOGISTS

• PROMOTES ETHICS

• SPONSORS ANNUAL PRESIDENT’S AWARDS

• DEVELOPS INTERNATIONAL COMITY

• PROVIDES LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS TRAINING

• CONDUCTS an ANNUAL D.C. FLY-IN

• ACTS as LIAISON with STATE AGENCIES

• PROVIDES REGISTRATION SUPPORT

Competence...Integrity... Ethics...

Earth Science WeekFlyers Available

Thanks to AGI, AIPG has, fordistribution, colored 8½ x 11 fly-ers announcing Earth ScienceWeek 2001. If you are able to usesome of these announcements, orknow an educator or other inter-ested individual or group whowould have an interest, pleasecontact AIPG headquarters fordetails. The announcements areavailable at no cost.

Also, AIPG has a beautiful edu-cational poster, created by AGI,entitled “Minerals - Foundations ofSociety.” The poster has a color-ful collage on one side and somemineral picture/word associationson the reverse side. The poster isdesigned to be an introduction tothe wide use of rocks and miner-als in basic everyday life. Theseare also available for educationaluse and at no cost. Please con-tact headquarters for details.


Certification After Registration —Is It Necessary?

Robert Colpitts, CPG-07702

Is an organization that offering professional certifica-tion necessary now that professional registration seems tobe ‘in vogue’ among geologists? In light of the relatively rapidgrowth of professional registration in several of the States,many now ponder this question seriously. Many see no usefor AIPG much less Professional Certification. Certainly,there is a sense that we (AIPG) offer something that is ‘arcane’or useless. However, consider these questions:1. When you apply for registration, who will sit in judg-

ment of your qualifications and decide whether you AREqualified to practice in the particular State?

2. Will the Board(s) that geologists fought so long and hardto establish, assist us as Professionals on an individualcollective basis?

3. Will the Board(s) that licenses or certifies us stand inthe gap when the Profession is attacked by those of otherprofessions?

4. Once registered, will you be able to practice in otherStates or countries without undue trouble?

The answers to these questions may surprise and alarmyou!

A Tale of FrustrationI have a personal experience with registration in which

AIPG played a significant role. Several years ago, I accept-ed a job with a small geological consulting firm. One of theconditions of my employment was that I obtain ProfessionalRegistration in a neighboring State where we had an on-going hydrogeologic project. Not anticipating any problems,I asked for an application packet and applied for registra-tion. The State in question requires that an applicant haveworked under another geologist registered in a State accept-able to the Board. No problem here, I thought, I have sixyears under the direct supervision of just such an individ-ual. However, that is when problems began.

My first indication of trouble came when my applicationwas rejected. The basis of the rejection was my not havingenough qualified experience under an acceptable registeredgeologist. I wrote a letter asking for an explanation.Apparently, an office clerk had somehow decided that sincethe geologist I had worked for was not registered in the Statethat we worked in (which had no professional registration forgeologists), no experience credit could be allowed. This wasin spite of my employer having a current active registrationin a State known to be acceptable to the Board at the time Iwas working for him. Repeated appeals to the Board (readBureaucrat) were rejected. I was firmly rejected in the lastletter.

Frustrated and incensed, I contacted then-directorWilliam Knight and discussed the problem I was having andasked what he thought I should do. He asked me to send acopy of my file to him and said that he would bring the prob-lem to the attention of the Executive Committee for discus-sion. So I sent the requested material to Bill and left the mat-ter in his hands.

Shortly after the Executive Committee meeting in Arvada,I received a fax copy of a letter addressed to the RegistrationBoard on my behalf. This letter pointed out that in rejectingmy application, the Board violated their own statutes. Theletter further recommended that the Registration Boardreconsider my application.

Four weeks later, I was admitted to the Professional Exam,which I successfully passed.

The Bureaucratic ProblemNow, whom do you suppose examined my application and

determined that I apparently did not have the experiencerequired by the State to qualify for Registration? A BUREAU-CRAT! Not the Board. Not a Geologist. A bureaucrat. In manycases, this is the situation. Why? Simply put, the Board can-not afford to hire a Professional Geologist to do clerical workor to review applications. Consider this when you apply. Theirjob is to make sure you have the minimum qualificationsfor practice as prescribed by law.

AIPG certification is significantly different. The only timea non-geologist handles or examines an application is whencompleteness must be verified and followed up on. Otherwise,only Professional Geologists examine and pass judgment onan individual’s qualifications. The strength of ourCertification is that it is handled and reviewed by Geologistslocally and nationally. Remember that State Registration setsa minimum standard for practice. AIPG sets the bar muchhigher. Although it (AIPG) does not offer an exam, AIPG cer-tification is held in high esteem by companies and other pro-fessionals who want the very best. Some may be offended bythis statement, but I am only repeating what has been saiddirectly to me on several occasions.

Standing In the GapAs a general policy, AIPG supports the rights of geologists

to seek a Registration Board in their respective State(s). AIPGhas written suggested language for a Registration Bill thatpromotes reciprocity and that parallels the fundamentalrequirements for education and experience required by AIPG.Although AIPG cannot offer financial assistance to any par-ticular Section for such legislative effort, it does offer adviceand will review a draft bill for potential problems.


The Registration ChimeraOnce the Bill has been put through, passed and signed off

on by the Governor, cold, hard reality sets in. The RegistrationBoard, which many naively point to with pride, is there forone and only one purpose: to protect the interests of the pub-lic and the State. After all, isn’t that what YOU had in mindto begin with? The Board is, for better or worse, not partic-ularly interested in you as an individual geologist (unlessyou break the law) or in the profession as a whole (unless itimpacts public health, safety and welfare). They are char-tered to implement the Act, oversee its function and appli-cation, and resolve disputes and complaints against indi-viduals. This requires hiring clerical help that usually resultsin the development of a bureaucracy that, “when it is goodit is very, very good, but when it is bad it can be horrid.” Thatis not what was intended, but that is what frequently results.Now, many of the individuals working on or for a RegistrationBoard are hard working, dedicated and sincere, and are onlytrying to do their jobs. Many do an excellent job. Nevertheless,problems do occur. When this happens, as in my case, whowill intercede on your behalf before a recalcitrant Board orbureaucracy? You have two options. Hire an attorney andfight them yourself, or let AIPG go to bat for you. That is oneof the functions of the Institute. AIPG is an Affiliate Memberof ASBOG (the National Association of State Boards ofGeology) and serves as ombudsman to resolve complaints ordisputes between applicants and a member board. In mostcases, the problems are straightened out quickly and you canget on with your life (and Professional Career). Sometimes(thankfully these are quite rare) more effort is needed tocome to a resolution. AIPG stands in the gap when no oneelse will and will continue to do so.

Other Issues Which Need to beAddressed

Beyond the struggles with individual Boards, one may faceapplying to another State for Licensure. Will the new Boardrecognize your credentials? In most cases, the answer is “Well,sort of.” True reciprocity is rare in this country, but differingdegrees of comity are common. Constraints and restrictionsrange from retaking the National Exam you just took sev-eral years earlier along with a local exam added, to simplytaking the local exam (usually 10 or so questions about localgeology). The underlying reason for this is how our countryis structured. We are a Federal Republic composed of 50 sov-ereign States that have banded together and surrendered ameasure of their sovereignty to a central FederalGovernment. For those who believe State’s Rights and State’sSovereignty are passé or dead, go study the Constitution.States do have the right to regulate professions that areinvolved with the public health, safety, and welfare.

One of the purposes of ASBOG is to promote uniformityof regulation and standardization of tests to ease or simpli-fy working across State Lines. So far, this is largely an unre-alized dream. One issue that seems to be at the root of theproblem is what I jokingly call “The Carpetbagger Syndrome.”Are you one of “us, the washed, the elect” or are you one of“them, the unwashed”? I personally find this amusing. Whilethe States have a concern that professionals are competentto practice within a given jurisdiction, placing unreasonable

restrictions on a geologist when crossing State Lines is silly.It may constitute Interstate Restraint of Trade (which IS aFederal matter—and a felony at that).

Since one of AIPG’s jobs is to promote ease of movementacross State lines, have we been successful? Not especially,but then neither has ASBOG, which governs the NationalGeologist’s Exams. AIPG’s members and AIPG National havestruggled with this issue for years. Perhaps it is time to lookat using restraint of Interstate Trade as the proverbial crow-bar that will open the doors to developing true reciprocitybetween States that register geologists. The problem is thatWE must be more vocal about it. No more just sitting at adesk and saying, “I just want to do my geology and not makewaves” in the vain hope that our profession will still be therein 10 or 20 years. With that attitude, it will not be long beforewe haven’t any profession at all.

There are two examples that serve to illustrate the futil-ity of hiding one’s head in the sand. For many years, ReservoirEngineering and Ground Water Hydrology were subpracticesin geology (and rightly so since they require well-developedgeologic models as a foundation for analysis and modeling).The practice of Reservoir Engineering was taken over by thePetroleum Engineers around the time of World War II.Unfortunately, a reservoir-engineering project still cannotbegin without the petrophysical characterization and a geo-logic model of the reservoir developed by a geologist (forma-tion evaluation).

The civil engineering profession has been trying to includeground water hydrology in its sphere of control in recentyears. They are already responsible for surface hydrology(which is quite appropriate). Although the takeover of groundwater hydrology by the engineering profession has been resis-ted rather strongly by the hydrologic profession, that has notslowed the attempts nor does it reduce the risk of a takeover.All that is needed is for the engineering profession to pushthrough a minor change in a State’s laws. The change wouldrequire that a P.E. sign off on all hydrologic reports – osten-sibly to “protect the public health, safety, and welfare”. This,even though a P.G. (or R.G.) may be as or more qualified thana P.E. to sign off on his or her own work. Thus, professionalregistration is no guarantee that our profession will not bemarginalized or excluded from practice by another profes-sion or professional group.

Practicing Outside of the United States

I have encountered those who believe (naively so) thatonce they are registered they can also practice outside theUnited States without any trouble whatsoever. Other nationsdo have their own forms of registration that bear some resem-blance to our Certification. Ireland, The United Kingdom,Canada, Australia, and Europe all have some form of regu-lation on the practice of geology. Generally, regulation is inthe hands of private organizations chartered by the nation-al or provincial government to take care of such matters.However, try taking your status and credentials as aRegistered Professional Geologist to regulatory organiza-tions outside the United States and see what happens. Youwill be met with a polite “That’s very nice. Here is your appli-cation for Chartering (Certification). Please be sure to fill itout completely before submitting it.”


Why is this so? Again, we must go back to the FederalConstitution. Under Article I, Section 10, States are prohib-ited from making treaties with foreign Powers orGovernments without the consent of Congress. Therefore,unless the State Board that regulates the practice of Geologyin a particular State has negotiated an agreement or treatywith another Nation (which they are prohibited from doing),your credentials will not be recognized except as an aside.This is where AIPG National stands out. Most are now awarethat we (AIPG) have comity with the European Federationof Geologists and the Geological Society of London (nowknown simply as The Geological Society). We need to takethis a step further. Why shouldn’t we be recognized by ourown Federal Government? What would be required to accom-

plish this (besides time, money and plenty of help from knowl-edgeable individuals)?

A step in the right direction is Tom Fails’ recent proposalto strengthen our certification through a certification main-tenance program. Although not terribly palatable to some, itis a step in the right direction for AIPG. We can no longer siton the sidelines and watch, waiting for the lions to pounceand gobble us up. AIPG has an excellent record of being polit-ically proactive. It is appropriately positioned to fight backand should do so with every means at its disposal. WithoutAIPG and its certification, I doubt that we would have muchof a profession left to practice. Certification after registra-tion? For me it is very important. Who cares if the State rec-ognizes you, if your fellow professionals do not? Membershipin AIPG? I believe it is critical.

The Past-Presidents of AIPG meet for breakfast at eachAnnual Meeting of the Institute. As their interest in AIPGaffairs continues after their Presidential terms end, the Past-Presidents often make recommendations to the ExecutiveCommittee on a variety of issues and subjects. The recentMilwaukee meeting was no exception; the recommendationsmade there by the Past-Presidents were as follows:

Poor Attendance of the Membership at AnnualMeetings—This probably results from meeting timing andlength, expense, too many Section Presidents not attending,and less-than attractive venues (big-city business districts).Attendance may improve under the new Annual MeetingsProcedures, with emphasis placed on meetings being held atresorts or in attractive smaller cities. Sessions on subjects ofinterest to professional geologists, such as political relationsactivities, ethics, Section management, registration issues,and attractive field trips may attract more attendees.

AIPG Foundation—The membership has the opportunityto contribute to the AIPG Foundation when paying theirAnnual Dues. Although large contributions—bequests, etc.—continue at rates similar to the past, the small Annual Duescontributions have declined significantly, perhaps because ofthe Annual Dues increase in 1999. National should encour-age the membership to contribute more to the Foundation.By so doing, the activities of the Foundation could be increasedand broadened. For example, four matching grants ($500-$1000 range) for Section programs were made recently.

ASBOG—The Past-Presidents believe that the Instituteshould work more constructively with ASBOG, in order todevelop a closer, more cooperative relationship.

CAMP Proposal—Most Past-Presidents appear to acceptthe need for a program of this type, but believe that the pro-cedure should be made less cumbersome. As presented todate, the program has a somewhat foreboding appearance.

State Registration and the Institute—Some Past-Presidents served during the period when State Registrationof geologists was still uncommon. As registration hasincreased to where about three-quarters of the states offer

registration in some form, AIPG has lost relevance to manygeologists due to a lack of adjustment to this new situation.How can we make the Institute more relevant in registra-tion states? One long-time California CPG stated, at the timeregistration started in California, “had AIPG not been in exis-tence when California registration started, it would havebeen needed then to act as a Spokesperson for geologists,”NSPE was well organized in this regard, as the mouthpiecefor Registered PEs, and AIPG should do the same forCalifornia geologists. In more recent years, California SectionCPGs were instrumental in formation of the CaliforniaCouncil of Geoscience Organizations, California’s represen-tative for organizations of professional geologists. Many haveremained active in support of its activities. Similar single-state professional geologist organizations exist in severalother states—some involve AIPG but others do not. AIPG’sgrass-roots strength is the Sections and their political rela-tions activities. Since local geotechnical organizations avoidpolitics, usually it is up-to AIPG to be the active advocate forgeology and geologists to government officials and the pub-lic. The recently-formed Illinois Chapter (Illinois-IndianaSection) was organized for this purpose—to represent andadvocate for Illinois-licensed geologists with state and localgovernment bodies. An adjustment has been made and rel-evancy restored in Illinois, and is possible in other states.

New AIPG Position Statements are needed as proposalsto the new Federal administration. Subjects under consid-eration are:

• AIPG Position on a National Energy Policy• AIPG Position on Access to Public Lands• AIPG Position on Domestic Mineral Resources• AIPG Position on Aggregate Resources and Land-Use

PlanningPlease contact Headquarters if you are interested in help-

ing write, or have input for, one or more of these PositionStatements.

Past President’s Recommendations to the2000 National Executive Committee

By Tom Fails, CPG-03174, AIPG Past-President


This article will bring interested CPGs up to date on thecurrent status of the CAMP Proposal and Recommendation(hereinafter “the Proposal”) presented to the 1999, 2000, and2001 National Executive Committees. The 1999 ExecutiveCommittee adopted the Proposal, subject to minor furthermodification and completion, at the 1999 Annual Meeting.After considerable discussion and agreement to minor point-count revisions, as described below, the 2000 ExecutiveCommittee agreed that this revised Proposal would be passedon to the 2001 Executive Committee for final adoption, sub-ject to a vote of the membership during 2001. At its January20 meeting, the 2001 Executive Committee voted in favor ofa poll of AIPG CPG members being taken to assess supportfor a mandatory CPD program for maintenance of CPG sta-tus or advancement to CMPG status for “new” CPGs certi-fied after the relevant Bylaws are adopted. Language for thepoll ballot, to be distributed with the March 2001 TPG, wasagreed to by the Executive Committee.

A number of changes in point-count Qualified Activitiesin both Continuing Education (hereinafter CE) andProfessional Participation (hereinafter PP), and the additionof one additional CE activity, were agreed with the 2000Executive Committee, after extensive discussions at theAnnual Meeting last October. Many point-count changes, allincreases over those published in last-year’s TPG articles(May, June, and August/September 2000 issues) on theCAMP, had been agreed by Task Force members prior to theAnnual Meeting and were included in the revised Proposalsubmitted to the 2000 Executive Committee. Some additionalpoint-count increases proposed by Executive Committeemembers were accepted by the Task Force, as was one addi-tional CE Qualified Activity. These changes are summarizedbelow.CE–Formal Education for Credits (Active Participation or

Distance Learning/Online) in Other RelevantDisciplines (business, management, law, accounting,etc.):

12 points/semester hour (previously 8 points/semesterhour)9 points/quarter hour (previously 6 points/quarterhour)

CE–Passive Participation in Supplemental or ContinuingEducation (not for Credits), including DistanceLearning/Online:

All geotechnical/geosciences, etc. courses:0.75 point per Contact Hour(previously 0.66 point per CH)

All Other relevant disciplines courses (business, man-agement, law, accounting, etc.):

0.55 point per Contact Hour (previously 0.33 point per CH)

Auditing of Talks and courses, not for credit:Geosciences, etc. 0.75 point per Contact Hour(previously 0.66 point per CH)Other relevant disciplines 0.55 point per Contact Hour (previously 0.33 point per CH)

In-house company geoscience courses or state-requiredtraining and review courses:

0.75 point per Contact Hour (previously 0.66 point per CH)

CE–NEW Passive Participation Activity in Supplemental orContinuing Education:

Private reading of geoscience literature and researchin participant’s professional discipline or practice area:

0.10 points per hour, annual maximum of 3.0 CE points (previously not included)

TC–Research, preparation, and presentation of each geot-echnical course or field trip, unpaid basis, by academicsor non-academics: (previously academics were exclud-ed).

PP–Professional Practice, Annual (30+ hours/week, mini-mum 40 weeks per year) employment or personal prac-tice in a geoscience discipline or work associated with,or dependent upon, a geoscience discipline:

4.0 points per year (previously 2.5 points per year)

CARRY-FORWARDS—The subject of excess points earnedin a given CAMP year being carried-forward to a followingCAMP year or years had previously been limited to “Up-to10 excess points in each of these categories could be trans-ferred to the following new CAMP Period of six years.” In theinterest of fairness and greater flexibility, the Task Forcemade two recommendations to the 2000 ExecutiveCommittee regarding point carry forwards:1. Carry forwards from one CAMP Period of 6 years to the

following CAMP Period:The previous proposal was modified and expanded to:

“Up-to 10 excess points each in CE and PP QualifiedActivities could be carried forward to the first year ofthe following new CAMP Period of six years, and up-to 5 excess points each in CE and PP QualifiedActivities to the second year.”

2. Carry forwards within a current CAMP Period of sixyears:

CAMP Update 2001

By Tom Fails, CPG-03174, Chair, Task Force for Continuing Professional Development


The following language is NEW and provides addition-al opportunities for participants to save excess pointsearned in a given year and to transfer them forward forcredit WITHIN THE 6-YEAR CAMP PERIOD in whichthey were earned:

CE, PP, and TC points earned in a current CAMP peri-od year (Earning Year) in many Qualified Activitiescould be carried forward and claimed IN THE FOL-LOWING ONE OR TWO YEARS of the SAME CAMPperiod. Points that can be carried forward under thisprovision should be claimed within the 6-year CAMPperiod within which they were earned, to the degreepossible. Carry forwards INTO A FOLLOWING THIRD CAMPYEAR, within the 6-year CAMP period within whichthey were earned, would be possible for points earnedwith:• Short Courses/Field Seminars• Service as AIPG or technical geoscience society,

State Board and/or ASBOG Officers and CommitteeChairs

• Voluntary geoscience outreach and/or community service Qualified Activities

Carry forwards INTO A FOLLOWING THIRD,FOURTH OR FIFTH CAMP YEAR, within the 6-yearCAMP period within which they were earned, wouldbe possible for points earned with:• Most types of TC Qualified Activities• Formal Geoscience or Related Disciplines course

work for credits, including Distance or Online Learning, successfully completed.

Further, up-to 15 excess points each in CE and PPremaining at the end of a CAMP Period of 6 years couldbe carried forward into the first two years of the newCAMP Period, as in 1) above.

It has probably been the experience of most of us that ourCE and PP activities fluctuate from year to year. We maytake a qualifying college course for credit one year, as wellas a multi-day short course or field seminar in connectionwith a geoscience organization convention, resulting in earn-ing far more than the 10 CE points than can be claimed inone CAMP year. In the next year, just the opposite may occurwhile serving as an officer or committee chair of a qualify-ing organization, helping with planning and field-trip organ-ization for a convention and doing some heavy-duty politicallobbying and attending a 2-day State Drive-In. This resultsin far more than 10 PP points for that year being earned.The carry forward provisions allow excess points for mostqualified activities to be carried forward by one or two yearswithin the same CAMP Period, rather than being lost in aless-flexible system. In selected qualifying activities, excesspoints can be carried forward for three, and occasionally, fouror five years within the same CAMP Period. Further, someexcess points can be carried forward to the following CAMPPeriod.

It is believed that many potential CAMP participants willfind the improved fairness and flexibility of the carry-for-ward provisions very attractive and make their CAMP par-ticipation easier.

A Section entitled Earning Year and Carry-Forward Yearswill be a part of the CAMP Handbook. It contains tablesdetailing carry forwards for all CE, PP, and TC qualifyingactivities.

COMPETITION ISSUES—Although existing CPGs arenot subject to CAMP participation, but can participate vol-untarily, a few CPGs have a specific complaint regarding thisprovision, as follows:1) “I have been, and remain, gainfully employed as a geol-

ogist/consultant/geology-related entrepreneur withouthaving to participate in the continuing education andprofessional participation required in the CAMP.” Thereare a number of CPGs in this situation. AIPG has noproblem with their non-participation in the CAMP. Theycan retain their CPGs for so long as they remain in goodstanding.

2) But some continue to object to the CAMP proposal for“competitive reasons.” They believe that certification byAIPG is not, or should not be, for competitive purposes.I’m not sure this is a majority view among CPGs, asmany, when asked directly or when responding to sur-veys, state that they obtained CPG status for competi-tive reasons, among others. They work in a profession-al world where competition exists with other geologists,other scientists and engineers (many being Licensed,Registered or Certified), as well as with encroaching non-professionals. As about 8 to 10% of active U.S. geologistshave gone through the rigorous AIPG certificationprocess, and possibly another 10% with DPA/AAPG orother geological organizations that certify, there must bea reason. Beyond status and professional recognition,certification is sought by many for competitive reasonsas well.

3) Nevertheless, the objections by some to competition asdiscussed above go even further. Their complaint, sim-ply stated, is:

“Even though current CPGs are not required to par-ticipate in CAMP, we will be forced to do so becausemost CPGs will participate, in order to be reclassi-fied as Certified Master Professional Geologists forcompetitive purposes.” To them, a higher certifica-tion rank is undesirable, even if it is based uponpoints earned for “continuing education, profession-al and geotechnical society activities and/or publica-tions.” The term “Master” appears to be part of theproblem. But in the greater world, extra effort andthe resulting enhanced performance are rewarded,whether by higher pay, advancement through man-agement, or greater responsibilities with greaterrewards. Why is it wrong for AIPG to recognize mem-bers who participate successfully in the CAMP in anappropriate manner? And further, why should CPGswho wish to participate in a program like CAMP bedenied the right to do so?

However, these fears may be overblown. CharteredGeologists are the CPG-equivalents of The GeologicalSociety (London). The GeoSoc has a ContinuingProfessional Development program, similar in manyways to the AIPG proposal, which is totally voluntary.Participation to date is only about 22% of those eligible.NOT very competitive!


Key words: ground water, chlorinated hydrocarbons, remedial sys-tem, pump-and-treat and reinjection, performance monitoring, pilottest

AbstractA 10-month-long pilot study was conducted to evaluate the abil-

ity of a pump-and-treat and reinjection remedial system (verticalcirculation treatment [VCT] system) to contain and treat groundwater contamination at the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma,Arizona. The test was intended to evaluate an alternative approachto a vertical recirculating technology (NoVOCs) that was discon-tinued because of excessive well siltation, difficulties with surfacevapor treatment, and higher than expected operating and mainte-nance costs. The pump-and-treat and reinjection system uses sub-mersible pumps to extract contaminated ground water from the lowerportion of the well for treatment at the surface and then returns thetreated water to the upper portion of the well, thereby establishinga vertical ground water circulation cell. The system consisted of twomultilevel pumping and reinjection wells and a water treatment sys-tem and was installed at the leading edge of a plume containing lowconcentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons (Plume Area 1). Thestudy was conducted using two clustered VCT wells and 21 multi-level monitoring wells to assess the effectiveness of the system tech-nology for removing dissolved chlorinated hydrocarbons from thesaturated zone and to estimate the radius of influence for use in thefull-scale design. By the end of the study, chlorinated hydrocarbonconcentrations had significantly decreased in the two operatingwells, as well as in downgradient and upgradient wells. Actualobserved data and preliminary modeling results indicate that thepump-and-treat and reinjection system was effective in remediat-ing a significant portion of the low-concentration chlorinated hydro-carbon plume.

IntroductionA pilot test was performed to evaluate the applicability

and effectiveness of NoVOCs™ technology for containmentand treatment of contaminated ground water at the leadingedge of Plume Area 1 in the northwest corner of Marine CorpsAir Station (MCAS) Yuma. The NoVOCs™ technology con-sists of in-well air stripping to remove volatile organic com-pounds (VOCs) from ground water. The technology relies onan in-well airlift pumping action to develop a vertical circu-lation cell of ground water around the well and simultane-ously facilitate the transfer of contaminants from the dis-solved phase to the vapor phase. The contaminated vaporsare then drawn off for above ground treatment.

The system operated approximately 50 percent of the timeduring the 6-month test period. This low efficiency was theresult of the following problems during operation:• Difficulties with the surface vapor treatment system,

including blower failure, frequent carbon change-outs, andhigh carbon dioxide (CO2) consumption

• Siltation of wells that could not be redeveloped due to welldesign

• Higher than expected operation and maintenance costs.Based on the results of the NoVOCs™ pilot test (NPT), a

conceptual design for a pump-and-treat and reinjection reme-dial system (vertical circulation treatment [VCT] system)was developed and a pilot test was subsequently conducted(OHM Remediation Services Corp. [OHM], 1998). The VCT

1

Senior Project Hydrogeologist Technical Lead, IT Group (OHM Remediation Services Corp.), 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 200, Irvine,California 92612.2Senior Project Manager, IT Group (OHM Remediation Services Corp.), 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92612.

3Senior Project Engineer, IT Group (OHM Remediation Services Corp.), 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92612.

4

Remedial Project Manager, NAVFACENGCOM SWDIV, 1220 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92132-5187.5Remedial Technical Manager, NAVFACENGCOM SWDIV, 1220 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92132-5187.

6

IR Program Manager, MCAS Yuma Environmental Department, Building 228, Yuma, Arizona 85369-9110.

Integrated Pump-and-Treat andReinjection System for Cleanup of

Dissolved Chlorinated HydrocarbonsMarine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Yuma, Arizona

Noori Alavi, Ph.D, R.G., CPG-079391, Bill Breedlove, P.E.

2, Mark Thomas

3,

Michael Gonzales4, Michael Pound

5, and Larry Leake

6


approach uses the vertical circulation concept, yet overcomesthe deficiencies of the NoVOCs™ design, with the followingadvantages:• The construction schedule was shortened by using a con-

ventional design.• Well installation cost savings were realized as a result of

the less complicated design.• Well maintenance was eliminated or significantly reduced

by filtering suspended solids from the extracted groundwater during treatment. In addition, if removal of silt froma VCT well is required, the in-well mechanical componentscan be easily removed and the well can be redeveloped.

• Operation and maintenance were simplified by elimina-tion of vapor treatment and associated problems.

• Added flexibility, reduced costs, and fewer uncertaintieswere realized by using “off-the-shelf” components ratherthan proprietary design or equipment.

• Surface treatment of ground water allowed reliable anddirect measurement of performance indicators and, thus,allowed accurate quantification of system effectiveness.This paper describes the design, implementation, and

effectiveness of an integrated remediation system using pump-and-treat and reinjection of treated water to the upperpart of the unconfined aquifer.

Background Information

MCAS Yuma is an active air station that occupies approx-imately 3,000 acres of land near the southeast corner of Yuma,Arizona. As a result of chlorinated solvents detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells in the formerMarine Wings Weapon Unit, now the Combat AircraftLoading Apron area, MCAS Yuma was added to the NationalPriorities List (NPL) in February 1990. A remedial investi-gation (RI) was conducted at the station and identified sixareas (Area 1 through 6) where ground water was impactedwith fuel-related and/or chlorinated solvent contaminants(Fig. 1). Plume Area 1 is the largest chlorinated hydrocarbonplume identified at MCAS Yuma (Fig. 1). The selected rem-edy for the plume included containment of potential off-baseplume migration at the station boundary and reduction ofthe contaminant mass in the “hot spot” area to decrease theoverall remediation time frame (Jacobs Engineering Group,Inc., 1997).

This paper focuses on the results of a 10-month VCT pilottest (June 1998 through April 1999) conducted in theNorthwest Station area of MCAS Yuma (Fig. 1). For the pilotstudy, two VCT wells and 21 associated multilevel monitor-ing wells were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the reme-dial technique. Figure 2 shows the site plan and VCT/moni-toring well locations used during the pilot treatability test.

Site Geology/Hydrogeology andDistribution of Contaminants

Subsurface soil in the Northwest Station area is relative-ly homogeneous and is primarily composed of fine to veryfine sand (SP) partly associated with silty sand (SM). Coarse,gravelly sand and sandy gravels were encountered at a depthof 180 ft below ground surface (Fig. 3).

Depth to ground water in the Northwest Station area is61 to 63 ft below ground surface. Ground water surface ele-

vations measured in July 1999 indicated that the potentio-metric surface elevation is approximately 131 ft above meansea level (msl). The ground water flow direction is predomi-nantly to the northwest, and the hydraulic gradient is rela-tively flat at 0.0003 foot per foot (ft/ft).

Aquifer pumping tests were conducted in three areas atMCAS Yuma to calculate hydraulic properties of the aquifer,such as transmissivity, storativity, and hydraulic conductiv-ity values. The three areas tested included Area 1 (upgradi-ent and downgradient). Average hydraulic conductivities ofthe aquifer in the vicinity of Area 1 range from 111 ft perday (ft/day) in the downgradient/Northwest Station area to114 ft/day in the upgradient/Building 230 area.

Ground water contamination at the Northwest Stationextends from approximately 80 to 200 ft below ground sur-face and consists of low concentrations of trichloroethene(TCE) and dichloroethene (DCE), with traces of tetra-chloroethene (PCE). Cross-sections A-A′ and B-B′ (Fig. 3)show the distribution of 1,1-DCE, TCE, and PCE in theimpacted water-bearing zone in June 1998, prior to VCT wellsystem operation.

System DescriptionThe pump-and-treat and reinjection remedial system was

designed to develop vertical ground-water circulation cellsby extracting contaminated ground water from the lower por-tion of the VCT wells using submersible pumps, treating theground water at the surface, and then returning the treatedwater to the upper portion of the VCT wells. Ground-water-extraction and return flow rates were balanced to developand maintain vertical circulation at each well by continu-ously drawing contaminated ground water into the wellthrough the lower screen and then returning the treatedground water at approximately the same flow rate to the topof the water table through the upper screen of the same well(Fig. 4). The return water line was terminated just below thewell cap, allowing the water to flow down the casing via grav-ity (not under pressure). Water levels in the VCT wells weremonitored to ensure that water did not rise higher thanapproximately 40 ft below ground surface (approximately 20ft above static ground-water level). The pilot-scale systemused one shallow well (105 ft) and one deep well (145 ft), withthe objective of treating the vertical extent of contaminatedground water from approximately 80 to 160 ft below groundsurface.

Contaminants are removed from the ground water usingliquid-phase granular activated carbon (GAC), with in-linebag prefilters (to remove sediment). An equalization tank,variable speed pumps, control valves, and instrumentationare used to control and monitor ground-water flow rates. Thethree main components of the VCT system are VCT wells,water treatment system, and monitoring/piezometer wells.The pilot-scale system was operated for approximately10 months, from June 1998 through April 1999.

Construction ActivitiesThe pilot study employed two clustered VCT wells (VCT-

01 and VCT-02) and 21 multilevel monitoring wells. BothVCT wells had two screened intervals: a lower screen in theimpacted water zone, and an upper screen at the groundwater surface. The lower screen sections in wells VCT-01 andVCT-02 were installed at 90 to 100 and 130 to 140 ft below






ground surface, respectively, to address the vertical extentof contamination from approximately 80 to 160 ft belowground surface. The upper screened zone in each well extend-ed from 40 to 70 ft below ground surface.

An equipment compound approximately 450 ft north ofthe VCT wells contained the components of the water treat-ment system. An equalization tank, variable speed pumps,control valves, and instrumentation were subsequentlyinstalled in the VCT wells and the equipment compound area.

System Start-UpSystem start-up began after instrument calibration,

troubleshooting, and preoperation aquifer testing were com-pleted. Step drawdown, constant discharge, injection, andcombined injection-extraction tests were performed in theVCT well area from June 1 through 15, 1998. Aquifer testswere conducted to evaluate a range of flow rates, obtainbaseline data on the hydraulic characteristics of the aquiferin the vicinity of the VCT wells, and define the operatingwindow of the system prior to continuous operation.

Based on the results of the preoperation aquifer testing,an initial flow rate of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) per well(20 gpm total) was used for continuous operation beginningJune 5, 1998.

System OperationThe objective of system operation was to maintain bal-

anced ground water extraction and return flow rates to estab-lish optimum conditions for the development of vertical cir-culation cells around each VCT well. The circulation cellsdraw water from the wells through the lower screen whilethe treated water enters the circulation cell at the groundwater surface through the upper screen (Fig. 4). Both VCTwells were initially operated at the same low flow rate ofapproximately 10 gpm. Based on monitoring results, the flowrates were increased and/or decreased during the pilot testto maximize the horizontal radius and vertical radius of influ-ence without adversely affecting the horizontal and verticalground water gradient components. Each VCT well was oper-ated at a different flow rate to achieve optimum results. Flowrates ranged from 10 to 40 gpm per well (20 to 80 gpm total)based on the performance curves for the submersible pumps.Table 1 summarizes VCT activities from June 1998 throughApril 1999 (OHM Remediation Services Corp., 1999a).

Performance MonitoringThe performance monitoring program was the key to opti-

mizing system operation for maximum effectiveness and pro-vided the database for evaluation of the pilot test.Performance monitoring activities were organized into thefollowing categories: ground water conditions, ground wateranalytical results, and contaminant-mass removal.

Ground water Conditions

Ground water levels were initially measured at least twiceeach week to monitor the effects of system operation onground water elevation and gradient. Measurement fre-quency was decreased based on the stability of these param-eters. Depth to ground water in the pilot study area is gen-erally 61 to 63 ft below ground surface, and the ground-waterflow direction is to the north and northwest, with a relativelyflat gradient (0.0003 ft/ft). No significant change occurred in

ground water elevation during the pilot test (OHMRemediation Services Corp., 1999a).

Ground Water Analytical Results

Ground water samples were analyzed for aromatic andchlorinated hydrocarbons in accordance with U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ContractLaboratory Program/volatile organic analysis (CLP/VOA). Inaddition, selected ground water samples collected duringbaseline ground water sampling (June 1998) and at the timeof system operation (November 1998) were analyzed for totalalkalinity by EPA Method 310.1; total organic carbon (TOC)by EPA Method 415.1; nitrite/nitrate-N, chloride, and sulfateby EPA Method 300.0; and dissolved gases (methane, ethane,and ethene) by EPA Robert S. Kerr Standard OperatingProcedure (RSKSOP) 175 Modified.

Analytical results for ground water samples from moni-toring wells in the leading edge of Plume Area 1 are the keyindicators of the effectiveness of the VCT system. Reducedconcentrations of TCE and DCE should be observed withinthe radius of influence indicated by the ground water eleva-tion data. The analytical results indicated the following:• Within the first three months of system operation, TCE

and DCE concentrations were significantly reduced inVCT-01 and in monitoring wells with screen intervalsbetween 85 and 100 ft below ground surface.

• Subsequent to system reconfiguration (extraction fromVCT-02 and injection into VCT-01, with average 40-gpmpumping and injection rate), decreases in TCE and DCEconcentrations were observed (below maximum contami-nant levels [MCLs]) in the deeper zone (130 to 140 ft belowground surface) at VCT-02, as well as in the three moni-toring wells screened from 130 to 140 ft.Figure 3 shows cross-sections through the Northwest

Station area, with distributions of DCE and TCE in groundwater samples from monitoring wells during the VCT pilotstudy (OHM Remediation Services Corp., 1999a). The cross-sections also show the area of the ground-water plume thatwas remediated to below aquifer water-quality standards(established by the Arizona Department of EnvironmentalQuality [ADEQ]) during the 10-month VCT pilot test andillustrate that VCT can be an effective method for cleanupof the chlorinated hydrocarbon-impacted ground-waterplume in the Northwest Station area.

Selected ground water samples collected during baselineground water sampling in March through June 1998 (pre-start-up of VCT system) and in November 1998 (VCTsystem operation) were analyzed for general chemistryparameters. The results were fairly consistent with previousground water quality data from other studies in the vicini-ty of the Northwest Station area (OHM Remediation ServicesCorp., 1999b); therefore, it appears that no significant changeoccurred in ground water chemistry during the pilot study.

Contaminant Mass Removal

The total mass of TCE and DCE removed from the extract-ed ground water during treatment is another indicator ofsystem performance. Mass removed is calculated using thesum of the TCE and DCE analytical results for water sam-ples collected weekly from the equalization tank multipliedby the total gallons treated that week. Table 2 lists weekly




results and cumulative totals. The total mass of TCE andDCE removed during June 1998 through April 1999 was 1.38lbs. The total volume of ground water extracted, treated, andreinjected was approximately 15.5 million gallons.

Summary and DiscussionA pump-and-treat and reinjection remedial system (VCT

system) was installed at the Northwest Station boundary ofMCAS Yuma. The pilot scale of the system was an alterna-tive approach to vertical recirculation technology used dur-ing a 6-month NoVOCs™ pilot test.

The VCT system consisted of two multilevel pumping andreinjection wells and a water treatment system to containand treat ground water containing low concentrations of dis-solved chlorinated hydrocarbons. The system was installedat the leading edge of Plume Area 1 in the northwest cornerof MCAS Yuma (property boundary).

The system operated effectively and continuously at designflow rates, with very little downtime and no significant oper-ational problems. Weekly ground water measurements indi-cated that no significant change occurred in ground waterelevation during the pilot test.

Samples collected during the first 4 months of operationindicated nondetectable concentrations of TCE and DCE inVCT-01 (screened 90 to 100 ft below ground surface) and non-detectable or reduced concentrations in five similarlyscreened monitoring wells at distances ranging 10 to 70 ftfrom the VCT wells.

On December 2, 1998, the system was reconfigured forreinjection of treated water to the lower screen interval ofVCT-01 to target cleanup of a deeper zone of the aquifer.Subsequent to system reconfiguration in December 1998,decreases in TCE and DCE concentrations were observed(below MCLs) in the deeper zone (130 to 140 ft below groundsurface) at VCT-02, as well as in three associated 130- to 140-foot screened monitoring wells.

Performance data collected during system operation wereused to calculate the mass of TCE and DCE removed by thepump-and-treat and reinjection system. The total volume ofground water treated was approximately 15.5 million gal-lons as of April 27, 1999, and the total mass removed was

1.38 pounds over 10 months of operation. A preliminarynumerical ground water flow and contaminant transportmodel was prepared based on the pilot test results for theVCT system. Actual observed data and preliminary model-ing results indicate that the VCT system was effective intreating ground water at the Northwest Station and reme-diating a significant portion of the leading edge of PlumeArea 1 at the property boundary of MCAS Yuma.

ReferencesJacobs Engineering Group, Inc., 1997, Draft Record of

Decision, 15 December.

OHM Remediation Services Corp., 1998, ImplementationMemorandum VCT System, Vertical CirculationTreatment Pilot Study, MCAS Yuma, 10 June.

OHM Remediation Services Corp., 1999a, VerticalCirculation Treatment Pilot Study Report, Marine CorpsAir Station Yuma, Arizona, 23 December.

OHM Remediation Services Corp., 1999b, Semi-AnnualGroundwater Monitoring Report, Second Semi-Annual1998, Ground water Monitoring CERCLA Program Areas1, 2, 3, and 6, MCAS Yuma, Arizona, 25 May.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the U.S. Department of

the Navy, Southwest Division Naval Facilities EngineeringCommand, for the opportunity to publish the data containedin this paper. We greatly appreciate Doug O’Hallaron andPete Everds, both former OHM Remediation Service Corp.associates, for providing input and comments throughout pre-liminary conceptual design and preparation of the imple-mentation memorandum. Thanks are also extended to theOHM field team (Chris Kost and Darrell Rhines) for con-struction and optimization of the VCT system during thepilot test and to Jaci Cuddy for technical editing.

AIPG Associate Editor Reviewers: Solomon A. Isiorho,CPG-07788; Robert C. Minning, CPG-02565; and Douglas J.Perisutti, CPG-10055.

KEEP US UPDATEDAIPG Members: please be sure to notify

AIPG headquarters when you change youraddress, including your e-mail address. Checkyour address as posted in the annual directoryor on the AIPG website <www.aipg.org>.National as well as the Sections rely on thisinformation to keep you updated on currentevents. The AIPG National headquarterssupplies the Sections with labels and e-maillistings, so contact AIPG headquarters withyour changes at (303) 412-6205 or e-mail:<[email protected]>.

BYLAWS AMENDEDIn an attempt to encourage lapsed CPG’s to rejoin AIPG, the Executive

Committee has modified the Bylaws. Please note the changes as shownbelow.

2.6.7 Reinstatement of Resigned or Terminated Members or AdjunctsAny person who has ceased to be a Member or Adjunct by resigna-

tion or termination “without prejudice” shall be eligible for reinstatementwithin five years upon written request by updating his or her profession-al experience and other Member or Adjunct records and paying currentyear Institute and Section dues. The Executive Committee may conditionsuch reinstatement on the payment of a reasonable reinstatement fee.Former Members or Adjuncts who have resigned or have been termi-nated for more than five calendar years may be readmitted by reappli-cation, or at the discretion of the Executive Committee. Any Member orAdjunct who has been terminated “with prejudice” may be readmitted onlybe reapplication.


A strange thing is happening in Washington, D.C. thesedays. Roads are disappearing ... on paper! Old wagon roads,now dirt roads, considered by back country travelers for cen-turies to be the main thoroughfare from point to point any-where in the western states, are being redefined as a "non-roads" or "ways," apparently in order to reclassify the sur-rounding land as "roadless" and therefore, eligible forWilderness Study consideration. The Clinton-Gore adminis-tration is proposing closure of 400,000 mi of back countryroads on 60,000,000 acres on national forest lands. Are theseroadways "roads" or not? The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)published official maps for more than 80 years before the1964 Wilderness Act. In 1964, five classes of roads weredefined by the USGS . Their definition of a road in 1964 waswhat Congress intended when the Act used the terms "road"and "roadless."

The five classes are: • Class 1: primary highway, federal and state,• Class 2: secondary highway, state and county,• Class 3: light duty, paved or improved,• Class 4: unimproved, unsurfaced, including track roads

in back country, designated on maps by two paralleldashed lines, and

• Class 5: trails (single dashed line), roads passable onlywith a 4-wheel drive vehicle; also called Jeep trails.

Today, for every mile of primary, secondary, and light dutyroadway in the west, there are 50 to 100 mi of unimproved,track (Class 4) roads. This type of road is commonly a prim-itive road, frequently of just two tracks, but it is the princi-ple type of road to most of the back country. Thousands ofmiles of Class 4 and 5 roads, once wagon roads, exist in thewest and still see daily auto traffic.

However, these "Back Country Freeways" are losing theircenturies-old status in the name of wilderness protection.According to the 1964 Wilderness Act (PL88-577), no landcan be designated a Wilderness Area unless it is "roadless."The Wilderness provision of the Federal Land Policy &Management Act (PL94-579) specified a Wilderness Area tobe 5,000 acres or more and stipulated that it be "roadless,"meaning that no "roads" could be contained within a 5,000-acre parcel, or it could not be considered for Wilderness. TheWilderness Act was passed to isolate a few mountain topsand a few million acres as "untrammeled, undeveloped,primeval federal land having no permanent improvements."Why have these roads be hidden or ignored? How has thisbeen accomplished?

In the 1970's, pro-wilderness bureaucrats and their radi-cal environmental allies redefined the term "road" on feder-al lands to mean only those" graded or maintained by mechan-ical equipment on a regular basis." This conveniently madeadditional millions of acres filled with existing Class 4 roads,presently utilized by recreationists, miners, and rancherssusceptible to consideration for Wilderness withdrawal. Thismakes Class 3 roads the most primitive of remaining autoroutes. The unimproved dirt roads and jeep trails are definedinto oblivion. In effect, they have been "wiped off" the leg-islative map. Since these roads technicality do not exist, theland is now available for Wilderness designation.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) executedthe new definition and arbitrarily redefined the word "road"carrying out the delusion that a road is not a road. The BLMstated that "within these inventoried areas there are fre-quently a number of ways and trails which no longer quali-fy as roads, although they are used as routes of travel." Thisdescription sounds very much like they are referring to USGSClass 4 and 5 roads. The BLM also said: "A way maintainedsolely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road."The Clinton-Gore administration has ordered the U.S. ForestService (USFS) to apply a similar standard to roads in theNational Forest System threatening to "manufacture"60,000,000 more acres of roadless wilderness.

Their definition has several problems. If a road is of suchnatural integrity that periodic grading is not necessary, canit be eliminated as a road by some planner just because ithas not required mechanical maintenance?

The BLM and USFS interpretations concerning back coun-try roads are inaccurate and self-serving. Millions of acresof the western United States have been taken from multipleuse and public access by the simple dirty trick of changingthe meaning of a word. Class 4 and 5 roads are human devel-opments, they are permanent improvements. Therefore, theland containing them cannot and should not be consideredas Wilderness under the 5,000-acre roadless requirement.Apparently, a road is not a road if a government agency seesit as a candidate for roadless Wilderness. It all depends onwhat the meaning of the word "road" is.

For related information see the following websites:• http://www.rs2477roads.com• http://www.sovereigntyinternational.org• http://www.alra.org

Don Fife can be contacted at [email protected]

Instant Wilderness:When a Road is not a Road

By Don Fife, CPG-04735, and Ralph Pray, National Association of Mining Districts


Proposed AIPG Position Statement on Wetlands—Draft 4(October 10, 2000)

Wetlands are an important natural resource with geological, ecologicaland economic benefits. Wetlands improve water quality by filtering harmfulpollutants from ground water and surface water; they are an important spawn-ing and nursery habitat for fish and other wildlife; they provide recreationalopportunities including hunting, fishing, bird watching, and nature photogra-phy; and they provide effective natural flood control.

The formation and location of wetlands are due to geologic factors includ-ing underlying soil type, topography, geomorphology, and hydrology.Throughout geologic time (measured in millions of years) wetlands haveformed, migrated, and disappeared as a result of natural processes. In recentyears, artificial wetlands have been constructed to treat water either fromremediation systems used to clean up environmentally contaminated sites,or as a component of waste-water treatment systems, or to restore a hydro-logic regime.

Geologic understanding is essential to the accurate assessment and eval-uation of existing wetlands and to the effective design and construction ofartificial wetlands. Therefore, the American Institute of Professional Geologists(AIPG) believes that qualified geologists with the appropriate training andexperience must be included in an interdisciplinary approach to drafting leg-islation, regulations, or policies regarding the definition, conservation, or con-struction of wetlands, as well as the actual investigation, design, and con-struction of wetlands.

DRAFT AIPG Position on National Energy Policy(January 20, 2001)

AIPG encourages the U.S. Government to develop a comprehensivenational energy policy and strategies to achieve that policy. The crux of thepolicy should be to maintain an adequate supply of affordable energy deliv-ered in an environmentally responsible way. The U.S. economy relies on theavailability of electricity, heat, and transportation fuels. Our standard of livingrequires vast quantities of energy resources needed to power our computersand light our buildings, to heat our homes, and to run our vehicles, trains,ships, and airplanes. Our current energy consumption requires significantquantities of domestic and foreign geological resources - oil and gas, coal,and uranium. Hydroelectric power from dams and geothermal, wind, and solarpower are locally significant. All the options for energy production have asso-ciated environmental and economic concerns and tradeoffs that should befactored into a comprehensive national energy policy. Decreased consump-tion through conservation and increased efficiency are laudable goals, par-ticularly with an increasing U.S. population, but energy availability will con-tinue to be a major factor in U.S. environmental, economic, and military poli-cies. Geologists contribute to exploration for energy resources; production;environmental protection of ground water and other resources during pro-duction; safety of facilities from earthquakes, floods, and other natural haz-ards; waste disposal; and reclamation of land disturbed during production. Acomprehensive national energy policy should incorporate the knowledge ofgeologists about the domestic and international resource base, environmen-tal concerns, and hazards.

DRAFT AIPG Position on Access to Public Lands(January 20, 2001)

AIPG supports access to public lands, both onshore and offshore, for theenvironmentally responsible development of energy and mineral resources.The vast extent of public lands, managed by federal and state agencies, con-

tains discovered and undiscovered resources that are vital to maintaining andimproving Americans' standard of living and economic security. Existing fed-eral and state laws and regulations assure protection of water, air, biological,and cultural resources such that exploration for and development of energyand mineral resources can be undertaken with little or no long-term environ-mental impact. Lack of access to the extensive public lands severely restrictsdevelopment of domestic energy and mineral resources. As well as havingadverse effects on the domestic economy and employment, encouragingimports of oil, metals, and other resources has the irresponsible effect ofexporting environmental impacts related to development of these resources.As a major consumer of energy and mineral resources, the U.S. should be aworld leader in environmentally responsible development of its own resources.

DRAFT AIPG Position on Domestic Mineral Resources(January 20, 2001)

AIPG encourages the U.S. and state governments to facilitate the devel-opment of domestic mineral resources in environmentally responsible man-ners. The U.S. is a major consumer of metals, construction raw materials, fer-tilizers, industrial chemicals, and other mined materials. These commoditiesare essential to modern society and our quality of life. Existing state and fed-eral laws protect the environment during exploration, development, and clo-sure of mining operations. Other laws prohibit mineral-resource developmenton environmentally sensitive land. However, if these commodities are not mineddomestically, U.S. demand will be met by mines in other countries. Many ofthese countries do not have environmental protection laws and regulatory pro-grams that are as strong as those in the U.S.; unnecessary environmentaldegradation takes place in these countries. As global population increases andpeople throughout the world strive for higher standards of living, demand formineral resources will increase. Recycling should accommodate someincreased demand, but it will likely be able to supply only a small percentageof total needs for mined materials. Geologists contribute to exploration for andproduction of mineral resources, ground water and air-quality protection, recla-mation, and long-term environmental monitoring after closure. State and fed-eral regulators and land managers should use geological expertise to facili-tate the permitting process for mineral-resource development.

DRAFT AIPG Position on Aggregate Resources andLand-Use Planning(January 20, 2001)

AIPG encourages all levels of government to consider the availability ofaggregate resources in land-use planning. Aggregate resources (sand, grav-el, and crushed rock needed for construction of buildings and roads) are minedin every state and in or near almost every community. Tradeoffs exist betweenthe desire to have quarries out of sight and the economic, environmental, andsafety costs of trucking rock long distances from quarries to construction sites.The development of new subdivisions typically eliminates the possibility ofmining the underlying aggregate resources. Zoning that precludes quarriescan force the mining of more distant and costly resources. Because approx-imately half of the aggregate mined is used for roads and other governmentconstruction projects, taxpayers pay considerably more than they would oth-erwise need to pay when aggregate resources need to be trucked long dis-tances. Geologists have expertise that is relevant to land-use planning andthe development of aggregate resources, including knowledge of where thebest resources are, ground water protection, air-quality concerns, and recla-mation after mining. AIPG encourages the use of this geological knowledgein land-use planning and land management.

PROPOSED AIPG POSITION STATEMENTSPublished for comment by the Members

The following positions were adopted by the Executive Committee subject to publication in TPG for comment by the membership and possible furtheramendment before final adoption. They are subject to review by AIPG’s lawyer as well. Members are invited to address their comments, via mail, fax, ore-mail, to the Executive Committee, AIPG Headquarters, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, CO 80031 (Fax: 303-412-6219, e-mail:[email protected]). Comments must be received prior to April 16, 2001.


A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F P R O F E S S I O N A L G E O L O G I S T S

NATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMPurpose

To assist students with college education costs and to promote student participation in the American Institute ofProfessional Geologists (AIPG). Four scholarships will be awarded to declared undergraduate geological sciencesmajors who are at least sophomores. Details for applying for these scholarships are provided below.

Scholarship AwardsScholarship awards in the amount of $1,000.00 each will be made to eligible students attending a college or

university in the U.S. Scholarships are intended to be used to support tuition and/or room and board.

Eligibility RequirementsAny student who is majoring in geology (or earth science), is at least a sophomore, and is attending a four-year

accredited college or university in the U.S. can apply. Also, the student must be either a student member of AIPG ormust have applied for student membership at the time the application for the scholarship is submitted.

Each student who is awarded a scholarship agrees, by accepting the scholarship, to prepare a 600 to 800 wordarticle for publication in TPG. The subject of the article must be related to a timely professional issue.

Application ProcessApplicants must submit a letter of interest with name, address, and telephone number, proof of enrollment in an

eligible geological sciences program, transcripts, and an original one-page essay on why she or he wants to becomea geologist. The letter and essay should be submitted to the following individual:

American Institute of Professional GeologistsAttn: Education Committee Chr.

8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200Westminster, CO 80031-3681

Questions regarding the application process can be directed to either William Siok or Cathy O’Keefe by telephone(303) 412-6205 or e-mail: <[email protected]>.

Application Deadline and Award DateApplications must be received by August 15, 2001.

Basis of AwardsAwards will be based on the content and creativity of the essays as judged by the Education Committee. The deci-

sions of the Education Committee are final.

MiscellaneousApplication requirements for student membership to AIPG are as follows:1. Student must be currently enrolled in a geological science degree program (as defined by the American Geological

Institute).2. Sponsorship is required via one letter from a geological science faculty member.3. The application fee is $5.00.4. Annual dues are $15.00.

AIPG student membership applications can be obtained from theAmerican Institute of Professional Geologists

8703 Yates, Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, Colorado 80031-3681(Application forms are also available on the AIPG website <www.aipg.org>.)

AIPG SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED FOR 2000

The AIPG Executive Committee is pleased to announce the awardees of the first two AIPG student scholarships.They are Dawn A. Schippe, a junior majoring in Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden,Colorado, and Alison Culver, a senior major in Geology at Centenary College of Louisiana in Shreveport, Louisiana.AIPG, through the Executive Committee, is proud to be able to assist aspiring geologists in pursuit of their degrees.We wish for their successful careers in an honorable and worthwhile profession.

2001 Executive Committee


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMN

What’s It All About?

William J. Siok, CPG-04773

Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment

Elsewhere in this issue you will finda cut-out ballot designed to assess youropinion regarding the manner in whichAIPG’s certification program should beapplied to future geologists seeking theCPG credential. Take the time to reviewit and send it back. Tom Fails, Chairmanof the Task Force which developed thecontinuing professional developmentproposal presented to you last year, hasgone to great lengths to clarify itsintent, which is to apply the continuingeducation requirement only to thoseapplicants who are awarded the CPGsubsequent to the effective date of thatrequirement. All who hold the CPGprior to the effective date will not berequired to comply with the continuingeducation requirement. (Of course, wewill all be encouraged to do so).

What IS AIPG All About?

This is not a new question. It’s con-tinually being asked by members andprospective members. It was also theessence of a planning session begun bythe 2001 Executive Committee duringits January meeting. At the AnnualMeeting last October 2001 President BobFakundiny introduced the idea of takinga fresh look at AIPG. The process hasbeen initiated by the ExecutiveCommittee and you will receive period-

ic reports in TPG about the progressbeing made. Make a point, too, of read-ing the article in this issue on page 31,by the AIPG Long Range PlanningCommittee. Right now I would like toreport to you that the consensus of theExecutive Committee is that AIPG mustbe more visible as the primary advocatefor the entire profession. Of course,there’s much more to this than simplybeing “visible”. AIPG will be the leaderin advocacy, promoting high ethicalstandards, and in supporting geologistsin professional development.

But there’s also another element tothe question’s answer. And that is thecollegiality and friendship which is anatural outgrowth of AIPG’s volunteersworking together for the benefit of theprofession. All professions have organ-izations which solidify the particularinterests of the respective group, butAIPG has a special impact upon itsmembers. Because AIPG is focusedupon things professional as opposed totechnical, we members deal with insti-tutional and personal issues which inturn affect our individual professionalcareers and personal lives.

Our ability to earn a living as practi-tioners is significantly affected byevents in our personal lives. And ofcourse, the same holds true for theimpact of those personal events upon theability of our active members to contin-ue their critical volunteer efforts onbehalf of AIPG. I have been amazed bythe amount of time, energy, and dedica-tion expended by recent AIPGPresidents. (During my less than twoyears as Executive Director, I haveserved under three presidents. It’s myopinion that the success of AIPG is meas-ured in direct proportion to the effortsof the sitting President.) Tom Fails eas-ily averaged 20+ hours/week during hispresidency, Dennis Pennington spent asimilar amount of time, and BobFakundiny now does the same. Believeme, these presidents have all con-tributed more to AIPG than the averagemember realizes. I personally have the

highest regard for each and have cometo appreciate each as a friend as well asprofessional colleague.

Each, while president, continued tohave the normal obligations to employ-er, family, and other organizations. Andyet they were (and are) able to followthrough on a commitment made whenthey accepted the responsibility of run-ning for office. When 2000 PresidentDennis Pennington was temporarilysidelined, 2001 President BobFakundiny acted in his stead and missednot a beat in continuing the initiativesbegun by Dennis as well as using theopportunity to begin implementing hisown plan for the current year. There issomething particularly satisfying aboutan organization in which the governingboard is able to act in concert, withoutmajor disruption from one administra-tion to another, to effectively conduct theimportant business of AIPG.

But the side of AIPG governancerarely appreciated by most of us is thepersonal sacrifice of the entire elected,appointed, and volunteer leadership.Many of these members continue tosupport this organization even in theface of personal hardship, even tragedy.I had never seen this side of AIPG untilbecoming Executive Director. My per-sonal thanks and gratitude to them all.

The other side of the AIPG coin is themoral and sometime material supportavailable from one member to another.AIPG is certainly not a perfect organi-zation. It is, after all, made up of indi-viduals from every region of the coun-try (and the world) and is thereforereflective of society at large in regardto differing perspectives. However, thecamaraderie engendered among AIPGactivists extends beyond the profes-sional workaday considerations andinto the realm of personal support whencircumstances require. This isn’t to sug-gest that the same camaraderie doesn’texist in other associations, but that thisis a regular aspect of professional com-portment within AIPG.


In his continuing effort to assess the issue of high natu-ral gas prices, Senate Energy and Natural ResourceCommittee Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) con-ducted an unusual lame-duck hearing in mid-December. Inhis opening comments, the Chairman noted natural-gas spotprices were escalating to nearly four times higher than theprevious year and that demand for the energy source hadbeen grossly underestimated. However, it appears the hear-ing had the much broader purpose of setting the stage forthe development of a new GOP energy package to be intro-duced in the next session. Evidence of this was apparent inMurkowski’s listing of a number of provisions he intends toinclude during the 107th Congress. The most significantitems mentioned were increased access to natural gasdeposits on federal lands, accelerated permitting for pipelineprojects, and extension of the Alaskan Gas Pipeline projectto the North Slope.

Earlier LegislationThe suggested provisions noted above reflect similar stip-

ulations contained in S. 2557, the National Energy SecurityAct of 2000, introduced during the 106th Congress. This ear-lier effort included the creation of a heating oil reserve forthe northeastern United States; research on improving theefficiency of coal burning power plants; accelerating the re-licensing process for hydroelectric and nuclear power facili-ties; tax incentives to encourage marginal well preservation;and affording tax credits to producers of power from renew-able energy sources. But the most contentious item was theplan to open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) tooil exploration and development. This issue has long been apriority of the petroleum industry and the Alaskan congres-sional delegation, and an element of George W. Bush’s cam-paign strategy, but strongly opposed by environmentalistswho fear exploration in ANWR’s ecologically sensitive coastalplain. Supporters of development contend modern drillingtechniques would minimize environmental damage, and flowin the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System requires additional oilas the Prudhoe Bay deposits are depleted.

The HearingHeld exactly one year after the release of the National

Petroleum Council report on natural gas demand, theDecember 12th hearing provided senators a chance to dis-cuss short- and long-term actions that federal and state gov-ernments can take. The witness list consisted of a represen-

tative from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) -a neutral body within the Department of Energy designedto perform statistical analysis - and representatives fromprofessional organizations: the American Gas Association,the National Association of State Energy Officials, and theNatural Gas Supply Association.

The EIA representative explained that the current tightnatural gas market, especially in the Northeast, is the resultof a range of factors: relatively flat domestic gas productionfor the past several years, expectation of a colder winter thatwould result in greater demand, below normal gas storagelevels, and tight supply conditions in alternative fuel mar-kets. The natural gas market is not expected to recover quick-ly from these problems, in part, because the future growthin natural gas demand is expected to rise sharply as newnatural gas generators are added to the national electricitygrid. Combined, these factors mean that the long-term nat-ural gas market is going to remain in the headlines.

Murkowski and others noted that the domestic naturalgas resources could meet this demand, but current federalregulations limit the accessibility and marketability of theseresources. Members agreed that one long-term action with-in congressional oversight was access to federal lands forresource development - as well as the actions suggested inthe National Energy Security Act of 2000. The representa-tive from the National Association of State Energy Officialssuggested a short-term solution to the price spike was toincrease funding for the Low Income Home EnergyAssistance Program.

ConclusionThe experience last year in the northeast where heating

oil shortages caused prices to soar is likely to be revisitedthis year. High energy prices could also affect the economy,which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan believescould bring on an economic slump. There is obviouslyincreased congressional interest in natural-gas supply anddemand. These as well as other factors indicate that energypolicy considerations are on the rise. It, therefore, appearsenergy will be high on the congressional agenda for the 107thsession, and a subject for the incoming Administration toaddress.

This column is a bimonthly feature written by JohnDragonetti, CPG-02779, who is Senior Advisor to theAmerican Geological Institute’s Government AffairsProgram.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING GEOLOGY

Senate Energy Committee Addresses Increasesin Natural Gas Prices

Submitted by John J. Dragonetti, CPG-02779


AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MONTHLY REVIEW

Monthly review prepared by Margaret Baker and David Applegate, MEM-0002,AGI Government Affairs Program

DECEMBER 2000

• Bush-Cheney Cabinet Appointments in High Gear• 106th Congress Finishes Last of Spending Bills, Goes

Home• Senate Holds Hearing on Natural Gas Market• Evolution Questioned in Pennsylvania Science

Standards• New Mexico’s Tent Rocks Considered for National

Monument• Senators Work to Increase Funding for DOE Science• USGS and FEMA Join Forces to Reduce Natural

Hazard Losses• Schedule of Upcoming GAP Activities• New Material on Web Site

Bush-Cheney Cabinet Appointments inHigh Gear

With the appropriations process complete and the presi-dential election officially over, the transition to a Bush-Cheney administration has moved to center stage. One of thefirst appointments was City College of New York geologymajor (and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)Colin Powell as Secretary of State. Of particular interest tothe geosciences, former Colorado Attorney General GaleNorton has been nominated to head the Department of theInterior, which includes the U.S. Geological Survey. Nortonpreviously worked at Interior as associate solicitor duringthe Reagan administration under James Watt. Other geo-science-related Cabinet appointments include New JerseyGovernor Christine Todd Whitman to head the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency and defeated SenatorSpencer Abraham (R-MI) as Secretary of Energy. PresidentBush has yet to name his science advisor. A geoscientist isreported to be under consideration for NASA Administrator.Former senator, Apollo astronaut, and Ph.D. geologistHarrison “Jack” Schmitt is a top contender to replace DanGoldin, who was originally appointed by the president-elect’sfather in 1992.

Other positions important to the geosciences, such as theDirector of the National Science Foundation, have fixed termsand will not change with the new administration. Althoughnot given a fixed term, the USGS Director by tradition doesnot change with new administrations, and leading geoscien-tists are working to see that this tradition is maintained. Formore on the transition process and how to get involved, seehttp://www.agiweb.org/gap/transition.html.

106th Congress Finishes Last of Spending BillsAn AGI special update on December 22nd reported on the

completion of five remaining fiscal year (FY) 2001 appropri-ations bills. The bills were signed by President Clinton on

December 26th, nearly three months after the start of thenew fiscal year. One of the biggest winners in the final billswas the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). Core funding for NOAA programs totaled $2.6 bil-lion, a 4.2 percent decrease from the budget request but a13 percent increase from last year’s allocation. Similar tothe Land and Water Conservation Fund money that helpedboost funding for the USGS, H.R.4577 provides NOAA withan additional $420 million in a new account for coastal andocean activities. When these additional funds are includ-ed in the NOAA allocation, the agency received a total of$3.1 billion, an increase of close to 15 percent over thebudget request and close to 35 percent over last year’sfunding level. The special update is at http://www.agi-web.org/gap/legis106/final2001approps.html. More informa-tion about all the FY 2001 spending bills can be found athttp://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/appropsfy2001.html.

Senate Holds Hearing on Natural Gas Market

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committeeheld an unusual lame-duck session hearing on December12th to discuss the current price spikes in natural gas andhome-heating oil. Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-AK) com-mented on the need in the 107th Congress to look at theentire energy portfolio—economics, national security, envi-ronment, federal and state regulations, and consumption.In response to a colleague’s bombast, Murkowski stated thatthe next Congress will need to work in a bipartisan mannerand that it is the Senate’s obligation to get the energy pol-icy straight. Witnesses included representatives from theEnergy Information Administration, the NationalAssociation of State Energy Officials, the Natural GasSupply Association, and the American Gas Association. Asummary of the hearing is available at http://www.agi-web.org/gap/legis106/oil_price_hearing.html.

Evolution Questioned inPennsylvania Science Standards

Scientists in Pennsylvania have raised an alarm aboutthat state’s proposed science education standards, whichcall for teaching alternative theories to evolution.Pennsylvania’s current standards are some of the best inthe country, and an early version of the revised standards—which mandate the teaching of evolution—was widelypraised by science educators. But the state Board ofEducation made a number of changes in July, requiring thatstudents “analyze ... studies that support or do not supportthe theory of evolution” and requiring teachers to presenttheories that “do and do not support the theory of evolu-tion.” The state legislature must approve the new standards,and hearings are expected in February. According to aDecember 3rd article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, one statesenator who supported the revised standards linked evo-lution to Marxism and Communism.


New Mexico’s Tent Rocks Considered forNational Monument

Geoscientists in New Mexico have been actively support-ing a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposal to givenational monument status to Tent Rocks—a site in north-cen-tral New Mexico where million-year-old pumice and tuffdeposits have been intricately sculpted by erosion. The areais currently designated as a BLM Area of CriticalEnvironmental Concern. Unlike a number of recent nationalmonument designations, this proposal has strong supportfrom nearby local governments and Native American tribes,as well as the New Mexico congressional delegation.Commissioners in the three surrounding counties have signedresolutions requesting the designation. More on the site athttp://www.nm.blm.gov/www/aufo/tent_rocks/tent_rocks.html. Although former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt touredthe area in mid-December, no designation has been made.

A unique sandstone formation in Montana known asPompeys Pillar was one of several new national monumentsBabbitt did propose on December 22nd. Also proposed was a149-mile, free-flowing stretch of the Missouri River inMontana. Both sites are associated with the 1803 Lewis andClark Expedition. Another proposed monument wouldinclude a segment of the San Andreas fault along California’sCarrizo Plain.

Senators Work to Increase Funding forDOE Science

Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Frank Murkowski(R-AK) have started a movement to gather support in theSenate to increase funding for the Office of Science at theDepartment of Energy. The Office of Science hosts the Officeof Basic Energy Science, http://www.sc.doe.gov/produc-tion/bes/bes.html, which received $1 billion this fiscal year,including approximately $25 million for geoscienceresearch. Joined by 22 colleagues, Bingaman andMurkowski sent a letter to the White House highlightingthe importance of the research at the Office of Science tothe physical sciences. According to the American Instituteof Physics, efforts are underway for scientists to write theDirector of the Office of Management and Budget in orderto help bolster the program’s funding for FY 2002. More athttp://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2000/fyi00.142.htm.

USGS and FEMA Join Forces to ReduceNatural Hazard Losses

The USGS and the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) announced on December 13th that the twoagencies will partner as part of FEMA’s Project Impact, acommunity-based pre-disaster mitigation program. ProjectImpact began as a pilot program in 1997 with seven com-munities. Today there are more than 200 Project Impactcommunities in nearly every state. According to the pressrelease, the agencies will promote improved disaster recov-ery and mitigation in areas around the nation by applying“science to better understand and prepare for the naturalevents that cause natural disasters.” More athttp://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/mitigation.html.

Schedule of Upcoming GAP Activities

• March 23-24, AGI Associates Conference, Denver CO

• May 1-2, SET Congressional Visits Day, Washington DC

New Material on Web Site

The following updates and reports were added to theGovernment Affairs portion of AGI’s web site http://www.agi-web.org since the last monthly update:• Special Update: Last Call for 106th Congress: NOAA Bill

Completed (12-22-00)

• FY 2001 Appropriations: Commerce, Judiciary & State(12-21-00)

• AGI Guide to the Presidential Transition (12-20-00)

• Congressional Energy Policy: Response to Rising Oil Prices(12-18-00)

• Summary of Hearings on Rising Oil Prices and EnergyPolicy (12-18-00)

• Natural Hazards Mitigation and Insurance Update(12-18-00)

• Outer Continental Shelf Royalties and CARA Update(12-18-00)

• Science Education Policy Update (12-18-00)

• Climate Change Policy Update (12-5-00)

• Update on Federal Ocean and Coastal Zone Policy(12-4-00)

• AGI/AIPG Intern Articles in the November 2000 issue ofThe Professional Geologist

– Total Maximum Daily Loads: Sink or Swim?

– The Outer Continental Shelf: Awash in a Sea ofControversy

– Washington Responds to High Energy Prices

• Congress Revisits the Asbestos Issue(reprinted from the 11/00 TPG)

• Interior Releases Fossil Report(reprinted from the 10/00 TPG)

• Congress Contemplates Yucca Mountain Once Again(reprinted from the 7/00 TPG)

Sources: American Institute of Physics Bulletin of SciencePolicy News, FEMA, MMS, National Center for ScienceEducation, NOAA, Philadelphia Inquirer, Senate Energy andNatural Resource Committee, USBudget.com, USGS,Washington Post, and White House.

This monthly review goes out to members of the AGIGovernment Affairs Program (GAP) Advisory Committee, theleadership of AGI’s member societies, and other interestedgeoscientists as part of a continuing effort to improve com-munications between GAP and the geoscience communitythat it serves. Prior updates can be found on the AGI website under “Government Affairs” <http://www.agiweb.org>.For additional information on specific policy issues, pleasevisit the web site or contact us at <[email protected]> or (703)379-2480, ext. 212.


PROFESSIONAL ETHICS & PRACTICES - COLUMN 62

Compiled by David M. Abbott, Jr., CPG-04570, Ethics Committee Chairman, 2266 Forest Street,Denver, CO 80207-3831, 303-394-0321, fax 303-394-0543, [email protected]

Environmental EthicsFred L. Fox, CPG-01273, wrote “You certainly afforded

Odin Christensen a world of ink [Column 59, Nov ‘00]. Andhe sure does use a lot of words.

“If you are working for an employer who operates uneth-ically, your course is simple. You leave and make absolutelycertain that he knows why. You certainly don’t blow the whis-tle on him to the feds (or whatever agency is in charge ofenvironmental enforcement). If you are going to blow thatwhistle, you tell your former employer that’s what you haveto do, and get ready for the phantoms of hell to descend onyou. Be prepared for a lawsuit, and make sure you’ve got itright. This, my friend, takes all the integrity you’ve got. Butif you believe that a world of hurt will befall the public, that’swhat you’ve got to do. If, on the other hand, the problem isviolation of some regulation, you have to examine the regu-lation and determine that it’s a good one (there are tons ofregulations that, frankly, stink, and only exist for regula-tion’s sake).

“I’ve said before that most codes of ethics have it back-wards, mentioning the public first. Wrong. They should startwith the individual (thereby stressing integrity), proceedthrough the profession, employer, and finally the public. Andthey can be short and simple. I’ve sent AIPG a model that’sbeen soundly ignored, but shouldn’t be. Ethics can only bepracticed by a living thing, which includes only the individ-ual the (true) community, and humanity itself. Groups can’tdo ethics, because groups are not living things. They existonly to get something done. You can disagree with this, butI can demonstrate it (and have).”

Fox’s comments on blowing the whistle are worth repeat-ing. If you do blow the whistle, be public about it and be ready“for the phantoms of hell” and “make sure you’ve got it right.”Such actions are what integrity is all about (see Column 37,Dec ‘98).

Does Using Out-of-date MethodologyConstitute Malpractice?

Steven P. Maslansky, CPG-04431, wrote, “As a follow-upto our conversations at GSA, I would like some guidance onthe difference (if any) between incompetence, sloppy work,and unethical behavior. A few months ago I did a pro bonoreview for friends of a hydrogeologic evaluation in support ofa proposed (and very controversial) sub-division applicationfor a state-required assured quantity permit. The evaluationwas conducted by a state-licensed individual on behalf of thedevelopers. I considered the evaluation flawed. The aquiferanalysis utilized old methodology. Although the work mighthave been accepted 10 or 15 years ago, it was not up to today’sstandards. I found the major conclusion to be incorrect. Thereport was ultimately rejected by the state, and the develop-er brought in another consultant who did a credible job uti-lizing state-of-the-art techniques. I do not believe that the

first consultant lied about his findings, nor do I believe thatbudget constraints were a concern. I do feel he was sloppyand maybe out-of-touch with the science. I am also botheredthat his actions might constitute some degree of malpractice.

“Does utilizing out-of-date methodology constitute mal-practice? Is it unethical? If a geologist is unaware of newmethodologies is that incompetence? How many years canwe be out-of-date and still remain professional?

“Food for thought...your guidance and input from the mem-bership would be appreciated..”

Maslansky’s question recognizes that the type of workrequired to meet professional accepted levels can change overtime; some techniques change with time, others do not. Weare ethically required to keep up (AIPG Code of EthicsStandard 5.5). Maslansky asks, “What should be done in caseswhere there is a demonstrable failure to use currently accept-ed methods?” I’m just as curious to learn your views.

Maslansky’s methodological changes involved pump-testanalysis. Bill Siok, CPG-04773, informs me that pump-testdata used to be plotted by hand on graph paper and the resultwas then compared with a suite of standard curves to arriveat an interpretation. Current practice involves analysis ofthe measured data in one of several commonly used com-puter programs.

I’m not a hydrologist, but the process sounds similar todecline curve analysis in the petroleum industry. For years,production has been plotted against time on semi-log paper.An in most cases, particularly after the first six months orso, such semi-log plots tend to fall on a straight line indi-cating that decline was exponential, or a relatively fixed per-centage per unit of time (see Fig. 2 in Column 56, July ‘00).I’ve even heard a petroleum engineering professor mathe-matically prove that exponential decline should occur, if onemade certain assumptions, starting with assuming a homo-geneous, isotropic layer with infinite X and Y dimensions. Itmay work out mathematically, but it’s geological BS. Nowthere are programs that perform a variety of decline-curvefitting analyses that generate very pretty plots of predictedfuture production and cash flows. Geostatistical ore-reserveestimation provides similar examples.

Computers can do many things that were previously notpossible. The speed with which my computer can calculateand plot a histogram for 47,000 assays amazes me. But arecomputed analyses necessarily better than hand-derivedones? Perry Rahn, CPG-03724, addressed this issue in hisarticle, “Proof, Validity, and Some Legal Advice,” in theNovember 2000 TPG.

I’d also like to contribute a different example of failure tokeep up in order to generate discussion. Professional reportsare generally no longer generated by hand and then typedby a secretary. Common computers include word processing,spreadsheet, and presentation software that have radicallychanged how and by whom reports are created and also thetime required for converting drafts to final copy. While the


final report may look no different if the first draft is handwritten, there is the question of who should pay for secre-tarial time required to convert the initial hand-written draftinto electronic text? Those who are comfortable with com-puters create the electronic text from the beginning. Shouldthe individual who has failed to keep up with current formsof report creation pay for his or her own clerical support? Orshould the client pay? Where does one draw the line? (Thesequestions presume time and expense billing rather than fixedcost bids, but even with fixed cost bids, should a firm pay thetechnologically challenged the same (or more) than those whoare not?)

AIPG’s Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment Proposal

(column 59, Nov ‘00, and 56 & 57)

This issue of TPG contains three items relating to AIPG’scontinuing professional development program (CPD): a bal-lot proposal on p. 3, Tom Fails’ article on pages 8-9, andRobert Colpitt’s article, on pages 5-7. The CPD proposalrepresents a potentially significant change for AIPG. TheAIPG Code of Ethics, Standard 5.1, states, “Members shouldstrive to improve their professional knowledge and skills.” Ifadopted, the CPD proposal would make explicit the amountsof CPD that would be required of those participating in theprogram. Please read the related articles in this issue of TPG,and refer to the back issues of this column and referencestherein for further information (if you can’t find your backissues, you can download them from AIPG’s web site). Mostimportant, submit your ballot on this important pro-posal.

Faculty Sleeping with Students

The Doonsberry comic strip recently raised an interestingsituation regarding the question, “Is it ever okay for a fac-ulty member to sleep with a student?” In the strip in ques-tion, a student is asked to take over the teaching assistantduties for an injured TA. One of the new TA’s friends pointsout that the new TA’s girlfriend is in the class and askswhether this represents a conflict of interest. The new TAreplies that he had checked with the Dean and the situationwas grandfathered.

Jonathon G. Price, CPG-07814, generated a list of pos-sible exceptions to the general rule that faculty should notsleep with students as a survey questionnaire (“Ethical GrayAreas in University,” column 50, Jan ‘00).

1Although not on

Price’s list, the most obvious exception to the general rule iswhen the student and faculty member are married. GaryTrudeau’s Doonsberry situation is only slightly removed fromthe marriage exception. In the Doonsberry case, the person-al relationship exists prior to the faculty-student relation-ship. While I expect that the rules covering such situationsvary from university to university, I would be interested incomments on this issue.

Australasian Institute of Mining andMetallurgy Ethics Case

Robert McLennan, AusIMM Ethics Committee Chairman,reported in the November/December 2000 issue of theAusIMM Bulletin, “At a meeting of the Ethics Committee on22nd June 2000, the Committee made determinations inrespect of an ethics complaint against Mr. Robert M.McLennan, FAusIMM from Sydney, NSW. The complaintarose out of events in 1996 and subsequent dealings sur-rounding Mr. McLennans association with a syndicate whichwas proposing to float a company (unsuccessfully, as eventsproved) based on some Philippines exploration properties.

“The Committee found that Mr. McLennan had breachedthe Code of Ethics in relation to the following three allega-tions.1. “That he held on to documents, which were supplied to

him for use in a professional assignment and that he didnot return them when requested after the assignmentwas aborted. Mr. McLennan stated that he kept them asa lien over amounts owing to him but this position wasnot supported by the facts presented in a matter decid-ed by the Local Court of NSW.

2. “That he disclosed confidential information to other com-panies without the authorization of his client and alsoshowed some of those documents mentioned above tothird parties. It was noted that this allegation was sup-ported by evidence Mr. McLennan gave to the LocalCourt.

3. “That there was a conflict of interest in that Mr.McLennan failed to advise either of two clients that hewas working for each of them at the same time and thatbe appeared to have the intention to charge them bothfor the same piece of work.

“The Committee reviewed the documentation and sub-missions put before it, including those presented personallyby Mr. McLennan and his solicitor, Mr. Ian Mitchell, andfound that he had breached the Code of Ethics based on thefollowing principles:

“If a member of The Institute uses or discloses confiden-tial information provided by a client then he would havebreached clauses 2 and 5 of the Code. Refusal to return mate-rial provided by a client solely for use in a professional assign-ment may also constitute a breach of clause 5 of the Code.Conflict of interest may give rise to a breach of clause 5 ofthe Code.

“The Ethics Committee determined that Mr. McLennanbe suspended as a Member of The AusIMM for six monthsand that this suspension commence on 6th August 2000. Mr.McLennan was advised that details of this sanction wouldbe published in The AusIMM Bulletin no sooner than 65 daysafter 1st August, including his name and the sanction applied.

“The time in which an appeal against this determinationshould be lodged has now expired.”

The foregoing is reprinted because similar actions wouldalso violate the AIPG Ethics Code. The sanctions imposed inthis case are interesting as well. I would appreciate yourcomments on the appropriateness of 6-months suspension ofmembership for the violations described.

1. Price informs me that he needs a lot more responses to hisquestionnaire before he believes he will have a statisticallyvalid sample. If any readers would like to help collectingdata, contact Price.


AEG •• AIPG •• 2001ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTSGeology: Central to Society’s Needs

JOINT ANNUAL MEETING - 44th AEG ll 38th AIPGSt. Louis, Missouri—Hyatt Regency Union Station Hotel

“Gateway to the West”September 30-October 7, 2001

CALL FOR TECHNICAL PAPERS AND EXHIBITORS

Come and enjoy all that the St. Louis Area has to offer!AEGllAIPGll2001 features short courses, field trips, technical sessions, symposia, and fun stuff!

Abstract submittals due May 1, 2001E-mail preferred: [email protected]

Or submit your abstract on AEG’s Web Page: www.aegweb.org, Annual MeetingOr mail with disk to:

AEGlAIPGl2001 c/o Julie Keaton130 Yucca Drive

Sedona, AZ 86336-3222(520) 204-1553 • Fax: (520) 204-5597

Technical Program TopicsEngineering & Environmental Geophysical Case Histories

Environmental Practice in EPA Regions V & VIIGeologic Solutions to Transportation Concerns:

Highways & Waterways Groundwater RemediationKarst Remediation

Midwest Geologic Hazards: Recognition & Risk ManagementNew Madrid Seismic Threat

Case Histories in Engineering GeologyTransportation Engineering Geology

Groundwater InvestigationsCoastal and River Engineering GeologyEnvironmental Investigation & Clean-Up

(Abstract must not exceed 250 words and must include author’s full name, company name, and company address belowthe title of the paper. We prefer that authors use Microsoft Word. Please include your daytime telephone number.

See sample abstract submission form on AEG’s Web Page: www.aegweb.org)

Committee ChairsGeneral Co-Chair (AEG): Larry Rosen, [email protected] Chair (AIPG): John Howard, [email protected]: Greg Hempen, [email protected] Development: John Bognar, [email protected]: Paul Santi, [email protected] Courses: Karl Finke, [email protected]’s Workshop: Martha Kopper, [email protected] Financial: C. Dale Elifrits, [email protected]/Guest Affairs: Kerry L. Nikolaisen, [email protected] Coordination/Logistics: Jeff Cawfield, [email protected] Trips: Duane Kreuger, [email protected]: James H. Williams, [email protected] & Meetings Manager: Julie C. Keaton, [email protected]


The first AIPG National Executive Committee(ExCom) meeting of 2001 was held on January 20 at AIPGHeadquarters in Westminster, Colorado. The meeting waswell designed to cover the business of ongoing AIPG activi-ty, the urgent issues, and addressing the first steps of thePresident Fakundiny's agenda for the year. The ExCom meet-ing was held during a hiatus of a two-day brainstorming/plan-ning meeting initiating development of AIPG's Long-RangePlan.

The ExCom meeting called to order by PresidentFakundiny was attended by President-Elect Cerrillo, VicePresident Corbett, Secretary Lawless, Treasurer Kumar,Editor McLemore and Advisory Board RepresentativesBuchanan, Clem, Rohlfs, and Sadoff. AIPG Headquarters wasrepresented by Executive Director Siok, PublicationsManager Davidson, and Membership Services ManagerO'Keefe. Observers and visitors included Task Force forContinuing Professional Development Chairman Tom Failsand Ethics Committee Chairman Dave Abbott.

Secretary Lawless reported that membership was down113 to a total of 4,846 members at the end of 2000. The ExComapproved an amendment to the Bylaws (2.6.7) that effec-tively provides an easier method for a member who hasresigned five or more years ago to be reinstated.

The proposed 2001 operating budget was presented andapproved. Treasurer Kumar and Executive Director Siokreported AIPG enjoys good financial standing. Members mayrecall in recent years, AIPG used year-end receipts from duesincome for the following year to make it through the year.That trend has now reversed with net assets ending FY 1999and FY 2000. AIPG Headquarters has done an excellent jobof developing a proposed operating budget for each fiscal yearbased on projected revenues and then staying within thatbudget. On alternating years AIPG's financial statement isaudited. The ExCom approved a proposal from a reputableaccounting firm to execute the audit of the FY 2000 finan-cial statement.

Editor McLemore reported there will be two combinedissues of TPG in 2001, the January/February andAugust/September issues. This is partly due to the lack ofarticles for publication but also combining issues can createsavings of approximately $5,000. This year the MemberDirectory will be available on the AIPG web site while hardcopy will only be issued to the Members who pre-purchaseda copy with payment of annual dues. Other cost saversinclude in-house printing of items such as the WashingtonFly-In brochure and the Honors and Awards book. The Editorrequests articles for TPG and welcomes comments frommembers.

During the course of the committee reports, several keyactions were taken by the ExCom. The language was

approved for a poll of CPGs to solicit opinions regarding theproposed Continuing Professional Development (CPD)requirement for maintenance of Certification of new CPGs.The poll will be published in the March 2001 TPG. The resultswill be used to guide the ExCom in decision making. A CPDrequirement is a much-needed element to increase the valueof AIPG Certification. Increasing value and worth are keygoals in the AIPG Long-Range Plan. It could help solve prob-lems of declining membership and revenues and couldincrease AIPG's influence in the profession and society. Isthe CPD program proposed by the Task Force for ContinuingProfessional Development the program for AIPG? Responsesfrom the Certified Members are needed to guide the ExComin answering that question.

Another notable action was a move by the ExCom to pub-lish four draft position statements in TPG to solicit mem-bership comments in anticipation of future ExCom action.The four draft position subjects are on:

• National Energy Policy• Access to Public Lands• Domestic Mineral Resources• Aggregate Resources and Land-Use Planning

These draft position statements were presented by a groupof AIPG Past Presidents. The topics are current and politi-cally charged issues of the Nation. AIPG's positions on theseissues can benefit society if government bodies are aware ofour positions and can be convinced that input from the geo-logic profession is essential for government to make sound,well informed decisions. The draft position statements arepublished in this issue of TPG for members to review andcomment. Participants in the AIPG Washington Fly-In 2001intend to use the draft position statements when communi-cating with policy and rule makers.

The legislation reauthorizing the National EarthquakeHazards Reduction Program recently passed by Congressdirects the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to establish a 10-member "Scientific Earthquake Studies AdvisoryCommittee" to advise the Director of the USGS on mattersrelating its participation in the above mentioned program.Charles G. Groat, the USGS Director, asked AIPG to recom-mend four individuals to serve on this advisory committee.AIPG members submitted some names and the ExCom unan-imously recommended the following individuals for theUSGS to consider:

• Jonathan G. Price, CPG-07814, Nevada• Robert H. Fakundiny, CPG-04977, New York• Mimi R. Garstang, CPG-10185, Missouri• Robert. R. Jordan, CPG-01262, Delaware

The next ExCom Meeting will be held on May 6, 2001 inWashington, DC, just prior to the AIPG Washington Fly-Inevent for 2001. In the interim, ExCom members will be busyconducting business by correspondence.

SUMMARY OF THE JANUARY 2001AIPG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

Robert Mathew Rohlfs, CPG-09999, Advisory Board Representative


The new millennium is upon us and your 2001Executive Committee has recognized the dynamics of changetaking place in our society and industry in the 21st century,and realizes that these dynamics affect our association. AIPGneeds to reevaluate its relevance to its membership and thegeologic profession. On January 19-20, 2001, an ad hoc LongRange Planning Committee, established during the 2000Annual Meeting, met at AIPG Headquarters, Westminster,Colorado to undertake the development of draft Vision andMission Statements for the association. In addition, fourareas of AIPG's functions were identified as priority for imme-diate attention: 1) direct services to membership, 2) devel-opment of revenue, 3) marketing within our association andwithin the entire geologic community, and 4) advocacy of thegeologic profession. Other functions of our association, includ-ing 5) certification, 6) establishing and promoting ethicalstandards of conduct, 7) monitoring the success of our pro-fession, and 8) liaison to other organizations, also requirefuture attention and improvement. This process takesimmense effort and time.

We implore the membership to help the Long RangePlanning Committee undertake this process by criticizing

and advising us on this important work as we go forward.Our start of draft Vision and Mission Statements for the asso-ciation requires input, review, revision, and evaluation by allmembers of AIPG. The future of our profession, representedby the Vision Statement, and how we achieve that vision,represented by the Mission Statement, defines who we are,how we function, and how the world views us. These areextremely important concepts that require response from allof our members. What are your priorities? What else do weneed to include?

Please send your comments to AIPG Headquarters ormembers of the executive committee as soon as possible,because we would like to finalize the Vision and MissionStatements by the annual meeting 2001. We also require vol-unteers for committees that will establish goals, timelines,and budgets to expand and improve the functions of our asso-ciation. This is an exciting time in the improvement, devel-opment, and expansion of our association and we want all ofthe members to be a part of it. So comment, criticize, and vol-unteer. Remember, AIPG is not just certification, it is alsoprofessional development! Thank you 2001 Long RangePlanning Committee for your help!

Cathy O’Keefe, Duke Clem, andDavid Lipson

Michael Lawless, Virginia McLemore, Robert Corbett,William Siok, and Robert Fakundiny

Lawrence Cerrillo andM.B. Kumar

DRAFT VISION STATEMENT

Geologists will value the AmericanInstitute of Professional Geologist(AIPG) as the preferred Association thatprovides leadership, support, andopportunities for career developmentand professional success of its members.

January 20, 2001

DRAFT MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the American Institute ofProfessional Geologists (AIPG) is to be thesuperior advocate for geology andgeologists, to promote high standards ofethical conduct, and to support geologists intheir continuing professional development.

January 20, 2001

AIPG’S LONG RANGE PLAN

AIPG 2001 Long Range Planning Committee


PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIRECTORY

This service is open to AIPG Members as well as non-mem-bers. The Professional Services Directory is a 12-monthlisting offering experience and expertise in all phases ofgeology. Prepayment required. Advertising rates are basedon a 3 3/8” x 1 3/4” space.

12-MONTH LISTING FOR ONLY:AIPG Member $200.00Non-member $300.00

Space can be increased vertically bydoubling or tripling the size and also the rate.

Robert G. Font, Ph.D.CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST

Petroleum; Data ManagementGeohazards; Courses & Seminars

(CDs available)

P. O. Box 864424, Plano, TX 75086

English/Spanish/French

Ph./Fax (972) 516-4725 • Pager: (972) 585-5234e-mail: [email protected]

Dennis Pennington, P.G.President

National Environmental Technologies CorporationP.O. Box 204 • 2840 West Clymer Avenue • Telford, PA 18969

Tel: (215) 723-9300 • Fax: (215) 723-9344Internet: www.enter.net/~netc

OFFICES IN PITTSBURGH, PA AND HURRICANE, WVGround Water & Environmental Consulting Services

David M. Abbott, Jr.Consulting Geologist, AIPG CPG-4570

evaluating natural resources, disclosures about them,reserve estimates, and geological ethics & practices

2266 Forest Street PH.: (303) 394-0321Denver, CO 80207-3831 Fax: (303) 394-0543

[email protected]

• Geotechnical Engineering • Wetlands Studies• Soils Laboratory • Permeability Tests

7378 COCKRILL BEND BLVD. • NASHVILLE, TN 37209(615) 350-8124 • FAX (615) 350-8149E-MAIL: [email protected]

LARRY R. RHODES, P.G.President

Mailing Address:P.O. Box 24080Lexington, KY 40524

Ph: 859-887-5700FAX: 859-887-5703

Bluegrass Industr ial Park115 Eisenhower Court

Nicholasvil le, KY 40356e-mail: [email protected]

PLACE YOUR BUSINESS CARD HERE

AIPG Member Price - $200Non-Member Price - $300

Call (303) 412-6205


Hurst & Associates, Inc.9 Faculty Court ~ Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-2934

(805) 492-7764 Ph ~ (805) 241-7149 [email protected]

Richard W. Hurst, Ph.D.President

Organic & Inorganic Geochemistry ~ Age-Dating of Releases

Litigation Support ~ Statistics ~ Contaminant Fingerprinting


Full Service Environmental Consulting and Contracting

Roger Breeden, CPG, REPSenior Project Manager/Geologist

• RCRA, CERCLA • Geotechnical-Drilling/Engineering Service• Phase I, Phase II - Site Investigation • Construction Equipment, Land Development• Phase III-CAP’s, Remediation Design • Demolition• Hydrogeological Studies • Hazardous Waste Management• Regulatory/Industrial Compliance • UST Installation and Removal• Federal & State Permitting • Karst Studies• Expert Testimony • CDD Landfill Management/Ownership

*Recognized National Accounts2040 Old Louisville Road • P.O. Box 2590 • Bowling Green, KY 42102(270) 781-4945 • Fax (270) 793-0088 • e-mail: [email protected]

For 24-Hour Environmental Response call 1-800-TPM-4ERT

TOM FAILS, CPG-3174, AAPG CPG-877INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM GEOLOGIST

South Louisiana and European E & P Projects

Basin Analysis Coalbed MethaneExploration Management Salt Dome Problems

4101 East Louisiana Ave., Ste. 412Denver, CO 80246 USA

Ph: (303) 759-9733 Fax: (303) 759-9731E-mail: [email protected]

ELLIS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC.Valuations • Geology • Economics

www.minevaluation.com

TREVOR R. ELLISCertified Minerals Appraiser-AIMA

Certified Professional Geologist-AIPGMineral Economist-MS

600 Gaylord Street • Geology ReportsDenver, Colorado 80206-3717, USA • Market StudiesPhone: 303 399 4361 • Economic EvaluationFax: 303 399 3151 • Property Valuatione-mail: [email protected]

TheErnest K. Lehmann

& Associates Inc. GroupandNorth Central

Mineral Ventures Inc.

Suite 62212 South 6th StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402

USATEL: 612-338-5584FAX: 612-338-5457

World WideGeologic, Mining,

and Mineral EconomicsConsulting Services and

Mineral Project Management

Since 1967



Draper Aden AssociatesBlacksburg, óó Richmond, Virginia

Engineering ó Surveying ó Environmental Services

• Groundwater Assessment and Remediation• Solid Waste Management• Wetlands and Ecological Services

2206 South Main Street • Blacksburg, Virginia 24060

Phone: (540) 552-0444 http://www.daa.com

Fax: (540) 552-0291 [email protected]

SPECIALIZEDENGINEERINGConstruction Quality Control • Environmental ConsultingGeotechnical & Forensic Engineering

• Vibration Monitoring• Geophysical Surveys• Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL)

9607 Dr. Perry Road, Suite 102 - Ijamsville, MD 217541-800-773-3808 [email protected]

HB Management GroupEngineering, Risk Analysis,

Turn-Arounds.(Svetovalec/Inñenior).

Kelvin J. Buchanan, P.E., M.B.A.President

USA575 Forest St., #100P.O. Box 2391Reno, NV 89505-2391Tel: (775) 786-4515Fax: (775) 786-4324E-mail: [email protected]

EUROPEAlpska 8

4248 LesccSlovenia

Tel: 386-64-700-88-54E-mail: [email protected]

AIPGSPONSORSHIP

PROGRAMCONTRIBUTORS

The following individuals and cor-porations have made generous con-tributions to AIPG through ourSponsorship Program for theenhancement of AIPG’s professionalimage and to allow improvements inthe efficiency of service delivery to allMembers.

Thank you for your support:IndividualsFrank W. Harrison, Jr., CPG-02500Dennis I. Pennington, CPG-04401Dawn H. Garcia, CPG-08313Thomas G. Fails, CPG-03174Robert G. Font, CPG-03953Douglas E. Connell, CPG-08014

CorporationsIT Corporation

For further information on theAIPG Sponsorship Program contactAIPG National Headquarters at (303)412-6205.

TPG ARTICLES NEEDEDTPGaccepts articles of modest length for publication. Submittals should be no more

than approximately 1600 words, or six typed pages, double spaced. Longer articles maybe divided into parts (e.g., part 1 and part 2), but this is not encouraged. Articles maybe technical or professional in nature. General topics include: mining, petroleum, hydro-geology, environmental geology, and geophysical/engineering . Articles containing newsof importance to professional geologists will also be considered. Deadline date for sub-missions is the fifteenth of the month two months before date of issue. For example, thedeadline for the November issue is September 15. Articles are reviewed by at least twoassociate editors before they are approved for printing.

Manuscripts should have the following sections: title, author(s) with CPG number andaddress, text, tables if included, figures with captions if included, appendix(es) if includ-ed, acknowledgments, references cited, and a brief biography.

One original and two copies of each manuscript should be submitted. Whenever pos-sible, text should also be submitted on diskette. Headquarters uses WordPerfect 9 forWindows ‘98, which is preferred, but Word, ASCII, RTF, or translatable files are accept-able. Articles can also be transmitted by e-mail.

Graphics should be clear, camera-ready, line drawings whenever possible.Photographs (color or black and white) are also encouraged.

TPGwants color slides and photographs. Slides and photographs alone may be sub-mitted for the cover. They should have a geologic theme and an informational caption.

Authors are encouraged to communicate with Headquarters via mail, fax, or e-mail.Send your article and/or photographs or communicate questions to:

AIPG8703 Yates Dr., #200

Westminster, CO 80031-3681(303) 412-6205 • Fax (303) 412-6219

[email protected] or [email protected]

PLACE YOUR BUSINESS CARD HERE

AIPG Member Price - $200Non-Member Price - $300

Call (303) 412-6205


CALENDAR

ADVERTISERS INDEXAIPG Annual Meeting 2001 B C

AIPG Bookmarker and Decal IFC

AIPG Publications IFC

AIPG Publication and Annual Mtg. IBC

Krueger Enterprises, Inc. 4

Professional Services Directory 32-34

2001Mar. 4-7. Geospectral information &Technology Association Annual ConferenceXXIV, San Diego, CA. Information:<www.gita.org>.

Mar. 4-7. Symposium for the Application ofGeophysics to Engineering andEnvironmental Problems, Double TreeHotel, Denver, CO. By the Environmentaland Engineering Geophysical Society.Contact: Peter Hoekstrr, 631 Range ViewTrail, Golden, CO 80401; e-mail: <[email protected]>, or <www. sageep.com>.

Mar. 11-16. NACE International Corrosion2001, George R. Brown Convention Center,Houston, TX. Contact: NACE MembershipServices, (281) 228-6223, e-mail:[email protected] or <www.nace.org>.

Mar. 17-20. Middle East Oil Show &Conference 2001, Bahrain InternationalExhibition Centre, Overseas ExhibitionServices Ltd.; 11 Manchester Square,London W1M 5AB, 44 (0) 207-862-2000or e-mail: <[email protected]>.

Mar. 19-22. International Symposium onDeformation Measurements, Anaheim, CA;<www.pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/scign/fig/>.

Mar. 20-22. Offshore West Africa 2001,Abuja, Nigeria. Contact: PennWellPetroleum Conferences, 1700 W. Loop S.,#1000, Houston, TX 77027, (713) 963-6236, e-mail: <[email protected]> or<www.owa2001.com>.

May 27-30. St. John’s 2001, GeologicalAssociation of Canada-MineralogicalAssociation of Canada 2001 Joint AnnualMeeting, St. John’s, Newfoundland,Canada. Contact: St. John’s 2001, c/o Dept.of Mines and Energy, St. John’s, NF A1B4J6, Canada; (709) 729-2301.

Jun. 9-13. A Geo-Odyssey, Virginia Tech,Blacksburg, VA. A Geo-Institute conferenceon foundations and ground improvement.Contact: Professor J. Michael Duncan, CEEDept., 200 Patton Hall, Virginia Tech,Blacksburg, VA 24061; (540) 231-5103,e-mail: <[email protected]> or<http://cgpr.ce.vt.edu/geo2001/>.

Jun. 10-15. 5th International Conferenceon Diffuse Pollution, Milwaukee, WI.Contact: <[email protected]>.

Jun. 11-13. 2001 InternationalContainment & Remediation TechnologyConference and Exhibition, Orlando, FL.Contact: Skip Chamberlain, U.S. Dept. ofEnergy, Cloverlead Bldg., EM-53, 19901Germantown Rd., Germantown, MD 20874;(301) 903-7248.

Jun. 19-22. 17th International MiningCongress and Exhibition of Turkey, Ankara,Turkey. Contact: Bahtiyar Unver, Co-Chr.,Organizing Comm., Dept. of MiningEngineering, Hacettepe Univ., BeytepeAnkara, 06532 Turkey; 90-312-297-7696.

Jun. 24-28. A global meeting presented bythe Geological Society of America and theGeological Society of London, EarthSystem Processes, Edinburgh, Scotland.For further details see the web page at<www.geosociety.org/meetings/edinburgh>.

Jul. 7-10. American Rock MechanicsAssociation’s DC Rocks 2001, 38th U.S.Rock Mechanics Symposium, Washington,DC. Contact: John Tinucci, TechnicalProgram Chr., PanTechnica Corp.; (952)937-5879.

Sep. 23-26. The Society of OrganicPetrology (TSOP), 18th Annual Meeting,Geochemistry of the Deep-Water Gulf ofMexico, Houston, TX. Contact: Dr. ColemanRobison, Texaco Group, Inc., E&PTechnology Div., 3901 Briarpark Dr.,

Houston, TX 77042, (713) 432-6828,<[email protected]>, <www.tsop.org>.

Sep. 29-Oct. 5. AEG/AIPG 2001 AnnualMeeting, St. Louis, Missouri. CALL FORSYMPOSIUM TOPICS. If you would like tosuggest a topic and/or chair a symposium,please contact Paul Santi, SymposiaCommittee Chair, at <[email protected]>,(573) 341-4927, or by mail at Dept. ofGeological Engineering, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, 129 McNutt Hall, Rolla, MO 65409.

Send notices of meetings of generalinterest, in format above, to Editor,TPG, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200,Westminster, CO 80031-3681 ore-mail: [email protected].

AIPG ANNUALMEETINGS

AIPG/AEGSept. 29 - Oct. 5, 2001

St. Louis, Missouri

Sept. 22-28, 2002Reno, Nevada

AIPG Membership Totals

As of As of01/27/00 2/01/01

CPG - Active 4,200 4,089CPG - Retired 536 540Cand. for Cert. 50 0Member 36 13Registered Memb. 17 21Associate Memb. 8 8Student Adjunct 94 92Honorary 19 20

TOTALS 4,960 4,839

Moving? — Changing Jobs?...don’t forget to send AIPG your new address!

Name AIPG No.

Address

Address

City/State/Zip

New phone numbers: Office Home

Fax E-mail

Only one change notification is necessary for all AIPG publications.AIPG, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, CO 80031-3681

(303) 412-6205 • fax (303) 412-6219 • [email protected]


NEW APPLICANTS AND NEW MEMBERS - (12/05/00 - 1/31/01)

Applicants for certification must meetAIPG’s standards as set forth in its Bylaws oneducation, experience, competence, and per-sonal integrity. If any Member or board hasany factual information as to any applicant’squalifications in regard to these standards,whether that information might be positive ornegative, please mail that information toHeadquarters within thirty (30) days. Thisinformation will be circulated only so far asnecessary to process and make decisions onthe applications. Negative information regard-ing an applicant’s qualifications must be spe-cific and supportable; persons who provideinformation that leads to an application’s rejec-tion may be called as a witness in any result-ing appeal action.

Applicants for

Certified Professional GeologistCA-Kenneth B. Alexander

384 Bellevue Ave., Oakland CA 94610.Sponsors: David Sadoff, Douglas Frick, PeterMesard.

CA-Jose A. Cercone353 Sacramento St., Ste. 1500, San FransciscoCA 94111. Sponsors: John Bognar, DonaldCarpenter, Mike Godwin.

NY-David W. Lay6723 Towpath Rd., P.O. Box 66, Syracuse NY13214-0066. Sponsors: Robert Patchett,Donald Bussey, George Thomas.

OH-Brian J. MattinglyIT Corp., 11499 Chester Road, Cincinnati OH45246. Sponsors: John Hofer, Eileen Mohr,John McBride.

RI-John T. McGinn74 Chapin Ave., Warwick RI 02889. Sponsors:Margaret Bradley, Ken McDermott, Jon Puliafico.

OH-Bruce A. Savage1950 Cambridge Blvd., Columbus OH 43212.Sponsors: Jim Smith, Kim Stemen, BrucePollard.

OH-Martin L. SchmidtURS Corp., 800 West St. Clair Ave. #500,Cleveland OH 44113-1232. Sponsors: JohnLanigan, Joseph Sontchi, Richard Heimlich,Michael McKim.

NV-John D. Wood67 Spanish Springs Rd., Sparks NV 89434-9402. Sponsors: Clancy Wendt, Bob Barker,Stan Hamilton.

KY-James M. ZimmerRhodes, Inc., P.O. Box 24080, Lexington KY40524. Sponsors: Larry Rhodes, Ronald Yost,C. Douglas R. Graham.

Applicant Upgrading to CPGMI-Matthew A. Stuk

422 East Main St., Pinckney MI 48169.Sponsors: Christopher Peters, Amy Hoeksema,Mike Piddington.

Applicants for Registered MemberGA-Wayne A. Holt

2021 Fairway Crossing Dr., Woodstock GA30188-2349. Sponsors: Paul Lindquist, TylerGass, Dave Randall, Bob Young.

NC-Craig L. Kennedy2001 Pineton Ct., Raleigh NC 27610.Sponsors: James Narkunas, Alvin Chapman.

Applicants for MemberNY-Richard G. Bova

24 Old Orchard Way, Miller Place NY 11764.Sponsors: Steven Colabufo, ChristopherShubert.

MI-Daniel R. Cassidy1702 N. Alexander, Royal Oak MI 48067.Sponsors: Patrick Barrese, Cherly Kehres.

VA-Kelly S. Durst161 Arkwright Rd., Richmond VA 23236.Sponsors: Cullen Sherwood, David Walz.

CA-Mark D. Henkes25824 Chula Vista St., Redlands CA 92373.Sponsors: Osman Taban, Peter Babij, Doug Britten

VA-Michael R. Willinger4732 Cedar Cliff Rd., Chester VA 23831.Sponsors: David Walz, W.C. Sherwood.

New Certified

Professional GeologistsOH-Hudson, Jeanna S. CPG-10541

6292 Oregon Pass, West Chester OH 45069,(513) 755-3700

MI-Burke, Brian F. CPG-10546Soil & Materials Engineering, 2663 EatonRapids Rd., Lansing MI 48911-6310, (517)887-9181

TX-Ebert, Joseph P. CPG-105477511 University View, , San Antonio TX 78249,(210) 671-4844

MI-Lint, Robert J. CPG-10548Envir. Sci. & Engineering, Inc., 7985 MackinawTrail #200A, Cadillac MI 49601, (231) 775-3560

AK-Maserjian, Lisa A. CPG-1054916440 St. James Circle, Anchorage AK 99516,(907) 276-7475

NV-Morris, Alan J. CPG-10550237 S. Ashford Dr., Spring Creek NV 89813,(775) 738-2062

AK-Morris, Holly L. CPG-10551P.O. Box 671085, Chugiak AK 99567, (907)696-6200

TX-Traylor, Robert J. CPG-10552P.O. Box 130255, Houston TX 77219, (512)239-0520

AK-Van Wyck, Nicholas CPG-105533705 Arctic Blvd. #1150, Anchorage AK 99503,(907) 677-2136

MI-Cok, Thomas P. CPG-105546456 Ginger, Pinckney MI 48169, (810) 231-2849

NY-Elmer, Holly E. CPG-1055527 Whipporwill Drive, Queensbury NY 12804,(518) 587-8100

NY-Frederick, William T. CPG-1055668 North Willow St., East Aurora NY 14052,(716) 942-2563

IN-Mallin, Kevin J. CPG-10557Heritage Envir. Svcs., LLC, 7821 W. Morris St.,Indianapolis IN 46231, (317) 486-2776

MI-Prall, William J. Jr. CPG-10559Environmental Solutions, Inc., 1023 BusinessPark Dr., Traverse City MI 49686, (231) 941-2025

New Student AdjunctsOH-Patterson, Wayne E. SA-0177

76 Loretta Ave., Apt. G, Fairborn OH 45324,(934) 775-3385

OH-Braden, Tammy J. SA-01782129 Imperial Rd., W. Carrollton OH 45449

OH-Bolt, Amanda Lee SA-017915 Old Yellow Springs Rd., Apt. L, Fairborn OH45324, (937) 775-3463

NY-Natel, Heidi H. SA-0180220 Estall Rd., Rochester NY 14616

TX-Paul, Troy W. SA-01819399 Wade Blvd., Apt. 12304, Frisco TX 75035,(972) 883-2111

LA-Heller, Eric W. SA-01822817 S. Roth Ave., Apt. C, Gonzales LA 70737

Request for an Application and/or Additional Information

Name

Employer

Street

City State Zip Country

Daytime Phone

E-mail:

Please send:

q Application Packet

q Publications List

q Advertising Rates

Mail, fax, e-mail, or call (forms are available online):AIPG, 8703 Yates Dr., Suite 200, Westminster, CO 80031-3681(303) 412-6205 • fax (303) 412-6219 • e-mail: [email protected]

website: http://www.aipg.org

Documents

MARCH 2001 Volume 38, Number 3 The Professional …96.93.209.186/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2001_TPGMar.pdfThe Professional Geologist(USPS 590-810 and ISSN 0279-0521) is published monthly