Uranium occurs naturally across Arizona

Recent reports of uranium in monitoring wells near the Sierrita copper mine in southern Arizona have raised concerns from some in the public about potential uranium contamination from proposed new mines in the region.

Uranium is a naturally-occurring mineral throughout Arizona, especially in areas underlain by igneous (ie. granitic) rocks, volcanics, and in the north, the Chinle Formation. AZGS released a report in 2002 on "Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Arizona" (Open-file Report 02-13, by Jon Spencer) showing the concentrations found across the state.

Earth fissure disclosure legislation passes

The Arizona House (HB2323) and Senate (SB1338) have now each passed revisions to last year's real estate disclosure bill, including elimination of the erroneous reference to "maps of soils subject to fissures." AZGS supported the change, as soil types are not indicators of fissures and no such maps exist.

The new bill also addresses the misperception that homebuyers were required to buy disclosure reports from private vendors under the old law.

The bill now goes to the Governor for signature. The Senate bill can be found at http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/sb1338s.htm

Some testimony from Congression mining hearing now online

Testimony from the six invited witnesses at Saturday’s Congressional field hearing on the proposed Rosemont copper mine and the 1872 Mining Law, are posted at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=15. The Committee will only be posting the written testimony of the invited witnesses on their website.

Additional testimony may be submitted to the Committee clerk, Holly Wagenet at holly.wagenet@mail.house.gov in Word or Word Perfect format, within 10 business days of the hearing.

When I find out how to see the other testimony voluntarily submitted to the hearing, I’ll share that.

Mining in Arizona – A Tale of Two Counties

The Congressional field hearing in Tucson yesterday on the proposed Rosemont copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains and the 1872 Mining Law, demonstrated two strongly divergent views on mining in Arizona. Arizona is the #1 mining state in the nation for the past two years but now may become a national battleground over the future of mining on public lands.

At yesterday’s hearing, Jamie Sturgis from Augusta Resources, the Canadian owner of the Rosemont property, projected total production over the next 20 years at 500 million pounds of copper (roughly 5% of the total U.S. production), 100 million pounds of molybdenum, and 100 million pounds of silver. He expects the mine to pay $1.8 billion in federal taxes and a large amount in state taxes. It will employ 400 with another 700 indirect jobs expected.

However, in response to the Rosemont proposal and other proposed mines in the area, Pima County which includes Tucson, wants all public lands to be off limits to mining. In a December 11, 2006 memo to Pima County supervisors, County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry wrote that mineral extraction is “without benefit” to the local economy. In fact, Pima County officials see mining as an overall negative on the economy due to environmental impacts, the concern that if commodity prices drop, miners could be laid off and put on public assistance, and the loss of jobs when the deposit is mined out in the classic style of other boom-bust mining cycles in the West. Other critics of the Rosemont mine argue that new jobs will go to outsiders and the locals will be relegated to “a few truck-driving jobs.” Huckleberry noted that while mining contributed 15% to the county’s economy in 1970, today that value is below 1%.

Huckleberry and others made the argument that no mining operation in the county has ever been fully and adequately mitigated, leaving the county and citizens stuck with the consequences, both environmental and economic. He stated that the impacts from the Rosemont mine in all likelihood cannot be mitigated. Pima County sees tourism as a mainstay of its economic and fears that mining will harm its reputation and attractiveness to visitors.

Other top public concerns were listed as water quantity and quality, road safety with increased truck traffic, and the visual impacts.

Contrast that with nearby Graham County, where 90 miles northwest of Tucson, the new Safford copper mine is being welcomed by the community as an economic savior, according to a recent article in the Arizona Daily Star (2-18-07). Copper production from the mine is expected to start in 2008 from what will be the first major new U.S. copper mine in 30 years, according to the Star. Phelps Dodge is making a $550 million investment in the new mine. Safford officials report sales tax revenues already up 30% last year and 23% in recent months as construction of the copper mine moves forward. Businesses report a doubling of sales and numbers of employees. Mine workers will earn an average $40,000, considerably above the county median income of about $30,000.

The Star reported that two years ago the Safford had only one residential building permit issued, while presently there are more than 2,000 residential units being planned or built.

There is grumbling about housing costs going up in Stafford as the present mine work force of 600 increases to 1,000 later this year, and about how hard it is to find workers for local businesses when the mine is paying such high wages. Traffic jams are a problem for the first time in Safford. However, even those complaining see greater benefits to the community from the mine.

So, these two counties are not just 90 miles apart. They are on opposite sides of a fundamental view of the West. For Graham County, mining is seen as the future. For Pima County, it is seen as the past.

AIPG meeting offers snapshot of Arizona geosciences

For the 12^th year in a row, AZGS recently hosted the Arizona Section of the American Institute of Professional Geologists and the AIPG’s national Board of Directors. The program included brief presentations from most of the other geoscience organizations in the state and is becoming a platform to see what is happening across the profession in Arizona and a forum for discussion of partnerships and collaboration among the professional societies.

(AIPG President Kelvin Buchanan , President-elect Dan St. Germain, and Bill Siok, AIPG Executive Director at AZGS)

AIPG is also organizing the 3rd International Professional Geology conference for 2008 to be held in Flagstaff and has a strong local organizing committee working with them.

A few notes from the meeting include:

Mike Geddis, a Board member of the Arizona Hydrologic Society, noted they have hired an association manager to better handle the 340 members in three chapters (Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson) and two annual symposia.

------
Wes Ward, Western Regional Geologist with the USGS, headquartered in Tucson, reported that the draft 10-year plan focuses on

• Energy and minerals
  
• Hazards
• Human health
• Climate change
• National water census

The USGS Minerals program is slated for nearly a 50% budget cut by Congress, from $57M to $27M. [note: Kate Johnson, Program Coordinator for the USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP), provided updated numbers for me. The FY2007 budget for the MRP is $53.2M with the Administration proposing a reduction of $23.3 or about 44%, to $29.9M. In the past, Congress has restored cuts to MRP that were proposed by the Administration but there is no assurance that will happen this year. Kate invites anyone with questions or comments to contact her at 703-648-6110 or kjohnson@usgs.gov. The MRP website is at http://minerals.usgs.gov]

------
Joe Hart, the newly elected State Mining Inspector, talked about the challenges of trying to close up the 10,000+ abandoned mines in Arizona, 89% of which are vertical. The Legislature seems favorable to adding money to his budget to match with industry money to expedite the process. Joe also is considering using prisoners to help fill and reclaim abandoned mines.

-------
Dale Nations, chair of the Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said that Arizona produced 55K barrels of oil last year along with 600 million cubic feet (MMCF) of natural gas from 20 wells.
-------

Dr. Terry West, a professor of civil and environmental engineering from Purdue, and current national president of the Association of Engineering an Environmental Geology (AEG) tag teamed with Jessica Humble, president of the Phoenix chapter of AEG to talk about the rapid growth of the organization. The Phoenix chapter is only two years old with an active speakers program.

Congressional hearing on Rosemont copper mine set for Feb 24 in Tucson

Congress is holding a field hearing in Tucson in Saturday, February 24 (details below), on the proposed Rosemont copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains, south of Tucson. The hearings are coming in apparent response to a letter from Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry, who last month wrote to several members of the Arizona delegation, requesting that all national parks, monuments, and forest lands in the county be withdrawn from mineral exploration and mining activities.

Rep. Raul Grijalva from Tucson, is the newly appointed Chair of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, which is one of two subcommittees that are holding the joint hearing.

In addition to the Rosemont mine, the hearing will examine the 1872 General Mining Law. This second theme is gaining national attention with some speculation that this might be the opening round in a renewed effort to overturn the law.

A large local audience is expected for the hearing, but the inclusion of the 1872 Mining Law issue promises to bring in mining proponents and critics from around the country.

Testimony at the hearing is by invitation only.

For the formal notice of the hearing, go to -
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=15

Hearing

Joint Subcommittee Oversight Field Hearing: Our National Forests at Risk: The 1872 Mining Law and its Impact on the Santa Rita Mountains of Arizona

February 24, 2007

The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, will hold a joint oversight field hearing on “Our National Forests at Risk: The 1872 Mining Law and its Impact on the Santa Rita Mountains of Arizona.” This hearing will examine the proposed Rosemont Mine, adjacent to the Santa Rita Mountains of the Coronado National Forest, and the Augusta Resource Corporation’s request for use of public land in conjunction with its proposed mining operation. It will also focus on the suitability of the 1872 General Mining Law for permitting modern hardrock mines and mill sites.

Subject:
House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
“Our National Forests at Risk: The 1872 Mining Law and its Impact on the Santa Rita Mountains of Arizona”

When:
Saturday, February 24, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.

Where:
Pima County Administration Building
130 West Congress Street
Tucson, AZ

Tales of the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show III – Who’s buying the high-end minerals?

The prices of high-end minerals are reportedly rising 10% a year or more. What’s driving this? Well, our inside expert who I dub “Deep Mine” says that the stratospheric prices of fine art are driving the wealthy to the relatively cheap minerals markets.

Where the top prices for art can easily run into the tens of millions of dollars (and over $100 million for the most sought-ever items), the world’s best mineral specimens command only a fraction of that, perhaps one million dollars.

It’s really only the more exquisite and rarer pieces that are getting the top increases. (above - tourmaline on quartz; asking price $2.4 million)

So, you shouldn’t expect the $20 chunk of amethyst sitting on your bookshelf to finance your retirement or the kid’s college tuition.

The buyers of the top mineral specimens in many cases did not actually show up in Tucson, instead using expert agents to seek out the best of the best and negotiate the deals. One name circulating widely among sellers is that of Bruce Oreck, heir to the vacuum cleaner business and reportedly a major collector.

Minerals are still not widely collected, at least compared to fine art, suggesting that continued appreciation may be expected at least as long as Matisse’s and Rembrandt’s continue to climb.

Tales of the Tucson Gem & Mineral Show II - California gold

Last Wednesday night as vendors set up their booths in the Tucson Convention Center in preparation of the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show's official opening the next morning, a small crowd gathered with anticipation around the Collector’s Edge display. The company had been operating two booths in other shows for the previous two weeks, so what was different that drew this crowd here among the unpacking going on around them?

“Deep Mine,” my guide to the high-rollers in the mineral-collecting world, explained that the owner of Collector’s Edge displays and sells pieces from his own mines, including a gold mine in Mariposa County in California. That night, he brought out five fantastic gold specimens of incredible delicacy, intricacy, and beauty.

Within ten minutes of being put on display, according to Deep Mine, all five pieces sold for about $700,000 each.

Darwin Day film harpoons scientists as well as anti-scientists

Last night, in celebration of Charles Darwin’s 198^th birthday, “Darwin Day” events were held in a couple dozen cities around the county. A screening of the documentary film “Flock of Dodos” brought out an audience of 425 to the Loft Cinema in Tucson. The movie is subtitled, “The evolution-intelligent design circus” and tells principally the story of the fight over teaching science in Kansas public schools and to a lesser extent the similar battle in Dover, PA. The conclusion is that not only are the ID proponents dodos for their flimsy political argument dressed up as pretend science, but that we scientists are also dodos for being incomprehensible, arrogant, and incapable of making a simple case for teaching real science. The movie is funny but devastating to those on both sides of the political controversy.

It was exciting for me to watch it because I was there in Kansas for all of the events portrayed and know the participants well. In fact, two weeks after moving to Kansas in 1999 to become State Geologist, based at the University of Kansas, I was testifying to the Kansas State Board of Education, urging them not to adopt the creationist curriculum standards that subsequently brought such ridicule to the state. During the following five years, I was involved with Kansas Citizens for Science, a group formed in response to the creationist efforts to impose a politically driven religious philosophy in science classrooms, and was a outspoken participant in organizing the scientific boycott of the kangaroo-court trial of evolution staged by the ID’ers on behalf of the School Board in 2005.

Not coincidentally, the recently elected pro-science Board is scheduled to replace the ID drafted science standards later today and replace them with the well regarded real science standards that were derailed when the ID-controlled Board took control in 2005.

Following last night’s screening of the movie, I joined two University of Arizona professors of evolutionary biology on the stage for a panel discussion about what we had just seen. Peter Reinthal is Director of the UA Natural History Museum and a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Joanna Masel, a former Rhodes Scholar, is in the same department and specializes in theoretical or mathematical biologist. The fields she works in tend to involve complex systems whose properties are not immediately obvious from their component parts. This was particularly apropos, as the ID movement is largely based on the premise that some things in nature appear to be so complex that it is impossible to explain them by natural processes. Therefore they can only be explained by the Intelligent Designer (who in most cases, turns out to the personal God of the ID organizers).

The work of Joanna and her colleagues demonstrates that the so-called “irreducible complexities” postulated by ID really can be explained by science and don’t need to rely on supernatural forces. The Intelligent Designer, who is invoked mostly to explain the unknowns in science, keeps shrinking away, as a “god of the gaps,” as science explains more and more of the natural world around us.

Joanna and Peter did a remarkable job explaining these complex concepts and kept the audience engaged until 10:30 pm when the Loft staff shooed everyone out. The audience members asked penetrating questions and demonstrated a passionate concern about the issues. This may be one of the reasons that ID creationism thus far has not been able to get a toehold in Arizona.

Tales of the Tucson Gem & Mineral Show

The official 53^rd annual Tucson Gem and Mineral Show ends today, along with most of the other 49 satellite shows that have been set up around Tucson since late January. You’d be hard pressed to disagree with those who claim it is the largest show in the world.

[tiger eye from Australia at TGMS]

Tucson, a city of 1 million which still embraces a vision of itself as a small town, seemed more like a bustling international street bazaar the past few weeks. There were thousands of vendors here, operating out of tents, hotels, houses, trailers, and warehouses. Gems, minerals, and fossils are on sale from every corner of the world and quite a few from out of this world, including moon rocks and a surprisingly large number and variety of meteoritic materials. The sellers are almost equally diverse.

Buyers are estimated at 50,000-60,000 but that seems conservative. It’s not uncommon to see deals for five or six figures being worked out on the floor of a cramped room at the Days Inn, with a box of the “really good stuff” having been brought out from under the bed or other out of sight storage.

One of my colleagues was here the last 15 days, buying and selling for his personal collection. He considers himself a player at the low end of the high end buyers, which means he deals in the $10,000 specimens and not the $100,000 and above pieces. I’ll call him “Deep Mine.”

Among the stories Deep Mine shared over a glass of wine the other night was of being invited to a spacious home in the Tucson Mountains a few miles west of the city. The sprawling “McMansion,” as he termed it, was rented, fully furnished, for a month by representatives of a mineral collection being sold by a prominent East Coast natural history museum. Only 100 potential buyers were invited to the house last Monday evening to view the exclusive collection, valued at $7-8 million. The dealers flew in a chef from France, who is reportedly also a mineral collector himself, to prepare a special meal for the showing to the group. No word yet if the collection sold or what the price was.

Over the next few days, I will share more stories and observations. Next: California gold

Dangerous mis-information on earth fissures

If you’re buying a home in Arizona, you may be sold a report telling you that there are no earth fissures affecting the property, but that may not be true.

This problem arose in recent months as a result of a confusing line in state legislation passed last year in House Bill 2779. Last year’s law says the Arizona Geological Survey will make available “maps of soils subject to fissures” so that anyone can look at the maps and see if their home or property is at risk. But soils don’t control earth fissures. Fissures form at depths of perhaps hundreds of feet, independent of the type of soil present at the surface. Thus, it is impossible to create maps to show “soils subject to fissures.”

There are companies that offer reports to homebuyers about things around a property that could affect your decision to buy – such as landfills, airports, asbestos, and yes, earth fissures. Some companies, however, appear to find the lack of maps of “soils subject to fissures” as evidence that fissures do not exist in the area and that’s what they write in their reports to buyers. That is a dangerous assumption to make.

There are two bills before the current state legislature to fix this problem – HB2323 and SB1338. They would correct the legislation passed last year that is causing the problems today.

Public safety will be improved when people are not led incorrectly to believe their properties are labeled as fissure-free.

What AZGS is doing, is to make detailed maps of earth fissures, which can be viewed and downloaded from the State Land Department website, with other maps layers such as topography and the road system. Those maps are being made area by area and will be released as each area is complete.

In the meantime, don’t assume the lack of a map is reason to believe that earth fissures don’t exist in an area.

Will stakeholder support sway legislature?

The AZGS budget will be voted on by the legislature's joint budget subcommittee at 9am on Monday, Jan. 29.

At last week's budget presentation, the committee talked about how limited new state revenues are expected to be and promised tough scrutiny of all proposed increases.

The governor's budget for AZGS includes ramping up two programs, in Mineral Resources and Natural Hazards. Political insiders say that for any budget increase to pass this year, they will need vigorous and vocal support from affected stakeholders; business,industry, local governments, and others.

For AZGS, our budget requests were based primarily on recommendations from our stakeholder community, so there is some reason to hope that will translate into support from the legislature.

Mining and mineral partnerships

At last week's presentation of the legislative and executive (i.e., governor's) budget proposals for AZGS, there was brief but animated discussion on the relative roles of the AZGS and our sister agency in Phoenix, the Dept. of Mines and Mineral Resources (DMMR)in mining and minerals duties. For years, there's been low-volume debate as to whether it's better to have three separate mining/minerals related agencies in state government (including the State Mine Inspector, the regulatory agency) or to merge two or all three of us. Every time it comes up, the conclusion is that each agency has distinct functions and responsibilities that serve our customers well in the present configuration.

The better solution, in my view, is the agencies working together more like a team, leveraging our resources. DMMR Director, Dr. Madan Singh is helping make this cooperation a reality. A couple of examples include DMMR providing office space for a new Phoenix-area branch operation of AZGS, our first-ever office out of Tucson. DMMR and AZGS will jointly have an exhibit at the upcoming Tucson Gem and Mineral Show, showcasing mining and minerals in Arizona. AZGS provided technical materials for the recent DMMR presentation about mining potential in Arizona at the Northwest Miner's Conference in Spokane, the big mining event in the nation this year.

It's a great partnership.

Rosemont geology report enters controversy

Two weeks ago the AZGS released a new geologic map and report (1) on the Rosemont area of the Santa Rita Mountains, where a copper mine is proposed.

The mine is stirring up opposition to its potential environmental and visual impacts. This has led to erroneous claims that our report states the mine site is geologically unstable. Unfortunately, the Pima County supervisors included this mistaken claim in their resolution unanimously opposing the mine.

As a result, the mischaracterization of our geologic report was getting wider circulation including being used to justify a call to change designation of the federal lands involved. Before this went further, I felt we needed to clarify just what our report did and did not say. I sent letters to Richard Elias, chair of the Pima County Board of Supervisors and Supervisor Ray Carroll, pointing out the problems. We have posted these letters on the AZGS website (www.azgs.az.gov – the link is bottom center).

In my letter to Supervisor Elias, I wrote,

“Our report is a geologic study of the rocks at the Earth’s surface in the Rosemont area. It makes no comments about any possible or proposed mine or mine pit design, nor does it specifically address any mining engineering issues. It certainly does not address the stability of any rock units in the map area under present conditions or under possible mining conditions. Mine design and pit wall stability are issues dealt with by mining engineers, and were not addressed in our geological report.

The faults mapped and described in the report are remnants of the forces that created the mountains millions of years ago and we found no evidence that they are active. The geometry of the faults and rock units in the map area is described by our report which can be used by mining engineers as one of many resources in designing a mine.”

It is in no ones interest to have misinformation circulating about such an important issue. On one hand, it raises unfounded concerns about the mine, and on the other, it brings into question the credibility of the mine opponents arguments.

There is a serious debate going on about mining in the region and the resulting impacts, both good and bad. I hope our clarification of the geologic report can help focus the discussion on the real issues at hand.

(1) “Geologic Map of the Rosemont area, northern Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona,” by Bradford Johnson and Charles Ferguson, AZGS Digital Geologic Map 59.

AZGS budget hearing January 22

The Legislature hearing on the AZGS budget is scheduled for 9 a.m. Monday, January 22 in room SHR109 in front of the Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education and Natural.

The panel will consider Governor Napolitano's request to fund new efforts at AZGS in Mineral Resource Development and Natural Hazards Response and Mitigation.

Governor proposes Natural Hazard Response & Mitigation Program at AZGS

Governor Napolitano’s budget includes funds to develop a Natural Hazards Response and Mitigation program at AZGS. The goal is to improve Arizona’s insufficient ability to respond to and mitigate the increasing natural hazards threat to life and property.


Governor’s proposal for a Natural Hazards Response and Mitigation Program:
The Governor’s plan states, “The costs and risks of catastrophic natural hazards can be greatly reduced through meeting State, county and municipal agencies’ requests for
assessment of potential for flooding, debris flows, landslides, rock falls, and expansive soils. The Executive recommends $67,500 and 1.0 FTE position for FY 2008 and $48,100 and 1.0 FTE for FY 2009 for, respectively, an engineering geologist and a geo-technician. It is anticipated that funding for the geologist position will be self-sustaining by FY 2009 by charging fees for developer’s reports and other services that the position would provide.

Natural hazards are an increasing threat to life and property in Arizona: Arizona is subject to a wide array of natural hazards including floods, debris flows, landslides and lateral erosion, earth fissures, expansive soils, and earthquakes. As population grows in our urban areas, we are seeing increased development in areas previously avoided such as flood prone areas in apparently dry channels in distributary fans, zones of earth fissures, canyon mouths subject to debris flows and others.

FEMA floodplain maps do not reveal the danger of Arizona’s flooding hazards: Water in Arizona often flows through ephemeral channels in distributary fans that may serve as primary channels for a number of years before shifting to new paths, especially during floods. National flood hazard assessments are based on geologic conditions more typical of the eastern U.S. where channels and flood plains are well defined and long lasting. As a result, many areas of sedimentary fans in Arizona are subject to flooding even though they are not in flood plains and are not subject to FEMA flood insurance requirements. Typically, unless homeowners are in a defined flood hazard zone, they are unaware of the hazards and do not take appropriate measures such as obtaining flood insurance.

The new earth fissure maps do not deal with policy dilemmas, or mitigation measures: Newly enacted earth fissure mapping addresses two key elements of a natural hazards program, identification and public information. However, once the maps are prepared and released, state and local agencies have to cope with the consequences. There are no guidelines on how to develop in fissure zones, whether setbacks are appropriate and if so, how extensive they should be, what mitigation techniques can be applied, or whether fissures can be inactive permanently. AZGS has formed an Earth Fissure Advisory Board with representatives from state and local agencies, realtors, and other stakeholders to discuss these issues and try to prepare map users for their release.

One of the most important recommendations is to develop published guidelines on the preparation of geologic/geotechnical/hazards reports that are produced to meet state and local requirements. It is our expectation that Arizona-specific guidelines can be created from extant guidelines in Colorado, Utah, and California, among other states. While voluntary, such guidelines provide standards that can be adopted by local government or other entities. In states where voluntary guidelines are in place, they have become widely accepted and generally improved the standard of practice.

Current natural hazard identification and mitigation procedures are inadequate: Natural hazard identification and mitigation is generally done at the local government level, where appropriate expertise is often non-existent.

In conjunction with voluntary guidelines, AZGS needs to provide consulting and advisory services to affected agencies to evaluate and critique submitted reports. Most agencies and almost all local governments do not have geologic expertise to effectively review and respond to these reports. AZGS would advise the receiving agencies as to the completeness and adequacy of said reports and if requested, provide recommendations on how to deal with any natural hazards disclosed in them.

All reports reviewed by AZGS should be entered into a digital, online natural hazards bibliography (“Haz-Bib”), available to consultants, developers, governments, home-buyers, etc. The ready availability of natural hazards information will help ensure that problems identified in an area will not be overlooked on adjacent or nearby properties. It will help developers more readily evaluate hazards prior to investing in lands then feeling pressured to have to move forward to recover their costs.

Geotechnical borings are raising costs of development: Provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) require geotechnical information for foundations of a large number of types of buildings in Arizona that can only be obtained through expensive borings. These borings are being drilled at each building site even though the geotechnical characteristics may be relatively uniform over wide areas. There are complaints that this redundancy is unnecessarily expensive.

The AZGS could serve as a repository for geotechnical borings and the associated analytical results and make them available to local governments, geotechnical consultants, and developers to better share results obtained by the private sector. These data would also allow AZGS or others to construct detailed maps of geotechnical characteristics. Such maps would be an invaluable tool for highway and infrastructure planning in addition to the original use in building foundation work.

Arizona has insufficient ability to deal with natural hazards issues: For the past decade, AZGS activities in natural hazards has been largely restricted to detailed geologic mapping in urban and urbanizing areas, identified as high priority by the Survey’s external mapping advisory committee.

A modest increase in state support to address natural hazards in Arizona is justified and within reason. Arizona ranks last in the nation in per capita spending on its state geological survey, among all the states reporting. Even among surrounding states, Arizona fares poorly in comparison. California spends about fours times as much, Colorado nearly five times, Nevada 5.3 times, Utah more than 11 times, and New Mexico over 13 times as much per capita as does Arizona. Yet Arizona has more mineral production than any of them and is only slightly behind Nevada in population growth.

Stakeholder recommendations: We consulted with leaders in Arizona’s relevant state agencies and professional and trade groups. Their recommendations have been integrated with those from our last external agency review (2) and can be summarized into four core areas with the advocating entities in parentheses:

1. Identify hazards and assess risk

2. Develop guidelines for the preparation of geologic reports in Arizona.

3. Serve as technical advisors and reviewers for state and local agencies that receive geological/geotechnical reports; create a publicly available repository of geotechnical reports (“Haz-Bib”).

4. Establish a repository for geotechnical borings used to determine criteria to meet building codes.


References Cited:

Report of the Arizona Geological Survey Review Committee, by the American Institute of Professional Geologists, Arizona section, AZGS Open-file Report 97-20, 1997, 67p.

Governor calls for Mineral Resources program at AZGS

Gov. Napolitano’s budget proposes funding a renewed effort in AZGS for a Mineral Resource Development Program.

The Legislature’s Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on the AZGS budget at 9am, Monday, January 22 in room SHR109.

Governor’s proposal for the Mineral Resources Development Program
The Governor’s budget plan states, “The Geological Survey provides a State service that critically affects growth and development, as major industries and growing communities require reliable maps and data. The Executive recommends $96,600 and 1.0 FTE position in FY 2008 and $149,700 and 1.0 FTE position in FY 2009 to allow the Survey to better provide technical support to State agencies, local governments and the public on strategic mineral planning and natural resource issues. The recommendation for FY 2008 includes funding for a hardrock minerals geologist and $20,000 in ongoing professional and outside services. The FY 2009 recommendation provides one more FTE position, a database manager to develop a system for interoperability among state mineral resources and compile a central repository for all of the state’s mineral information.”

The proposal would restore the AZGS capability in mineral resources, working with one of the largest sectors in the state economy, to assess the technical, economic, and environmental impacts of resource development, to advise state and local agencies on resource issues, identify mineral resources, and expand our repository capacity for geologic samples. This initiative is consistent with the AZGS Mission Statement: “To inform and advise the public about the geologic character of Arizona in order to foster understanding and prudent development of the State's land, water, mineral, and energy resources”

Minerals are a major economic sector in Arizona: The value of nonfuel mineral production in Arizona in 2005 was $4.730 billion, which was 9.17% of the U.S. total, and made Arizona the number one producer in the nation and number one in copper and molybdenum production specifically. Coal production added another $300 million to bring the total to $5 billion (1).

Arizona accounts for 63% of U.S copper production and the state’s copper industry has a $3.5 billion direct and indirect impact on the Arizona economy. Seven Arizona counties had active copper mining in 2005. Arizona also ranks among the leaders in gemstones, perlite, sand and gravel, silver, and zeolites.

“Rock products produced in Arizona include sand, gravel, and crushed stone, cement, asphalt, and ready-mix concrete and are directly tied to economic growth, building activity, and repair and expansion of transportation infrastructure. Production of rock products in 2004 resulted in a direct and indirect economic impact of $3.5 billion resulting in the support of 25,190 jobs. Rock products had a direct payroll expenditure of $364 million covering 9,388 jobs” (2).

There is a strongly renewed interest in exploration for copper and uranium across the state and region. Industry is looking for any and all information to help them in the search for new reserves. State Lands have potential for both hard rock and industrial minerals.

Land use planning and continued economic growth need good minerals and geologic information: Mining is regulated at the local level where geologic expertise is generally not available. Industrial mineral deposits and operations are increasingly under pressure from urbanization, at the same time the demand for the resources is growing to meet development needs. In other states, lack of resource assessment and planning has resulted in big increases for building and infrastructure costs. Studies done in Minnesota (4, 5) are applicable nationwide. They found that gravel is expensive to transport. At about 15 cents per ton per mile, a standard 25-ton truckload will cost $37.50 to haul 10 miles but $187.50 to haul 50 miles. The gravel itself costs about $6.50 per ton. So transportation costs exceed the cost of the rock at transportation distances of about 44 miles.

Construction of a new home requires about 120 tons of aggregate, which is used in everything from the driveway to concrete blocks, paint, sheet metal and roofing tiles. The construction of a typical “big box” retail store will require about 50,000 tons of aggregate. One mile of four-lane highway uses about 20,000 tons of aggregate (5).

Thus, when local sand and gravel quarries close in an urban area, the cost to bring resources from outside the urban zone can cause a significant increase in building costs due to transportation. It is important to determine the location and extent of mineral resources early in land use planning.

Environmental impacts of mining: Mining operations are considerably cleaner and less polluting than in the early days of the state but many are also much larger and use new approaches that have potentially serious consequences if not managed and regulated correctly. There are also numerous old mines and tailings that operated before comprehensive regulations were in place.

It is important to analyze the aqueous geochemistry of mine tailings and surrounding basins for potential impacts on groundwater from such things as sulfate plumes.


Arizona has limited ability to deal with mineral issues: AZGS lost its last position in Mining/Economic Geology due to budget cuts in 2002. Arizona is unique among western mining states in not having the ability to carry out unbiased scientific and technical assessments of mineral resources and their impacts in the state. It is especially concerning in that Arizona was the number one minerals producing state in the nation in 2005 and is also one of the fasting growing states, resulting in dramatic increase in demands for industrial minerals and consequent land use conflicts. Arizona is also a prime exploration target for minerals such as copper and uranium. Other states with strong mining sectors in the economy have state geological surveys that are primarily focused on minerals issues, such as Nevada and Idaho, whereas Arizona has strongly downsized its capacity in the last 15 years to handle mineral resources challenges, problems, and potential.

For the past decade, AZGS activities in mineral resources has been largely restricted to detailed geologic mapping in the state, identified by the mining industry as one of the most important contributions we can make to their exploration and development programs. However, in recent years, the Survey’s external mapping advisory committee has directed us to focus on natural hazards mapping in urban and urbanizing areas.

Stakeholder recommendations: We consulted with leaders in Arizona’s mining industry, relevant state agencies, and professional and trade groups. Their recommendations have been integrated with those from our last external agency review (5) and can be summarized into four core areas:

1. Identify and characterize key mineral reserves, both metallic and industrial, in currently developed areas and areas with potential for development

This would include mapping of deposits and mineral districts, analytical work on
samples including petrology, age-dating, geochemistry, fluid inclusions, thin
sections, plus reserve calculations and estimates, and economic impact analyses.
This would be done in co-operation with the Arizona Dept. of Mines and Mineral
Resources which maintains an extensive collection of reports, analyses, and
historical data.

2. Create map-based (GIS) data sets and make them available online. This would include setting up an enterprise geo-database using a network server with internet map services (IMS) and GIS-based web services. We are already in consultation with the State Cartographer’s Office to ensure interoperability between AZGS datasets and the State’s GIS clearinghouse products in accordance with ARS 37-173.

3. Educational outreach to state agencies, local government, and the general public on strategic mineral planning and natural resource issues.

This would include serving as technical advisors to state and local agencies, providing materials and briefings on mineral economics, environmental impacts, and resource availability. We would draw on help to achieve this from staff soon to be hired in the AZGS Geologic Extension Service, a newly created section reprogrammed with internal resources.

4. Preserve and analyze mineral and geologic samples (mostly cores) at risk of being destroyed or disposed of, as an exploration resource.

This requires acquisition of warehouse space for additional samples and examination space, plus hiring of a geo-technician to maintain the facility, selectively acquire new samples, and work with industry and other researchers to prepare and analyze samples.

References Cited

1. Arizona 2005 Mining Review, Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources, 2006, 6p.

2. Natural Resources Impact, Mining Foundation of the Southwest, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2005.

3. Aggregate Resources Inventory of the Seven-County Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, Minnesota Geological Survey, Information Circular 46, 2000, 91p.

4. Gravel – Bedrock of Growth, Minnesota Star-Tribune, June 16, 2002

5. Report of the Arizona Geological Survey Review Committee, by the American Institute of Professional Geologists, Arizona section, AZGS Open-file Report 97-20, 1997, 67p.

Good news, bad news at NSF

Margaret Leinen is leaving NSF. That’s the bad news. Margaret’s been Assistant Director for Geosciences (“GEO”), which includes the Earth Sciences, Atmospheres, and Oceans divisions, for the past seven years. She’s viewed by community insiders as an effective advocate for the geosciences within NSF, and one of the most articulate spokespersons for science up on Capitol Hill. Margaret was also constantly working to build better synergy and cooperation among the geosciences. We’re losing a friend and ally and a visionary in the profession. Interestingly, according to Science, she’s going to work for Climos, a start-up company dealing with climate change, run by her son, who sold his online reservation business for $750 million.

The good news is that before she leaves, Margaret appointed Art Goldstein as head of the Earth Sciences Division ("EAR"). Art came to NSF a year ago from geo department head at Colgate University, to serve as a section chief in EAR. With the retirement of Herm Zimmerman shortly after he arrived, Art moved in the Acting Director slot.

With the formal appointment, I think we can look forward to a dynamic approach from Art in working to advance the nation’s earth sciences community.

I’ve known Art since we were both PhD students under Don Wise at UMass, Amherst a quarter century ago. I joke with him that after a couple decades in academia, the DC politics should be child’s play. Seriously, though, Art listens, is as fair-minded as you’d want, and not afraid to take on the toughest issues. He’s already a force in jumpstarting the earth sciences community in lots of areas. Exciting times lie ahead.

Thank you, Margaret and good luck, Art!

Science is central to Governor's agenda

Read through Gov. Napolitano’s State of the State address given today and you’ll see that science is central to much of what she proposes.

Her themes are Education, Foundation, and Innovation - Education with a focus on expanding math and science in K-12; Foundation means infrastructure and includes ensuring we have the water resources to support our growing population; and “Innovation Arizona will create an environment that attracts high-wage businesses, allows thinkers and entrepreneurs to flourish, and cultivates success. [It] is going to continue to build on the work we’ve begun to transform Arizona into a center of research by continuing the necessary funding to foster Science Foundation AZ to success.”


Arizona’s earth scientists have an important role in dealing with the consequences of growth – demand for water and minerals, creation of risks associated with natural hazards, and environmental impacts. The Governor’s Global Climate Change initiative also needs earth science input for monitoring and analysis but also for finding locations for possible geological sequestration (i.e., permanent burial) of carbon dioxide.

And while many think primarily of biosciences when we talk about attracting new high-tech industry or incubating the next success story here, we should be looking at one of Arizona’s existing scientific strengths – the earth sciences.

Gov. Napolitano singled out the Arizona Water Institute as an R&D center that will continue to get state attention. AWI co-housed with SAHRA (Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas) at the UofA. [My colleagues at NSF tell me SAHRA is one of the most highly regarded Science and Technology Centers the organization funds]. The AWI operational model is in my view amazingly robust and innovative. AWI has principals on each of the three state universities. Plus, they are embedding strong personnel in each of the major state agencies.

The SAHRA-AWI combo is emerging as a global leader in innovative approaches to water resources. It could be the poster child of scientific (and organizational) innovation in Arizona.

Grand Canyon redux

The controversy over the politization of the origin and age of the Grand Canyon fired up with the release of a letter from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) to the National Park Service (http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801) and a press release entitled, “How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won’t Say — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology.”

Contrast that with Gov. Janet Napolitano’s call at her inauguration: "It is that 'One Arizona' that I dream of. 'One Arizona' in which the quality of the education of our children is so good, they compete with pride with the best graduates from every corner of the world. 'One Arizona' that, because of that education foundation, is a place where science and research flourish, where cures are found, and technology is advanced."

During the entire six years I spent in Kansas before moving to Arizona a year ago, I was enmeshed in the evolution controversy. Two weeks after arriving in Kansas as the newly appointed State Geologist in 1999, I was standing in front of the State Board of Education, unsuccessfully urging them to reject the proposed science curriculum standards ghost-authored by a leader of the young-earth creationist movement. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius earlier this year described how Kansas suffered because of its almost universal perception as hostile to science and quality public education brought on by the relentless attacks on teaching of evolution.

Arizona’s been lucky in not being tarred like Kansas has. It’s the Park Service that has the black eye here.