s w e N
Vol. 59, No. 1 – March 2016
Special Edition: VOLCANICS
Experience the magic! Visit www.aegannualmeeting.org for complete details AEG 59th Annual Meeting – September 18–24, 2016
Kona – Island of Hawaii Waikoloa Beach Marriott Resort & Spa – Group Rate Only $185 Located beachfront along the sun-splashed Kohala Coast, the luxurious Waikoloa Beach Marriott Resort welcomes guests with gracious style and Hawaiian service. With the bounty of land and sea captured in stunning views, this Big Island Hawaii hotel and resort is the perfect place for a memorable meeting.
SHORT COURSES Drilling, Borehole Testing, and Characterization for Dam Investigations—Current Practices Workshop and Dam Instrumentation✦Geotechnical Site Characterization”✦Volcanic Crises Awareness✦Use of the Unified Soil Classification System in Subsurface Characterization of Porous and Fractured Media✦Project Management✦Lidar Scanning Techniques for Rock Characterization & Slope Stability/Mapping of Landslides
Technical sessions Up to 20 sessions covering most environmental and engineering geology topics will be offered, allowing a broad range of geo-professionals to share projects and knowledge.
Invited Symposia Rock Engineering-Rock Mechanics Geology for Tunnels and Underground ✦ Construction✦ Reaching the Last Mile: Our Responsibility to Effectively Communicate to Those in Harms Way What Geohazards They Face and ✦ Implement Disaster Mitigation Strategies✦Environmental Impacts and Cleanup for Military Bases✦Application of Geophysics to Geotechnical Investigations✦Coastal and Harbor Projects✦Archeology and Engineering Geology✦Dam Safety Projects✦Landslides
FIELD TRIPS
Call for Abstracts The AEG 2016 Annual Meeting Planning Committee invites you to join us and submit an abstract to present. Abstract submission deadline is May 1, 2016. VERY IMPORTANT: Please read the instructions prior to submitting your abstract. Instructions link posted on the website, www.aegannualmeeting.org. Log in with Username: AEG / Password: kona2016 (Note: The Username/Password are not your member Username/Password) Please use the following link to submit your abstract: http://72.16.203.230/aegpapers/
The Big Island: Volcanoes, Geohazards & Active Structural Geology✦The Hāmākua Coast✦Kīlauea Volcano and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park✦ Evening Stargazing at Ozinuka Center for International Astronomy – ✦ Mauna Kea Volcano✦Ka Lea (South Point) and Papakōlea Green Sand Beach
Guest Tours Volcanoes National Park & S. Island Tour✦Traditional Hawaiian Culture & Gourd Art✦Macadamia Nut Co & Parker Ranch✦Downtown Kona Historic Walking Tour
Special Event Traditional Hawaiian Luau Join us as the sun sets over beautiful 'Anaeho'omalu Bay for live authentic hawaiian music, dances and hawaiian fare. Full open bar included.
s w e N
Vol. 59, No. 1 – March 2016
AEG News (ISSN 0899-5788; USPS 954-380) is published six times a year by the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists (AEG), with the quarterly issues Nos. 1–4, published in March, June, September and December, respectively. The Annual Report and Directory issue is published in January. The Annual Meeting Program with Abstracts issue is published in September. Print copies are distributed at the meeting. Subscriptions for Association members, which includes all six issues of the AEG News, is $30 in addition to annual membership dues. Nonmember annual subscription is $40.00, and includes only the four regular issues (#1–4) of the News. The Annual Report and Directory issue and the Annual Meeting Program with Abstracts issue are priced separately. Back issues of the AEG News are $10 each. Inquiries should be sent to AEG Headquarters: Marrijane Jones, Association Manager, 1100 Brandywine Blvd. Suite H, Zanesville, Ohio 43701 844-331-7867.
Table of Contents
Periodical Postage paid at Zanesville, OH, and additional mailing offices: POSTMASTER: Send address changes to AEG News, 1100 Brandywine Blvd. Suite H Zanesville, Ohio 43701, USA. AEG News is printed by Allen Press, Lawrence, KS, 66044, USA.
Professional Contributions–Volcanics 11 What Is a Volcano? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Investigating Sakurajima Volcano’s Electrical Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Mount St. Helens Volcanic Eruption… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Rheology of Crystallizing East African Basalts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Rainbows on the Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Kilauea & Halema’uma’u Then and Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
© 2016 Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists—All Rights Reserved Views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those officially representing the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists except where expressly stated.
AEG News Editor Anna Saindon Geotechnology, Inc. 11816 Lackland Road, Suite 150 St. Louis, MO 63146 314-581-6286 news@aegweb.org
Managing Editor/Production Andrea Leigh Ptak Communicating Words & Images 6542 52nd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98118 Office: 206-725-9169 Cell: 206-300-2067 andrealeighptak@me.com
News of the Association 4 The President’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Treasurer’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 AEG Foundation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Committee Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 In Memory of Earl William Hart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 News of the Profession 10 What Makes a Professional Geologist? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Issues in Professional Licensure
23
The HomeFront
26
Index to Advertisers
25
On the Cover Volcanic lightning in an eruption of Sakurajima volcanos on June 7, 2015. See story on p. 12.
Submission Information
PHOTO BY HARALD EDENS
In order of preference: 1. Send files via email, preferably as attachments, to both email addresses above. Optimum file format is MSWord 2004. Users of other software programs should convert their file to ASCII or text only. 2. Images should be sent as high-resolution jpeg or tiff files. Questions? Contact Andrea Ptak at 206-725-9169/andrealeighptak@me.com.
The association 2015–16 Officers President: PAUL M. SANTI Colorado School of Mines, 303-273-3108, psanti629@gmail.com
3. The policy of AEG News editorial staff is to limit the credentials of an individual to two. For example, if John Smith has a MS, a PhD and a PG plus a CEG and a CGWP, his credentials would be limited to John Smith PhD, PG, the two principal credentials. BS/BA and MS degrees will not be recognized. No effort will be made by the AEG News editorial staff to determine if individuals whose credentials are missing from the submitted copy actually have academic or professional credentials, nor will the staff verify the existence or correctness of the credentials submitted.
Secretary: KEVIN S. RICHARDS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 303-241-8380, kevin.richards@comcast.net
For detailed guidelines visit: www.aegweb.org/SubmitToAEGNEWS
Past President: KENNETH C. FERGASON Amec Foster Wheeler, 602-329-9714, fergasonaeg@gmail.com
Vice President/President Elect: DALE C. ANDREWS Carmeuse Lime & Stone, 412-777-0728, dale.andrews@carmeusena.com Treasurer: KATHY G. TROOST University of Washington, 206-909-9757, ktroostaeg@gmail.com
Association Contacts
Advertising in the News
Headquarters—Association Manager Marrijane Jones 1100 Brandywine Blvd. Suite H Zanesville, Ohio 43701 Phone: 844-331-7867, Fax: 740-452-2552 contact@aegweb.org
Contact AEG Headquarters at advertising@aegweb.org.
Next Submission Deadline
AEG Foundation—President: BRIGET DOYLE, bdoyle@uscupstate.edu
April 30, 2016, for the June Issue
Communications Director: MATT BRUNENGO, 503-534-0414, mbrunengo@aol.com Canada Agreement number: PM40063731; Return Undeliverable Canadian Addresses to: Station A, PO Box 54; Windsor, ON N9A 6J5; Email: returnsil@imex.pb.com
March 2016
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
3
NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
The Future of Engineering Geology Education
D
Paul Santi, AEG 2015–16 President
uring the first few months in my role as President, I’ve heard from some of you who are concerned about the longevity of engineering geology education programs and the effects of changing or cutting programs on the pipeline of graduates and future professionals. This is a valid worry, and one that I am particularly close to, having been involved in engineering geology education for over 20 years. In fact, the day I write this, a 30-year-old program is being reviewed by the university for possible elimination. First, I want to start by bragging about engineering and environmental geology as a model for geoscience education as a whole. I recently attended a Summit on the Future of Geoscience Education, a meeting supported by the National Science Foundation charged with setting the expectations of geoscience education for the next 20 years. This summit was attended by about a hundred department heads (the other hat I wear) from major geoscience programs around the country. It followed another summit two years earlier, with an Employers Workshop, industry focus groups, and a web survey completed by 465 people. This was a major project! Throughout the meeting, I kept thinking how well our field matches the expected future trends in geoscience education. For example, the various groups and meetings seemed to converge on “The Big Nine” concepts, and we directly deal with four of them: hydrogeology, natural hazards, earth materials, and surface processes. (Since I know you are curious, the rest of The Big Nine are deep time, natural resources, earth structure, climate change, and earth as a complex set of systems.) Geoscience programs are also becoming more quantitative, incorporating applied capstone classes and projects, using GIS, and building writing and communication skills—all things we have demanded in our field for years. So that is the future of geoscience education. Now what about the future of engineering geology education? Most programs fall into a couple of categories. There are the multi-faculty models, which quite often are geological engineering programs where accreditation requirements necessitate a broad range of engineering geology-type faculty. These programs have some built-in stability simply because of the critical mass. Other programs are the one-to-two practitioner models, where retirement often means the end of the program. While this is not ideal, there is a silver lining. Even though some older programs may be disappearing, excellent new faculty members are starting engineering geology programs at new places. We’ve traditionally seen centers of activity in California, Oregon, Texas, Colorado, and Ohio, to name a few. And now we are adding to that Washington, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Utah…and the list goes on! I want to challenge us to find ways to support these programs, and especially the young faculty who are on the front
4
lines fighting the battle to educate environmental and engineering geologists in settings that may not be supportive. The AEG Foundation has already done exactly that, with the Research and Cornerstone Funds. As professionals, there are things you have to offer that are sorely needed. Please invite these faculty into the AEG community by having them speak at section meetings. Look for ways to collaborate with them on your projects and proposals; they need research dollars to survive. Hire their students as interns. Write technical papers with them. Volunteer to provide guest lectures in their classes, to run a field trip to one of your sites, or to be a client for a class project. Help them move from teaching one or two engineering geology classes to developing a full program that integrates all of the competencies needed to be an engineering or environmental geologist. Here is a big one: volunteer to teach a class they need but is outside of their expertise. I will close by noting that there are many faculty out there who claim engineering or environmental geology as their primary expertise (in the 2012 AGI directory, which also includes state geological survey personnel, there are 265 environmental geologists and 140 engineering geologists). Most of them are the only environmental or engineering geologists in their organization and they need a community to rally around them to be successful. Let’s step up!
AEG President talking with students about how to get into graduate school & find a job at Georgia State University in Downtown Atlanta, GA PHOTO BY MATTHEW HOWE
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – TREASURER’S REPORT
2015:A Financial Success!
F
Kathy Troost, AEG 2015–16 Treasurer
inancially, we had a great 2015. I am happy to report a 2015 surplus of approximately $62,000, as of December 31, resulting from two very successful meetings. We are on the right trail, but we are not out of the woods. In order to remain fiscally healthy, we must strive to hold a second meeting each year, have a successful Annual Meeting, and improve our membership numbers.
What did we do with the surplus?
meeting. The 2016 Annual Meeting in Kona is budgeted to produce a minimum surplus of $25,000, and the AM committee is working hard to meet that goal. The Executive Council has also authorized a membership drive geared at increased communication to high-potential members by advertising AEG in affiliated society news magazines, mailers to practicing geologists, calling lapsed members to determine why their membership expired, and engaging with geoscience departments across the U.S. We will continue to explore cost saving measures while maintaining member benefits.
1) We made a $20,000 deposit to the Treasurer’s Reserve this February. Near the end of 2015, we were hopeful that we would be able to make a $10,000 contribution. We were able to double that!
Finally, it is our members that make AEG great. Please do what you can to solicit new members and contact lapsed members for AEG. Every member retained or new member added makes AEG that much better.
2) We have added approximately one month’s worth of cash to our Operations account to further buffer any potential end-of-year cash-flow bottleneck, which had been a problem in past years.
Links to Websites Are Now Live!
3) We established a new fund and seeded it with $5,500 to help fund Regional Director travel for the 2016 Annual Meeting, which will be the first Board of Director’s meeting under of the Governance Restructure. This fund will continue to be replenished over time via membership dues.
When you see a web address that looks like this: www.aegweb.org in our digital version of the News, one click will bring you right to the webpage it references.
4) We are reserving $6,000 to offset 2016 budgeted revenue that was expected to have come from a spring meeting that, at the time of this writing, was not confirmed.
How is our TR doing? Like most investment funds in 2015, ours also lost value, approximately $5,600, as the fund has fluctuated with the market. We are not worried at this point, but we are watching the TR fund closely so that we can take action if needed. We have been careful to follow our TR investment policy, which balances our investment across both conservative and more aggressive options. After our $20,000 deposit in February, we have approximately $265,500 in the TR at Fidelity Investments.
What are our financial goals for 2016? In 2016, we hope to increase our membership, improve member benefits, have a profitable Annual Meeting, and hold a financially successful professional forum or other spring
AEG News Disclaimer Authors alone are responsible for views expressed in signed articles. Advertisers and their agencies are solely responsible for the content of all advertisements printed and also assume responsibility for any claims arising therefrom against the publisher. AEG and AEG News reserve the right to reject any advertising copy.
March 2016
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
5
NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – AEG FOUNDATION
AEG Foundation Has More Funding for Students and Professionals!
A
Dave Fenster, Past President AEG Foundation s Past President of the AEG Foundation, I am very proud of the awards granted, funds established and funds maintained during the past year.
Beardsley-Kuper Geology Field Camp Scholarship The contributors desire to make this scholarship available to undergraduates and post baccalaureate students on a yearly basis with an award to fund the field camp cost at an accredited school. Grants are intended to support costs (tuition, meals and lodging) for geology field camps with applied environmental and engineering geology that will be useful to the student’s future profession as an engineering or environmental geologist. Grants are made to both undergraduate and graduate. Student membership in AEG is required at the time of the award. The deadline for application is February 1 each year.
Robert F. Legget Publication Fund Grants support publications and public outreach in engineering geology and environmental geology that serve as information resources for the professional practitioner, students, faculty, and/or the public. The fund also supports public education about the interactions between the works of mankind and the geologic environment. Grants may also support reprints of publications within its scope and the conversion of publications in one medium to another. In awarding grants for these purposes, the Foundation will require an appropriate level of peer review and editorial quality.
Carolinas Scholarship Fund This Section-specific fund supports geologic studies by students at the undergraduate level. Recipients of grants must be undergraduate students enrolled in an accredited university in North Carolina or South Carolina and majoring in geology or a related geoscience program. Student membership in AEG is required at the time of the award. Apply by February 1 each year.
Lemke Scholarship Fund The fund supports the scholarly and professional development of student members of AEG by awarding grants intended to offset part of the costs of AEG Student Members who participate in AEG Annual Meetings or in meetings and conferences in which AEG has a substantial sponsorship, co-sponsorship, or management position. Lemke Scholarships may be awarded to students at the undergraduate or graduate levels. Awards will be made by the AEG Foundation to deserving student members who are sole author or first author of a paper or poster that they personally present at the AEG Annual Meeting or other approved meeting. The deadline for application is May 1, 2016 for the 2016 Annual Meeting in Kona, Hawaii. 6
Roy J. Shlemon Specialty Conference Fund This fund supports specialty and advanced practice conferences of interest to the members of AEG. The goal of a Shlemon Conference is to bring together specialists from academia and the consulting world for several days of intensive state-of-thescience sessions, workshops, and field trips devoted to discussion of current knowledge of emerging scientific, technical, regulatory, and practice issues and challenges.
Roy J. Shlemon Continuing Education Fund This fund supports the efforts of AEG Sections in presenting continuing education activities such as seminars, short courses, and conferences by providing seed money to offset expenses incurred prior to receipt of registration and other fees by the conference organizers.
Roy J. Shlemon Quaternary Engineering Geology Scholarship Fund This newly established fund supports geologic studies by graduate students who are conducting field investigations in Quaternary geology that are applicable to addressing engineering or environmental issues (i.e. applied geology). Applicants must be enrolled in an accredited college or university. The Quaternary geology studies could, for example, be focused on geomorphic or tectonic processes as revealed in the Quaternary geologic record. Recipients will be designated as “Shlemon Quaternary Engineering Geology Scholars.” The deadline for application is March 1, 2016.
Marliave Scholar Fund The scholarship awards are intended to support academic activity and reward outstanding scholarship in engineering geology and geological engineering. Recipients will be designated as “Marliave Scholars.” Awards will be made by the AEG Foundation to outstanding students based on demonstrated ability, scholarship, potential for contributions to the profession, character, and activities in student/professional societies. The deadline for application is February 1 each year.
Christopher C. Mathewson Texas Section Scholarship Fund This Texas-based fund supports geologic studies by students at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Applicants must be students enrolled in an accredited Texas college or university, or graduate students conducting their field studies inside Texas (although enrolled in an accredited university outside Texas). Awards will be made by the AEG Foundation to outstanding and deserving students based on demonstrated ability, scholarship, potential for contributions to the profession, character, and
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – AEG FOUNDATION participation in student/professional societies. The deadline for application is February 1 each year.
Research Grant Fund The purpose of the fund is to provide financial support for small research projects that advance the science and application of environmental and engineering geology. The grants may be used in conjunction with grants from other professional organizations to support larger projects if warranted by the specific project requirements. The intent is to encourage individuals to propose on research that is not generally funded by other institutions or agencies.
Student Chapter Grant Program This program supports AEG Student Chapters for field trips, visiting professionals, and other program needs through small grants. Applications, due by September 1, 2016, can be found on our website.
Stout Scholarship Fund Scholarships are awarded each year based on the best response to one of the required essay questions and on appraisals from two professors. The recipient will be chosen by a committee of AEG members who are practicing professionals. Eligible applicants must be either undergraduate geology majors in their sophomore through senior year or graduate students with an environmental or engineering geology emphasis. Student membership in AEG is required at the time of the award. The deadline for application is February 1 each year.
Tilford Field Studies Scholarship Fund The funds are distributed as grants to graduate and undergraduate students in support of field studies. Awards are made to qualified student members of AEG based upon demonstrated scholarship, ability, participation, and potential for contributions to the profession. Scholarship awardees are also selected based on their enthusiasm for engineering geology and their appreciation of the importance that field experience plays in the professional growth of an engineering geologist. The deadline for application is February 1 each year.
West-Gray Scholarship Fund Recipients of grants must be graduate or undergraduate students enrolled in an accredited university in the eastern half of the United States (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and states to the east thereof) or graduate students enrolled in an accredited university located anywhere in the United States, but conducting field studies in the eastern half of the United States. The deadline for application is February 1 each year. AEG Foundation accepts applications as a secure online form. For more information on any of these funding opportunities and scholarships, go to www.aegfoundation.org or contact AEG Foundation Director Patty Bryan at staff@aegfoundation.org. To donate to any of the funds described here, or to the Greatest Needs or Johnston Operations Funds, please visit www.aegfoundation.org/donate/.
NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – COMMITTEE REPORTS
Coastal Hazards Technical Working Group
Coastal Hazard Resources
Marty Goff and Dave Parks, Co-Chairs
FEMA – http://www.fema.gov/coastal-flood-hazard-technicalresources
Purpose This Coastal Hazards Technical Working Group is charged with disseminating information, organizing conferences and workshops, developing training, and writing general and technical articles regarding geologic hazards along the coasts of the United States—Atlantic, Arctic, Caribbean, Great Lakes, Gulf, and Pacific. This group will foster the integration of engineering and environmental geologic information into policy and management actions in order to reduce the nation’s future vulnerability to these hazards and to create more resilient and sustainable environments along the nation’s coasts.
Homeland Security – http://coastalhazardscenter.org/ National Academies – http://dels.nas.edu/resources/staticassets/osb/miscellaneous/coastal_hazards.pdf NOAA – http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/natural-hazards/ SeaGrant – http://seagrant.noaa.gov/ USACE – http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/Portals/26/docs /PAO/Coastal.pdf USGS – http://marine.usgs.gov/coastalchangehazards/
Coastal Hazards Storms, tsunamis, and rising sea levels threaten U.S. coastal communities, ecosystems, and economies. Much of the nation’s existing coastal infrastructure must be adapted to expected future conditions or relocated. New coastal development and post-storm reconstruction should be planned, sited, and maintained with coastal geologic hazards clearly in mind.
March 2016
Great Lakes – http://www.greatlakescoast.org/great-lakescoastal-analysis-and-mapping/coastal-hazard-analysis-mapping/
Want to help? Contact Marty Goff marty.goff@usace.army.mil or Dave Parks david.parks@dnr.wa.gov with questions or to join the technical group and improve people’s lives and the economy with proactive thinking about coastal hazards!
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
7
NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – COMMITTEE REPORTS
Licensure Committee We Are Active and Available Ken Neal, Co-Chair It has been six years since the Licensure Committee (LC) was formed, so this article is written (1) to provide background information to those who have not been involved or were not members during that period, and (2) to provide an update on current events. The idea of forming a LC came about after an Advocacy Committee (AC) workshop that was held during the Annual Board of Directors (BOD) meeting in New Orleans on September 20, 2008. The concept was subsequently discussed during AC conference calls that fall. The AC determined that issues of licensure advocacy were sufficiently complex to require a separate sub-committee. In lieu of a subcommittee, a separate committee was formed on November 3, 2008, and the first teleconference of the LC was held November 21, 2008. Charles Nestle and Ken Neal were appointed as Co-Chairs during that call. The mission of the LC is to provide the Association with guidance and support in its implementation of the AEG Policy on Licensure. The following were established as LC responsibilities and objectives: 1. Review and recommend revisions, as needed, to the AEG Policy on Licensure. 2. Provide discussion papers (White Papers) on licensure topics for use by the Sections and membership. 3. Provide advice to Sections and members addressing licensure issues in their states. 4. Develop policies and/or guidelines enabling the Association to engage in local (state level) licensure issues. 5. Review bylaws and other legal limitations of Sections’ lobbying, legislative, and legal activities. Prepare guidelines for engaging in licensure activities within the framework of the bylaws and 501(c) 6 tax code structure. 6. Study the applicability and appropriateness of the Association developing funds to assist Sections with local legislative activities. 7. Develop additional methods by which the Association may increase its licensure advocacy. 8. Develop model licensure act language and/or discussion paper(s) of variations in act language to support varying state requirements (i.e. oversight, continuing education, sunset regulations, etc,) Shortly after formation, the LC began redrafting AEG’s Policy on Licensure (Objective 1), and completed the task in 2010. During 2011, the LC constructed the contents of the current AEG Licensure Resources Link that is available on AEG’s website. Upon completion, the site met Objectives 2, 4, 5, and 8 and, as currently configured, makes available most everything needed to initiate a licensure effort except for local AEG leadership within the affected state. Also in 2011, the LC, along with members of the Executive Council, drafted guidelines for the Professional Legislative Support Fund (PLSF) to meet Objective Number 6. The PLSF 8
was adopted by the AEG BOD at their 2011 Annual Meeting. This policy has been redrafted to reflect nomenclature for the new organizational structure and to reflect other changes and ideas that have come about since inception. The forms used to apply for assistance under the PLSF, along with instructions for using these forms, have been updated as well. The entire package will replace the policy, instructions, and forms currently on the Members Only portion of AEG’s web site. Over the years, the LC has assisted local AEG Sections in dealing with legislative issues in a number of states, including legislative processes involving board actions in Texas and California, efforts to combine, eliminate, or reduce the authority of boards in Virginia, South Carolina, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, and Georgia, and acceptance of specialty exams between California, Oregon, and Washington. AEG provided funds via the PLSF to thwart an effort to significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Colorado Geological Survey. Last year, the LC recommended, as a service to licensed AEG members and as a membership attraction to those licensed geologists who are not currently members, that AEG establish an on-line system to list the names of licensed members by states (and, perhaps cities), and types of license(s). We expect this service to be available soon. On the national front, on behalf of AEG, Mark Molinari and Ken Neal, along with Jennifer Bauer and a few others, reviewed a discussion draft of a bill, entitled the “National Landslide Mitigation Act,” in March 2015 for Ben Barasky, Legislative Director for Rep. Suzan DelBene from Washington. Ben since has been consulting with the USGS and recently produced another discussion draft, which he asked Mark and Ken to review. That review has been finalized and submitted to their office. We have no idea whether or when the bill will be introduced. As to current events, the LC is working with the Arizona Section to defeat House Bill 2613, which would eliminate the registration of geologists in Arizona, as well as making geologists ineligible to participate in public works projects. This is really poor legislation for both the citizens of Arizona and for our professions. The one area that continues to be a challenge for the LC is in promoting new licensure efforts. While we have assembled all the references, tools, and supplemental funding needed to develop a licensure program, we have not been able to convince Section Chairs in those states still without licensure to promote a legislative effort. We are continuing to look for opportunities to assist our members in initiating new licensure programs. If you are interested in licensure for your state or would like to discuss other licensure or legislative issues, contact one of our Co-Chairs, Ken Neal at kengneal@aol.com or Charles Nestle at ctnestle@socal.rr.com.
Get Involved with an AEG Committee! See aegweb.org for a full list of committees you can participate in.
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – MEMORIAL
Earl William Hart (1927–2016) William A. Bryant and Jerome A. Treiman Earl W. Hart, surrounded by family, peacefully passed away January 6, 2016 after a long battle with cancer. He was 88 years old. Earl worked with the California Geological Survey (CGS) for over 40 years and retired December 31, 1994. He was best known professionally for his pioneering work on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program. Born in Los Angeles on November 13, 1927, Earl attended Los Angeles High School and graduated in 1945. For those who knew Earl best, it probably is no surprise that he was drafted into the military twice. Just following the end of World War II, Earl found himself in a Naval uniform. Barely 18, he received his draft notice because of the momentum of the country’s draft machine at a time when the armed services were beginning a vast reduction in force. His naval obligation was short-lived and his return to civilian life found him pursuing a degree in geology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Earl graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree in 1950. Not long after graduation, he again received “Greetings” from his local draft board as the Korean War heated up. The highlight of Earl’s military career was his time at Ft. Belvoir, VA, where his contributions included designing educational filmstrips for the Army Corps of Engineers. In 1954, Earl joined the California Geological Survey (CGS), known as the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) at the time. Based in San Francisco, Earl met Donna Jean Olson that same year. They were married in Portland, OR, in 1956 and established their life-long home in Corte Madera, Marin County in 1958. His wife for 53 years, Donna preceded Earl in death, also succumbing to cancer July 30, 2009. Earl’s initial assignments with CDMG involved studying mineral resources, including oil and gas, limestone in the Sierra Nevada foothills and the Coast Ranges, and compiling a summary of mines and mineral resources of Monterey County. Later he spent several years mapping the geology of the Atascadero area. This work resulted in a MS in geology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1971 and the publication of CDMG Bulletin 199 Basic Geology of the Santa Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo County, California, in 1976. In 1973, following passage of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, Earl was assigned as manager of the Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Program. At that time the program consisted of a group of geologists compiling maps of faults that represented a surface rupture hazard. Following the 1974 and 1976 releases of Earthquake Fault Zone maps (at that time referred to as Special Studies Zones maps), Earl realized that existing maps were far from adequate for determining which faults were “sufficiently active and well defined.” Earl, usually working with other geologists, developed the technique of mapping active faults based on their geomorphic expression and made sure the technique was applied consistently throughout California. His work on the A-P Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program raised the awareness of surface fault rupture hazards throughout California. It also provided a solid base of information that has March 2016
been used by numerous consulting engineering geologists for site specific studies and by research geologists for regional seismic hazard studies. Cliff Gray, late District Geologist for CDMG’s Los Angeles office, praised the tenacity and depth of Earl’s commitment to the A-P Program. He noted that the program would not have been as effective without Earl’s leadership, dedication, and exacting standards. In June 1992, Earl received the California Earthquake Safety Foundation’s Alfred E. Alquist Award for achievement in earthquake safety in California. Earl’s devotion to the highest level of documentation and analysis in fault studies for the A-P Program has resulted in a continuum of CGS geologists who are able to perform surface fault rupture hazard analysis and zoning with those same high standards. After retirement from CGS in 1994, Earl was back in the San Francisco office the next working day. His devotion to geology kept him coming back for the next nine years. During his detailed mapping of active faults statewide, Earl kept coming across fault-like features that he was convinced were gravitational rather than tectonic. He pursued this research after retirement, obtaining a National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program grant to study this geologic process with co-investigator James McCalpin. Their study was summarized in a 2002 U.S. Geological Survey technical report titled: Ridge-top Spreading Features and Relationship to Earthquakes, San Gabriel Mountains Region, Southern California. In addition, Earl published his statewide research on this topic as CGS publication CD-2003-05 – Ridge-Top Spreading in California: Contributions Toward Understanding a Significant Seismic Hazard. For this publication, the AEG presented Earl with their prestigious Holdredge Award for outstanding contributions to the Engineering Geology profession in 2005. Life was not all work for Earl. He and Donna traveled extensively throughout North America and spent time in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Earl loved to play tennis and did so until the last few years of his life. He enjoyed bird watching and applied his knowledge of photography to this hobby. Although a southern California native, Earl closely followed the San Francisco Giants (he named one of his sons for Willie Mays), as well as the Golden State Warriors. When visiting Earl at home, one was impressed with his gardening ability; fresh herbs and tomatoes were abundant. He grew and processed olives and used his homegrown bounty in cooking, too. Earl took on some of the volunteer work Donna was involved with, especially his work on the Corte Madera Beautification Committee. He loved his role as grandfather and enjoyed telling friends and co-workers about his family. Earl is survived by his brother Dave, his three children: sons William of San Rafael and John of Novato, and daughter Amy of Petaluma; and grandchildren Ben, Ally, and Zoey.
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
9
NEWS OF THE PROFESSION
What Makes a Professional Geologist? California Works to “Define” the Term Professional Geologist and Address CCR Rules that Don’t Include Geologists Garry Maurath, PhD, PG – Sacramento Section Member On July 28, 2009, the California Board of Geology and Geophysics was abolished as mandated under Assembly Bill ABx420. The administration of geologists’ and geophysicists’ licenses was taken over by the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (BPELS), which was renamed the California Board of Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists (BPELSG). Fast-forward eight years, and in the spring of 2015 BPELSG hired their first full-time staff geologist, Laurie Racca (Laurie.Racca@dca.ca.gov), to help administer the geology/geophysical duties of BPELSG. Racca is doing a great job and is very active in the effort by BPELSG to ensure parity of the licensing regulations between professional engineers (PEs) and professional geologists (PGs). Most of the differences between the licenses and licensing processes have been sorted out over the past eight years. One of the remaining issues is the official definition and minimum criteria necessary to “define” who is eligible to become a PG. The current regulation wording specifies a college degree plus experience, whereas the licensed engineers do not require a college degree. However, the details of what constitutes an acceptable college degree are gray areas. For example, do soil science degrees apply, or AA degrees, and how about environmental science degrees? Does the degree program need to be accredited? These are a few of the issues
that BPELSG is in the process of addressing with regard to clarifying who is qualified to become a licensed geologist or geophysicist. AEG’s Sacramento Section is working with BPELSG to clarify the regulation language. Finally, the U.S. EPA has issued new rules for ensuring the environmental safety pertaining to coal combustion residuals. In a nutshell, the EPA is creating a new self-certification process instead of the traditional governmental agency review process. A controversy surrounds who can make this safety certification. The EPA states “EPA is not convinced that hydrologists or geologists licensed by a state are held to the same standards as a professional engineer licensed by a state licensing board,” and “hydrologists, geologists, or other professionals may only perform analyses that underlie the certification, but it is the responsibility of a qualified professional engineer to make the actual certification.” The EPA invites, but does not require, collaboration with geologists in the scope of work. Laurie has been following up on this ruling on behalf of BPELSG and reports that one of the deciding factors in the EPA’s thinking was that all 50 states have licensing bodies and regulate professional engineers, but only about 30+ states have equivalent licensing bodies to regulate professional geologists. This may be a topic that AEG may want to pursue at the Federal level.
Visit theAEGE-Store…
Imagine starting your day with a nice hot cup o' joe that you sip slowly out of your very own AEG coffee mug. This could be you! There are a wide variety of items available to purchase now on AEG's new E-Store, including a classic black ceramic coffee mug with the AEG logo, past issues of AEG News, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience journal, AEG special publications and more! AEG has worked in conjunction with the AEG Foundation to put together some quality AEG logo items to make available for sale to members who want to show their AEG pride anytime—in the field, at the office, at professional events, or at play. Shown here are some examples of the items that are now available for purchase. Half of the proceeds collected from the sale of the items that are offered under the AEGF/AEG EStore category will go to the AEG Foundation.
You can find AEG's E-Store online at www.aegweb.org under E-Store located in the main menu on the left. 10
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
What is a Volcano?
M
Hawai‘i Volcano Observatory
any readers know that the Island of Hawai‘i is made of five volcanoes—Kilauea, Mauna Loa, Hala‘i, Mauna Kea, and Kohala. Those same readers know that such obvious features as the cones that dot Mauna Kea, the Hala‘i Hills and Kulani Cone on Mauna Loa, and Kapoho Cone, Pu’u ‘O’o, and Mauna Ulu on Kilauea are places where eruptions took place. If that’s the case, then why aren’t they called volcanoes? Isn’t a volcano a place where lava reaches the surface of the earth? Why doesn’t the island have hundreds of volcanoes instead of only five? In one dictionary definition, a volcano is a vent or opening in the earth’s crust through which rock or lava is ejected. In another, a volcano is a coneshaped hill or mountain built around a vent. Most volcanologists disagree with both of these definitions. To a volcanologist, a volcano is a structure containing a vent or cluster of vents fed by magma rising directly from great depth within the earth, generally more than 30 km (18 mi) and in Hawai‘i about 100 km (60 mi). Each of the five volcanoes on the Island of Hawai‘i has a deeply rooted feeder conduit. In contrast, all of the cones mentioned above, and most others on the island, are supplied by magma that branched off the main conduit at a shallow depth, probably less than 10 km (6 mi) deep and more likely, less than half that. These cones are analogous to limbs on a tree, and the deeply rooted volcano is equivalent to the trunk of the tree. If we could plug the deep conduit to Kilauea, the entire volcano, including Pu’u ‘O’o, would die. In reality, however, Kilauea will remain active long after Pu’u ‘O’o stops erupting, because the main feeder conduit will still be intact. Several terms are used to describe the vents that lack deep roots and get their magma from the main feeder conduit—flank vents, parasitic vents, and rift vents. Sometimes “cone” is substituted for “vent.” So, for example, on Mauna Loa, Kulani Cone could be termed a flank vent and the Hala‘i Hills parasitic cones. Pu’u ‘O’o is an active flank or rift vent on Kilauea. Physical appearance cannot be used to make the distinction between a volcano and a subsidiary vent on that volcano. Lacking geophysical evidence, it would be nearly impossible to know, for example, that Pu’u ‘O’o is fed from shallow, not great, depth. With that evidence, though, a clear distinction can be made. The second dictionary definition of volcano—a cone-shaped hill or mountain built around a vent—does not account for volcanoes such as Kilauea, whose shape is far from that of a cone. Another type of volcano lacking a cone shape is a large caldera, such as Long Valley in eastern California or Yellowstone in Wyoming. No one would guess, without doing some geologic sleuthing, that these wide shallow depressions are volcanoes. March 2016
During a kona wind, fume from Pu'u 'O'o (foreground) and Halema'uma'u Crater (background), both on K lauea, blows northward, with towering Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea on the horizon – PHOTO COURTESY OF USGS
Visitors to Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park often remark that Kilauea Crater (the official name of the summit caldera) “sure doesn’t look like a volcano. Even visitors trained in geology make that comment, because the image of Mount Fuji in Japan or Mayon in the Philippines is strongly entrenched as the stereotype of a “real” volcano. Had these visitors come to the summit of Kilauea in 1400 CE, however, they would have seen a lava shield rather than a caldera. The caldera formed by collapse of the shield about 100 years later. This illustrates another point about volcanoes—the shape can change drastically and quickly, and one year’s cone or shield can be next year’s caldera. So, shape is an unimportant and even misleading basis for defining a volcano. Finally, the distinction between a caldera, such as Kilauea’s, and a crater, such as Halema'uma'u, is both arbitrary and meaningful. A caldera is a depression more than 1.6 km (1 mi) in diameter, and a crater is smaller. Pretty arbitrary! A more important distinction is that a Hawaiian caldera forms by collapse of the volcano’s summit and has deep roots, whereas a crater, no matter where it forms, has shallow roots. In a perfect world, the term Kilauea Crater on maps would be replaced by Kilauea Caldera.
From “Volcano Watch,” weekly articles written by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey`s Hawaiian Volcano Observatory http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/, on December 10, 2015.
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
11
HEADER HERE CONTRIBUTIONS PROFESSIONAL
Investigating Sakurajima Volcano’s Electrical Activity
l
Harald Edens
n May and June of 2015 a field program was undertaken to investigate the electrical nature of volcanic eruptions. The study, supported by a two-year grant from the National Science Foundation, focuses on the charging mechanisms and charge structure of eruption ash clouds, and how volcanic lightning occurs. We have been studying volcanic lightning using a three-dimensional mapping instrument, known as the Lightning Mapping Array (LMA), starting with the eruption of Augustine volcano in Alaska in 2006. The LMA was developed at New Mexico Tech in 1998, and is generally employed to study thunderstorm lightning. It consists of 10 to 12 very-high-frequency radio receivers, which detect radio emissions from lightning flashes and use a GPS-based time-of-arrival technique to locate the sources of the emissions in 3D and time. A 3D picture of a lightning flash is the result, showing the dendritic nature of lightning channels both inside and outside a cloud. In particular, one can infer the electrical polarity of lightning channels, and deduce the locations and magnitudes of the various charge layers within a storm (or ash cloud). From the eruptions of Augustine, and later on with the eruptions of Redoubt in Alaska and Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland, it became apparent that volcanoes not only produce “regular” lightning, but they are otherwise electrically noisy at radio frequencies (RF) during the production of ash at the vent. The process responsible for these nearly continuous RF emissions is not understood. Continuous RF, along with the many other vagaries of volcanic lightning, was the main motivation to comprehensively study another volcano—ideally one that would be erupting “predictably.”
A typical eruption of Sakurajima volcano PHOTO BY HARALD EDENS
12
Lightning in an eruption on June 7, 2015. In many cases that we observed, the lightning channels emerging from the ash cloud were of negative polarity, with their positive counterparts hidden within the ash cloud. PHOTO BY HARALD EDENS
Our target was Sakurajima volcano, located in Kagoshima Prefecture on Kyushu in southern Japan. It is an active stratovolcano that has been erupting almost constantly since 1955. Hundreds of strombolian explosions occur every year, producing ash clouds to several thousand feet altitude. Thus, Sakurajima is at least to some degree predictable as volcanoes go, as well as accessible. It sits on a former island about 10 km across (bridged to the mainland by a 1914 eruption) and is well instrumented and monitored. Typical eruptions are explosive but brief, lasting less than a minute and producing ash clouds of up to 10,000 ft altitude, sometimes higher. Bombs and blocks are usually thrown a few hundred meters away from the crater; smaller pieces sometimes up to a km or two away. Lightning flashes tend to be small at a few hundred meters in length, and most are confined to the immediate area around and above the crater. They typically only occur for a brief moment (less than 30 seconds or so) during the larger ash eruptions. The main focus was on the electrical nature of eruptions, but we wanted to include as many other types of measurements as feasible. Apart from the LMA, we brought a host of other instrumentation to sense the electromagnetic spectrum of lightning and charge transfer. We also deployed two infrasound arrays with three-axis seismometers, a low-light video camera with GPS timing, two high-speed video cameras, a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera for studying plume dynamics, and still cameras. In addition, we collected ash samples when the volcano and low-level winds were kind
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS enough to dump ash in the vicinity of the laboratory where we were stationed. During the first two weeks of the field trip we set up a 10-station LMA, with five stations on Sakurajima and the other five stations on the mainland east of the bay. Care was taken to install each LMA station at a site that was RF-quiet and had good line of sight into the Showa crater, the source of most eruptive activity. During that time we also set up the other instrumentation, mostly at the observation laboratory near the town of Kurokami (kindly made available to us by the research staff of the Sakurajima Volcano Observatory). During the last two weeks we operated in shifts doing round-the-clock observations of the volcano, running the instruments that operated in triggered mode. Going into June, Southern Japan’s rainy season was upon us, rendering the volcano mostly invisible through low clouds. We went home as planned, leaving the LMA deployed over the summer, as well as the infrasound and seismic arrays and the low-light video camera, to collect data from additional eruptions autonomously. We returned to Sakurajima in September for a second observation period and to take everything down. It is a law in the field of atmospheric electricity research that any successful study requires a minimum of three attempts at measurement, depending on its complexity. The first and second attempts are usually met with catastrophe, such as instrument malfunctions, operator error, and the general unwillingness of thunderstorms to behave in a certain way. (In regard to lightning remote sensing in particular, there exists a fine line between “too far away” and “way too close, run”.) Admittedly then, combining atmospheric electricity with volcanism is just
Microphotograph of fine-grained ash particles erupted from Sakurajima. Volcanic ash is essentially pulverized rock made up of three components: volcanic glass, crystals, and lithics (older rock excavated from the vent area). Measuring the proportions of these components provides an estimate of how much ‘fresh’ magma is driving each explosion. Magma fragmentation plays a role in electrification by breaking apart molten rock (fractoemission) and providing fine-grained particles that exchange electrons during collisions (triboelectrification).
Thermal infrared image of an ash-rich explosion of Sakurajima volcano from FLIR camera, revealing the hottest portions of the eruption column and entrainment of the cooler, surrounding air by turbulent eddies. Image sequences like this will help identify links between plume development and lightning properties.
asking for trouble. September being our second and final shot at Sakurajima, we had gone to great effort to iron out all the instrument “glitches” that we had encountered back in May and June. LMA stations were polished, some literally. Most things were working flawlessly by late September, in a relative manner of speaking. Really the only way we could be prevented from getting very clean and comprehensive data recorded this time (particularly of continuous RF emissions, which proved elusive) was if something were to happen to the volcano itself. And so Sakurajima volcano went to sleep. After a lull followed by a rather disconcerting seismic event back in August, which prompted temporary evacuations of residents on part of the island, the volcano began to produce normal eruptions again early September, only to cease altogether the moment we showed up again. We witnessed a spectacular and uncommon nighttime eruption from the larger Minamidake crater, but saw no lightning in it or any of the other minor eruptive events from Showa. Nonetheless, we are finding a host of interesting and novel features in the data sets we do have. We are gaining more insights in continuous RF production and plume charging. The eruptions that we witnessed in May and June yielded important new results, more than enough to keep us busy for some time and advance our understanding of what goes on electrically in volcanic eruptions. Our team members include Sonja Behnke (PI, LANL), Stephen McNutt (PI, USF) and Ronald Thomas (PI, NMT); Alexa Van Eaton (USGS); Corrado Cimarelli and Valeria Cigala (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München); Cassandra Smith and Alexandra Farrell (USF); Chris Michel (CM Arborcare); and Ken Eack, Graydon Aulich, and Harald Edens (NMT).
PHOTO BY ALEXA VAN EATON, USGS.
March 2016
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
13
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Mount St. Helens Volcanic Eruption: Past, Present and Future Engineering Responses David Scofield U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deposit flowed further down the Toutle, Cowlitz Rivers and finally into the Columbia River. The continuing eruption deposited a loose mantling of volcanic ash and pyroclastic flows on top of the avalanche deposit. By the time the eruption ended, 230 square miles of land was devastated, Spirit Lake had risen over 200 feet (Photo 2), new lakes began to form, downstream communities and transportation systems were damaged, and the Columbia River deep water navigation channel was blocked stranding over thirty freighters. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) was tasked to provide the engineering and construction to assist in the recovery efforts. The November 2015 Oregon Section AEG talk presented the highlights of the Corps engineering response over the last 35 years: from initial emergency response, recovery, current actions, and touch upon possible future plans. The initial emergency response began within days and was to dredge and restore the Columbia River channel to international shipping. Concurrently, the Corps began dredging the Cowlitz River and raise levees to restore flood protection to the affected
M
Photo 1: Mount St. Helens May 18, 1980 eruption
ount St. Helens volcano began to stir to life in March of 1980. With magma rising within the volcano, the mountain swelled steepening the north side. On the morning of May 18 1980, there were two earthquakes that resulted in the collapse of the north side of the mountain immediately followed by a large lateral blast and the violent eruption began (Photo 1). The debris avalanche from the collapse of the mountain blocked the natural outlet of Spirit Lake and several other smaller tributary streams to the North Fork Toutle River. A mudflow originated from the avalanche
Photo 3: Dredging the lower Cowlitz River and raising levees to restore flood carrying capacity
Photo 2: Spirit Lake in foreground following May 18, 1980 eruption. Most of the lake is covered with large floating woody debris from the devastated forested area
14
communities along the lower Cowlitz River (Photo 3). Once these immediate emergency responses were completed, the Corps began to reconnect the blocked drainages and newly forming lakes to reduce the downstream flood risk due to eventual overtopping and breaching (Photo 4). The first of these efforts were the construction of permanent outlet channels for both Castle and Coldwater Lakes. Once the smaller lakes were stabilized, the Corps began the geotechnical investigation and evaluation of the stability of the Spirit Lake blockage (Photo 5). In addition, an emergency pumping facility was constructed to stabilize the level of Spirit Lake to prevent overtopping of the blockage until a per-
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS manent outlet tunnel could be constructed. Spirit Lake outlet tunnel was constructed under emergency condition (Photo 6). Once all of the lakes and the river system were stabilized, the Corps constructed a large sediment retention structure downstream of the avalanche deposit to slow and contain the sediments being eroded and transported down the river. The design is to trap the coarser sands, gravels and cobbles while allowing the finer fraction to pass on through the system (Photo 7). This effort reduces the downstream deposition and the dredging requirement to maintain flood protection and navigation.
Photo 4: Constructed (1981) outlet channel for Coldwater Lake. Lake was expected to fill and overtop the debris dam during the winter of 1981-1982 potentially releasing a mudflow larger than the May 18, 1980 mudflow
Photo 7: Toutle River Sediment Retention Structure, designed to trap coarse sediments and allow the silt and fine sand to pass through
Photo 5: Geotechnical investigations of the avalanche/Spirit Lake blockage
Photo 6: Spirit Lake Outlet Tunnel TBM
March 2016
After 25 years, the Toutle River Sediment Retention Structure (SRS) has been completely filled to the spillway crest trapping over 100 million cubic yards of sediments. The Corps’ continuing role has been to review the expected future sediment transport as part of a limited reevaluation study using multiple methods for the management of long-term sediment transport. One component of the plan is to increase the SRS storage capacity by raising the spillway crest (Photo 8). The SRS spillway is designed to safely pass the Probable Maximum Flood/Probable Maximum Mudflow. The U.S. Geological Survey, using the latest analytical tools, reevaluated the size of the design mudflow. This reevaluation has lead to a better understanding of the mudflow size and risk. Better understanding has increased the confidence in raising the spillway in seven-foot increments beginning in 2013. Ultimately, the spillway may be raised up to 30 feet while still being able to pass the designed mudflow. This has allowed the Corps to incrementally increase sediment storage capacity as part of an adaptive sediment strategy. In addition, the Corps conducted in 2013 a pilot program with a variety of low environmental impact woody debris grade building structures to slow stream flow to enhance deposition of coarser sediments to reduce sediment transport downstream (Photos 9 and 10).
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
15
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Photo 8: Raising the SRS spillway with roller compacted concrete to increase sediment storage capacity. Spillway crest was raised 7 feet in 2012. Future spillway raises along with other measures encompasses an adaptive sediment management strategy. Spillway crest is sloped and notched to concentrate low flow to permit future volitional fish passage.
Photo 9: Grade Building Structures pilot program, a variety of types of structures constructed in 2012 are designed to slow water flow and enhance sedimentation of coarse sediments.
Photo 11: Routine Periodic Inspections of Spirit Lake Outlet tunnel in October 2014 disclosed heaving of tunnel invert and distress. Concrete invert slabs have been heaved up as much as 2.4 feet decreasing the flow capacity of the outlet tunnel.
Since completion of permanent outlet for Spirit Lake, the tunnel has routinely been inspected. Squeezing ground and scour of the shotcrete liner has led to several repairs. Recent inspections in 2014 showed significant ground movement, which has reduced the tunnel’s hydraulic capacity (Photo 11). The area of distress is the sheared geologic contact between the predominantly volcanic tuffs and the overlying volcanic lava flows (Figure 12). This sheared and faulted contact was In the future, originally difficult to tunnel through. the Corps and the Geologic details of this zone are Forest Service will shown in Figure 13. The TBM be working on a became bogged down and hand tunneling was required. This zone long-term plan for required nearly continuous steel ribs. the Spirit Lake Working with the US Forest Service, Outlet. the Corps has designed and awarded a contract for interim repairs to the tunnel. This work is scheduled for completion in early 2016. In the future, the Corps and the Forest Service will be working on a long-term plan for the Spirit Lake Outlet. With the cessation of volcanic activity and the tunnel requiring future rehabilitation, there is a desire to take a new look at all of the options of providing a permanent safe outlet for Spirit Lake. The shape of the permanent solution has not been formulated yet but it could involve reconstruction of a portion of the tunnel or even construction of a new natural river outlet over the debris avalanche.
About the Author:
Photo 10: Toutle River GBS. Details of Grade Building Structures 16
David Scofield is a senior engineer with the Portland District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers working in the Geotechnical Design Section. He has degrees in geology and civil engineering and is a licensed Civil Engineer and Engineering Geologist. He has 40 years of professional experience with 26 years with the Corps of Engineers working on large complex AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Figure 12: Geologic profile along Spirit Lake Outlet tunnel
Figure 13: Details of the geology at the zone of tunnel invert heave and 2016 repair
civil works projects in Oregon and Washington. Some of the major projects he has been involved in are Applegate Dam, Bonneville second powerhouse and navigation lock, Fern Ridge Dam emergency repairs, John Day lock repairs, and Mount St. Helens volcano recovery. Scofield has spent about three years working on various aspects of Mount St. Helens investigating the Spirit Lake debris blockage, Spirit Lake March 2016
Outlet Tunnel, and Toutle River Sediment Retention Structure. Since 2008, he has been extensively involved in the Corps dam safety risk assessment program serving five years on risk cadre traveling across the nation conducting evaluations of dams. For the last three years, he has focused on risk evaluation studies of Portland District dams.
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
17
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Rheology of Crystallizing East African Basalts Aaron A. Morrison – University of Missouri-Columbia Introduction Both Nyiragongo (NYI) and Nyamuragira (NYA) are active volcanoes found in the Virunga Volcanic Province (Fig. 1) of the D.R. Congo. Nyiragongo is well known for persistent lava lake activity as well as devastating eruptions in 1977 and 2002. These eruptions spawned humanitarian crises in the city of Goma, located on the southern flank of NyiFigure 1: Nyiragongo and Nyamuragira volcaragongo, killing 170 and noes located in the western Virunga Volcanic displacing over 350,000 Province. These volcanoes lie in the active people. Nyiragongo lavas Albert Rift which is a part of the western branch of the EARS. The city of Goma lies are mafic (39-42 wt % just on the southern flank of Nyiragongo. SiO2), foiditic, ultra-alkaKarisimbi (K), Mikeno (M), and Visoke (V) volline (5-6 wt.% Na2O, canoes are also labelled. [1] K2O) lavas, which create extremely low viscosity flows. These lavas will then be compared to Nyamuragira volcano only 15 km away. Generally, lavas from Nyamuragira are alkali basalts, hawaiites, basanites and tephrites with a range of silica content from 43–56 wt %. Nyamuragira lavas have much higher silica contents, lower Ca contents, and lower alkalis than Nyiragongo lavas. Figure 2: Diagram of concentric cylinder viscometer setup. A Pt-Rh crucible holds the sample while a rotating Pt-Rh spindle is inserted. By measuring the torque on the spindle, stress and strain can be calculated to determine viscosity. Isothermal experiments are run with varying strain rates to observe the rheological response.
18
Figure 3: Flow curves for each isothermal experiment for NYI and NYA. Both suites are fitted with a power-law estimation with no detectable yield strength. The 1169°C NYI experiment may have a different degree of oxidation despite a similar thermal history.
Purpose In most models of lava flows, a single value for viscosity is used and this study attempts to quantify the change in viscosity with temperature to obtain a more accurate function of how a lava flow will behave. Nyiragongo is one of the few volcanoes where active lava flows have actually caused fatalities so understanding exactly how these lava flows move is important to hazard management. This was accomplished by a combination of concentric cylinder viscometry (Figs. 2 and 3), wet chemistry, and EPMA analysis (Fig.4). Viscometry is done by heating above the liquidus followed by cooling to a target subliquidus temperature. A rotating spindle is then inserted into the crystalliquid suspension. Torque on the spindle is then measured at various strain rates to observe the rheological response. AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Figure 4: Backscattered electron images of each subliquidus experiment. No significant crystallization occurs in the NYI sample until ~50-60°C undercooled. Oxidizing conditions suppress olivine growth and facilitate crystallization of FeMg spinels. Both images of the 1169°C and 1140°C experiments show larger crystals and a second phase likely due to the oxidation of the bulk material composition. Crystallization of the NYA sample begins at least at ~20-25°C of undercooling. Crystal fraction error ± 0.02
Results Both Nyiragongo and Nyamuragira lavas show Newtonian behavior at superliquidus conditions. Nyiragongo continues to be Newtonian until ~50-60°C undercooled where crystallization of Fe-rich spinels occur (Figs. 3 and 4). Crystallization occurs much sooner (at least 20°C of undercooling) in the Nyamuragira lavas which have yet to be compositionally analyzed. Flow index remains high over a large temperature range (especially NYI) as compared to Kilauea (Fig. 5a). Crystal fraction remains relatively low over the range of temperatures (Fig. 5b). With further research, Nyamuragira may follow similar trends to those of Hawaiian basalts.
Conclusions Nyiragongo and Nyamuragira lavas have distinct rheological behaviors. The Nyiragongo viscosity increase is due to cooling effects rather than physical or chemical effects of crystallization as evidenced by the low crystal fractions maintained over the range of experimental undercooling. Lavas remain relatively fluid over a range of ~80°C which facilitates rapid emplacement of long-lived flows. Nyamuragira lavas begin crystallization at higher temperatures than those of Nyiragongo. Sample oxidation suppresses olivine crystallization, forms Fe-rich spinel which may also prolong duration of an active flow. More experimental data and analysis forthcoming.
Figure 5: (a) Flow index curves for NYI and NYA compared to Kilauea. (b) Crystal fraction of both NYI and NYA across the experimental range of temperatures. Kilauea lavas plotted for comparison. (c) Melt chemistry evolution showing the decrease in Fe concentration as it is being incorporated into Fe-rich spinel. Chemical analysis has only been completed for NYI samples. (d) Consistency, i.e. viscosity at a strain rate of 1 s-1, for each sample. Data for Kilauea lavas from [2].
March 2016
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
19
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Acknowledgements:
References
This work supported by NASA award NNX12AO44G and NSF award EAR-1220051 to AW. The authors would also like to thank Matthieu Kervyn, Benoit Smets, and Sam Poppe of Vrije Universiteit Brussel for samples and discussion.
[1] Platz et al. (2004), Low-pressure fractionation of the Nyiragongo volcanic rocks, Virunga Province, D.R. Congo. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 136(3), 269–295. [2] Sehlke et al. (2014) Pahoehoe to ‘a’a transition for Hawaiian lavas: an experimental study. Bull.Volc., 76(11), 1-20.
Rainbows on the Ground
T
How Satellite Radar Helps Us Monitor Volcano Deformation
he surface of Kilauea Volcano So where do these rainbow patis rarely stationary. There are terns come from? The rainbow a variety of processes that colors represent the change in diseach move or change the shape of tance between the ground and the the volcano and, when active at the satellite in the time between two same time, create a complex pattern orbits of the InSAR satellite. Each of ground deformation. Satellitecycle of colors, from magenta to based Interferometric Synthetic Aperblue (analagous to the red to purple ture Radar (InSAR) has become a key progression in a rainbow in the sky), tool during the last two decades to indicates motion equal to half the illuminate this complexity. satellite’s radar’s wavelength, or For example, InSAR recently about 1.5 cm (0.6 in) for the interferproved important in understanding ogram in the figure. The pattern the various episodes of Kilauea’s repeats and by counting up all the south caldera intrusion this past rainbows, called “fringes,” you get spring. In April 2015, the shallow the total amount of motion. reservoir beneath Kilauea Caldera Over the past two decades, the began to rapidly inflate, causing the increasing number of available satelThis interferogram spans from 4/11/2015 to 5/22/2015 and lava lake within the Overlook crater lites has improved our InSAR capashows a beautiful bullseye pattern of rainbow fringes due to to rise to the point where it overbilities by providing a variety of about 10 cm (4 inches) of ground deformation during an topped its rim and spilled onto the wavelengths that allow for improved intrusion this past spring. floor of Halema’uma’u. It was during resolution at short wavelengths and this time that scores of visitors crowded into the viewing area better penetration through vegetation at longer wavelengths. at the Jaggar Museum to catch the spectacular display of HVO has used data from many different InSAR satellites to spattering. investigate motion on Hawai‘i’s volcanoes, including satellites On May 11, tiltmeters began recording rapid deflation, the launched by the European Space Agency (ESA), Canada, lava lake level dropped and earthquakes in the south caldera Germany and Japan. increased in rate and magnitude. Within a day, inflation in the The United States is working towards launching its first south caldera was clear from our network of continuous GPS InSAR satellite. In 2014, NASA announced a joint project with instruments and tiltmeters. the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) to build and InSAR images spanning the beginning of this event show launch a multi-wavelength InSAR satellite, dubbed the NISAR the uplift associated with the initial inflation in great detail, satellite, specifically designed for studying natural hazards. revealing a complexity to the shape of the reservoir that we The ground-breaking project is currently scheduled for a 2020 previously only suspected. The images also capture the transilaunch. This and other upcoming satellites promise to provide tion to deflation at Halema’uma’u and south caldera inflation. even better and more frequent views of Kilauea and Mauna As shown in the accompanying image, the rainbow pattern Loa’s deformation field and we expect even more new seen in the interferogram beautifully captured the shape and insights to come. extent of ground uplift during this event. This image shows From “Volcano Watch,” weekly articles written by scientists that the uplift coincides with the location of a known south at the U.S. Geological Survey`s Hawaiian Volcano caldera storage reservoir. This is the first evidence that we Observatory http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/, on have ever had suggesting rapid magma transfer between November 19, 2015. storage reservoirs.
20
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Kilauea & Halema’uma’u Then and Now Rita Keefe – North Central Section Member
K
ilauea is one of five volcanoes on the Big Island (Hawai’i), three of which are considered active: Mauna Loa, Haulalai and Kilauea. At the north end of the Big Island is Kohala. It started as a rupture in the ocean floor, over a hot spot, a little over a million years ago. Gradually building a shield volcano over hundreds of thousands of years, it broke through the surface of the Pacific Ocean and started to form the island. Concurrently, the pacific plate was moving in a northwesterly direction, which resulted in Kohala moving off the hot spot. The next in line to start forming was Mauna Kea, then Haulalai, Mauna Loa and Kilauea. The process continues a half-mile down with the newest volcano off the southeast coast, Loihi seamount. Kilauea & Halema’uma’u are uniquely connected. Kilauea caldera (a large volcanic crater over a mile in diameter) has a shallow magma chamber beneath it. Its activity responds to the level of magma introduced into the chamber. Low magma supply to the chamber (deflation) causes collapse of the crater or caldera and generates explosive eruptions. High magma supply (inflation) keeps pressure in the system and the lava flows. Over the past 2,500 years, Kilauea (great spewing or wide spreading) has experienced periods of violent eruptions that have lasted centuries. Currently, it is in an interim between episodes, exhibiting quiet lava flows. One such flow started Jan. 3, 1983, and has been continuously flowing up to today. According to research at the USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO), the explosive eruptions at Kilauea are not March 2016
isolated incidents but part of a larger phase of activity. The most recent explosive episode was from about 1500 A.D. to 1800 A.D. Within those dates Kilauea violently erupted at least 20 times. The most violent and deadly occurred during 1790. This was documented by Sheldon Dibble, a Christian missionary, in his 1843 book History of the Sandwich Islands. He reported that warriors from another island landed on the Big Island to engage Chief Kamehameha in a fight for ruling rights of the island. As the warriors began their advance, the land started to shake, rocks fell from the eruption, and there was lightning and thunder. From various accounts, the number of fatalities ranged from 80 to 5,405. Near the observatory, HVO scientists have found traces of pyroclastic density currents (PDC), a form of pyroclastic flow. This mixture of hot gases and volcanic ash could have engulfed and killed the warriors in seconds. It is thought that the PDC was the reason so many died. In a previous eruption episode from 200 B.C. to 1000 A.D., around 800 A.D. a major explosive eruption occurred which sent rocks hurling up to three miles away from the caldera. Other violent eruptions were also identified during this period. More recently, Kilauea has become a host for the Halema’uma’u crater (a hole in the ground resulting from an explosion, collapse, or both less than one mile across). The crater has been filled with lava since the 1830s, creating a lava lake. A conduit had been established that feeds the molten magma. From 1905 to 1924, magma was continuously supplied to the lava lake, but the supply stopped in May
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
21
PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Close-ups of the lava lake churning at night taken in 2015 from the Jaggar Museum overlook
1924. The lake deflated and the sides collapsed, allowing ground water to enter the magma conduit. Hundreds of steam explosions occurred over a two-week period, some carrying rock debris as far as a half mile away. If you could visit the overlook now, the expelled debris is visible around the rim. The resulting collapse formed a hole 3,000 ft in diameter and 1,350 ft deep. The lava lake didn’t stay empty for long. In 1960, the crater housed a lava lake but an earthquake swarm caused it to deflate. It refilled in 1967–68 and drained in 1971. In 1975 & 1982, magma was injected in small amounts by the northeast wall. Until 2008, the lava was diverted to the flows coming out of Pu’u O’o further down the upper east rift zone. In 2008, the crater was filled again with molten magma. From that time to today, the level of lava has fluctuated but no draining has occurred. For public safety, Hawaii’s Volcano National Park has closed the road between Crater Rim Drive past the Thomas A. Jaggar Museum and Chain of Craters Road. At the Halema’uma’u overlook, which is currently closed, there has been intense fumes with high concentrations of carbon, sulfur dioxide, and other volcanic gases. With the level of lava inflating and deflating, explosions of rocks debris from the lava lake are possible. During a deflation event in December 2015, part of the crater wall fell into the lake and caused an explosive ejection. Currently, the lava lake is not viewable from the overlook at the Jaggar Museum. The only evidence of any activity are white plumes of smoke rising above the caldera during the day and an increase of sulfur. Individuals that have allergies to sulfa should be cautious while in the area. Shifts in the wind could bring the plume over the viewing platform at the museum. With all that said, the red/orange glow from the lava lake at night is reflected in the rising cloud. It is definitely an experience to behold.
REG REVIEW, Inc. STUDY AIDS and COURSES for the NATIONAL (ASBOG®) GEOLOGY LICENSING EXAMS
Looking for help to get focus and direction for the ASBOG® exams?
REG REVIEW, Inc. has the class for you! One-day courses are taught regionally nationwide. Increase your likelihood to pass by 25% over the national average.
REG REVIEW, Inc. is the leader in providing study aids and courses for geological professionals preparing for the geology licensing exams. Instructors are professionals with direct ASBOG® and California exam experience.
Study Aids REG REVIEW, Inc. provides the only professional-quality Study Manuals and Flash Cards available for the ASBOG® Geology Licensing Exams, the California Supplemental exam, and the Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology Certification Exams.
Order study aids or register for courses at regreview.com e-mail: regreview@aol.com 178 Bowles Road Newbury, NH 03255 (603) 763-3272 fax: (603) 763-3341 (916) 456-4870
References: Hazlett, Richard W., 2002, Geological Field Guide-Kilauea, Hawaii Natural History Association, p. 72–79.
22
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
ISSUES IN PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE In this series, we present the opinions of the author as he explores the issues that are important in the implementation and operation of statutory licensure for geologists. The author’s opinions are not necessarily those of the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists or any other organization or entity.
Issue LXXVI
Whence the Thinking of Licensure Reformers and Opponents? Robert E. Tepel, PG, CEG, and Past President AEG
Introduction Politics is a blood sport and statutory professional licensure is always in the game. The playbook for the game was updated last year and an influential predecessor book remains viable and in print. Here is the backstory and a review of the latest publication from CLEAR, The Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation. If you are involved in, or might be involved in, efforts to introduce, improve, or save licensure for geologists, you need both of these playbooks.
Development of Clear Publications on Licensure Introduction Licensure is a form of credentialing common among professions that practice directly affects the public health, safety, and wellbeing. The first question asked by state governments in considering licensure programs is: does the practice of the profession affect the public health, safety, and well-being to a sufficient extent that the state, having an interest in protecting its citizens, should regulate the profession, and if so, to what degree? A proposal to license a profession will not be accepted by a legislature just because the answers to all three criteria are “yes.” A sunrise or sunset report for a licensed profession must answer many questions. Whence the questions? CLEAR (The Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation) is there to help with lists of recommended questions and background information about occupational and professional regulation.
Addressing all of the policy-makers concerns is the primary purpose of CLEAR’s latest publication, “Demystifying Occupational and Professional Regulation” (Schmitt, 2015). Although it is comprehensive, Schmitt (2015) does not directly carry forward a critical set of heritage questions from Shimberg and Roederer (1994). Those challenging questions still haunt licensure advocates because they remain ensconced in the litany of challenges residing in the files of state licensure regulatory agencies, licensure reformers, and licensure opponents. Fortunately, the legacy book (Shimberg and Roederer 1994), Questions a Legislator Should Ask, is still in print. It is a crucial resource for licensure defenders because those questions will be forever asked in licensure reviews and debates. Buy the book and know what questions you will be asked.
The Heritage of Schmitt (2015) Table One lists the publications that constitute the direct heritage of Schmitt (2015). For licensure advocates trying to understand the political arena, the publications of CLEAR filter and condense social science thinking about professional licensure into accessible units. The earlier books in Table One, particularly the works of 1978 and 1994, provided abundant ammunition for legislators and their consultants, as well as regulatory and gubernatorial staffs. That ammunition was chiefly used by them to challenge the need for professional licensure for geologists. For example, questions from Shimberg and Roederer (1994) were asked, essentially verbatim, of geological associations proposing
Table One. Heritage of Schmitt (2015) Year Published
Author(s), Editor (if credited)
1978
Shimberg, Benjamin, Roederer, Doug, Questions a Legislator Should Ask. Council of State Governments, Council on Licensure, Enforcement and and Marcelli, Ralph J. Regulation, Lexington, Kentucky, 24 p.
1980
Shimberg, Benjamin
Occupational Licensing: A Public Perspective. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 208 p.
1991
Shimberg, Benjamin
Regulation in the Public Interest: Myth or Reality? Resource Brief 91-1, Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation, Lexington, Kentucky, 3 p.
1994
Shimberg, Benjamin, and Roederer, Doug. Edited by Kara Schmitt
Questions a Legislator Should Ask (Second edition). Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation, Lexington, Kentucky, 40 p.
1996
Schmitt, Kara, and Shimberg, Benjamin Demystifying Occupational and Professional Regulation: Answers to Questions You May Have Been Afraid to Ask. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation, Lexington, Kentucky, 116 p.
2015
Schmitt, Kara
March 2016
Title, Publisher, and Pagination
Demystifying Occupational and Professional Regulation. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation, Lexington, Kentucky, 213 p.
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
23
ISSUES IN PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE licensure in New Hampshire and Colorado; some of the concepts were also used in sunset reviews in California. Geologists were not the only licensees to be confronted with those questions. They are widely applied; the National Association of Social Workers went so far as to publish a 24-page booklet titled Answers to Questions State Legislators Ask about Social Work Licensing: A Response to Questions Proposed by the Council of State Governments in Occupational Licensing: Questions a Legislator Should Ask (no date).
Overview of “Demystifying Occupational and Professional Regulation,” 2015 Edition Audience From the Preface, the book’s audience includes: ■ Board Member and Appointee, Professional and Public ■ Legislators and Their Staff Who Are Concerned with Regulatory Issues
earlier works, Schmitt (2015) is refreshingly neutral in tone. One does not perceive a bias either for or against professional licensure or the professions as a group.
How to Apply Schmitt (2015) Application in Rational Political Discussion Geologists will use Schmitt (2015), along with Shimberg and Roederer (1994) to understand the objectives, priorities, and strategies of licensure reformers and opponents, and to develop their own strategies and counter-arguments. Licensure opponents will choose what they find useful in promoting their positions. At the rational level of the debate, Schmitt (2015) in combination with Shimberg and Roederer (1994) provide insight into the philosophical stance of licensure opponents and reformers. It is the rational level that we can engage in discussion by showing how we meet the more important standards set by, or implied in, both books, and show that some of their concerns are not applicable to geological licensure programs.
■ Certification Directors ■ Legal Counsel
The Non-Rational Attitude
■ Staff of a Professional Society Whose Members Are, or Want to be, Subject to Regulation
Contents The chapters of Schmitt (2015) are listed here from its Table of Contents. The chapter titles alone will indicate how important this book is for licensure advocates. ■ The Purpose of Regulation ■ Evolution of the Present Regulatory System ■ Reasons Why Occupations and Professions Want to be Regulated ■ Legal Issues ■ Developing Regulations ■ Level of Regulation in the United States ■ Canadian and European Regulation ■ Appointments to Boards and Colleges
In the 1990s, my friend and colleague, the late Seena Hoose, was president of the California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists. In preparing a sunset review report to the state legislature, she met with the consultant to the legislative committee that would receive the sunset review report. She told me that the first words out of his mouth were “We will kill you,” meaning that his job was to kill licensure for geologists. The inferred message: no matter how faithfully, sincerely, and rationally the board might respond in its Sunset Review Report, there would be an effort to kill the board and licensure for geologists in the legislature.
■ Responsibilities of Individual Board Members ■ Major Responsibilities of Regulatory Bodies
Application in Non-Rational Political Discussion
■ Rights of Individuals with Disabilities ■ Globalization and Mobility of Workers ■ Funding the Regulatory Function ■ Future Trends in Regulation Schmitt (2015) follows the general outline of Schmitt and Shimberg (1996). Schmitt (2015) is expanded to include modern topics related to globalization of practice and the rights of individuals with disabilities. Canadian and European regulatory practices are also covered. The design of Schmitt (2015) is clean and attractive. The tables are easy to comprehend. While a sensitive soul might perceive a bit of skepticism about the motives of the professions seeking licensure in some of the 24
The CLEAR publications in Table One form the basis of vigorous politically motivated challenges to professional licensure. I refer to this type of challenge as non-rational because it is simply a matter of implementing change by political force based on the ruling political philosophy. In my experiencebased opinion, the licensure opponents might dress their position as being willing to listen and engage in rational discussion, and to accept licensure if we can prove its worth, but in actuality they simply want to kill or neuter licensure as a way to exercise their political philosophy. (The desire for change is not restricted to one political philosophy; both liberal/progressive and conservative sides can develop anti-licensure stances based on their own precepts.)
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
ISSUES IN PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE Does this really happen? See the text box. Schmitt (2015), along with Shimberg and Roederer (1994), will be helpful if you face a licensure challenge that rejects any and all justifications for professional licensure. These attacks can be identified by the use of phrases such as “eliminate unnecessary state regulations” or “remove unnecessary layers of bureaucracy” or “streamline government.” In this sort of battle, furnishing logical and complete responses to the challenges is merely pro forma and a basis for negotiation. Call your lobbyist.
Index of Advertisers AEG 2016 Annual Meeting ..................................................2 AEG Corporate Sponsors ..................................................31 Geotechnology....................................................................5 REG Review.......................................................................22 Penn Master of Science in Applied Geoscience ................32
Conclusion In summary, geologists would do well to view Schmitt (2015), in combination with Shimberg and Roederer (1994), as the standard resources for licensure opponents. That is not the stated intention of the books, but that is how they are used. Shimberg and Roederer (1994) still holds sway as a primary resource for licensure opponents because it includes a list of challenging questions that licensure opponents use to confront licensure proponents. At least we licensure proponents have our challenges laid out before us.
For information on supporting AEG through sponsorship and/or advertising in AEG News, contact AEG Headquarters: advertising@aegweb.org.
References References cited are in Table One on page 23.
Call for Papers: AEG Members are encouraged to submit papers on interesting case histories, original research or other projects to its journal on the following topics: • Environmental geology • Engineering geology • Feasibility studies • Geotechnical engineering • Geomorphology • Low-temperature geochemistry • Applied hydrogeology • Near-surface processes • Review papers in applied geosciences and technical notes (< 6 pages)
Benefits Include: • 4 Issues Per Year • Papers Are Peer Reviewed • Best Student Paper Award • Best Paper Award
Instructions for Authors: http://eeg.allentrack.net/ March 2016
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
25
t n o r f e m o Carolinas Section The H HEADER HERE
Maddie German, Chair
Mark Zdepski
In November 2015, the Carolinas Section was a major sponsor of the North Carolina Science Teachers Association meeting in Winston-Salem, NC. We distributed 400 American Geoscience Institute (AGI) Earth Science Toolkits to teachers from across the state, and funded two awards that recognize exemplary accomplishments in earth science education: the Outstanding Earth Science Educator (OESE) Award and the Outstanding Earth Science Teacher (OEST) Award. This year’s recipient of the OEST award was Rebekah Fuerst, an earth science teacher at Parkwood Middle School in Union County. The OESE winner was Jo Wallace, an elementary teacher at J.Y. Joyner Elementary Magnet School in Wake County. Special thanks to Susan Kelly for handing out the toolkits and representing AEG at the conference. The 2015 fall Section meeting was held at the Natty Greene’s in downtown Greensboro, NC, on November 12. Malcolm Schaeffer presented Piedmont Groundwater System – the Transition Zone between Regolith and Bedrock: Existence and Characteristics. He discussed his quantitative assessment of borehole data from six locations in the Carolinas Piedmont Province. This meeting was well attended by about 60 professionals and students. Also at the Greensboro meeting, we held a 50/50 raffle and raised $90 for the Carolinas Section Scholarship. We are looking to make our first awards in the spring of 2016. Our January 2016 Section meeting was held in downtown Charlotte at Draught. Current AEG President, Paul Santi, Professor and Department Head for the Department of Geology and Geologic Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, gave a presentation entitled: Cultural and Economic Aspects of Hazard Mitigation: Debris Flow and Landslide Examples. Sue Buchanan has been working hard to prepare for our 2016 field trips. In the spring, we plan to have a one-day field trip to Wilmington, NC, where part of the day we plan to discuss the seawall at Fort Fisher/Kure Beach. In the fall there will be a one-day field trip to Boone, NC, where we will learn about the ongoing 10-year urban stream study in Boone Creek, which runs through the Appalachian State Campus. Both field trips will offer eight hours of continuing education credits. More details/activities for both trips coming soon! The Carolinas Section is looking forward to another year of great meeting speakers, fantastic field trips and worthwhile social gatherings.
New York–Philadelphia Section Brionna O’Connor, Newsletter Editor NY–P kept up its well-attended meetings in Somerset, NJ, as its members set aside time to catch up, share dinner, and engage with the night’s speaker. This November, Former Chair Mark Zdepski explored several brownstone quarries located throughout New Jersey. Sharing the history, geology, and industrial processing of these 26
brownstone quarries of New Jersey, Zdepski offered a unique perspective, as his grandfather worked in the Raven Rock quarry. With near 84 brownstone quarries in New Jersey, the audience was excited by the historical photographs from the early 1900s showing the quarryman, the conditions in which they worked, and of course, the bedding planes visible in the quarry walls.
Kristin Ward and Tony Yates
Then on December 2, 2015, both Kristin Ward and Tony Yates of Langan Engineering Data Solutions and GIS Group led an important discussion on responsible mobile data collection. As e-data continues to become a standard practice with its quick data acquisition and influence on project decisions, the user has to consider proper usage and the quality of collected data. The meeting focused on considerations such as collection devices, real-time vs sync, types of collection, and the value of human review. Looking forward to the spring, NY-P is planning its upcoming meetings and engaging with students from schools in the area for the Annual Student Night event.
Oregon Section Chris Humphrey, Section Secretary It’s been a very wet start to the new year here in the Northwest, and many of our professionals have been busy stabilizing landslides, preventing stream bank erosion, or finding new and innovative ways to route and safely discharge storm water. But we’ve still found time to periodically gather as an AEG community to learn new things and to share our experiences. In November, we had the pleasure to be reminded that we live near an active volcano—Mount St. Helens. David Scofield, PE, CEG, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers presented the Corps’ past, present and future responses to the 1980 Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption. He started his talk with a geologic overview of the region and its volcanic history, then guided us through the events that led up to the explosive May 18 eruption. By the time the eruption ended, 230 square miles of land
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
THE HOMEFRONT was devastated, Spirit Lake had risen over 200 feet, new lakes began to form, downstream communities and transportation systems were damaged, and the Columbia River deep water navigation channel was blocked, stranding over 30 freighters. For the past 35 years, the Corps of Engineers has been tasked to deal with the consequences of this geologic event. Scofield presented a summary of the initial emergency response, beginning within days of the eruption, including dredging efforts to restore the navigation capacity of the Columbia River channel, and dredging the Cowlitz River and raise levees to restore flood protection. He continued by discussing efforts to control sediment transport down the Toutle River through construction of the Sediment Retention Structure (SRS), as well as the design and construction efforts to build the Spirit Lake outlet tunnel to drain Spirit Lake to prevent overtopping and breach of the massive volcanic landslide that now blocks the lakes original drainage. He ended by summarizing current emergency efforts to reinforce a portion of the tunnel that is currently deforming and reducing flow. During our December meeting, Geotechnical Resources, Inc. (GRI) staff members George Freitag, CEG, and Michael Zimmerman, PE, CEG, presented their ongoing efforts to help stabilize a stretch of rockcut along South River Road in Salem, OR. South River Road has been the location of more than 20 rockfall events over the past 11 years. These includes several large-diameter rockfall events (including a single 8-ft-diameter boulder in 2011) and large rockslides that impacted the previously installed mesh system and barrier. Freitag and Zimmerman summarized maintenance and improvements completed during the summer of 2015, which included rock slope scaling and grading, replacement of the damaged draped mesh system, and removal of trees and woody vegetation in the area near the crest of the slope. Cable anchors supporting the new mesh were also attached to braking elements to reduce potential damage to the anchors if subsequent rockslide occurs in this area. We continued the theme of roads and rockfalls at our January meeting, where Stephen Hay, CEG with the Oregon Department of Transportation (and Oregon Section Chair Elect), and Benjamin George, PE, CEG with Cornforth Consultants, Inc., presented road widening, realignment, and stabilization efforts which they’ve been involved as part of the Mount Hood Highway (US 26) Safety & Preservation Project. Their talk was presented in conjunction with our annual joint meeting with the ASCE Geotechnical Group. They discussed the highway section between MP 49.20 and MP 57.45, which is located in steep mountainous terrain. It has experienced a higher than average crash frequency, especially under winter driving conditions, as compared to other rural highways. Existing rock slopes in this section are up to 160 feet high and the catchment areas at the base of the slopes were not designed to today’s standards. They discussed the multidisciplinary coordination required to address project challenges and the need to develop unique solutions. Geotechnical project design elements were discussed in detail, along with a summary of construction activities during the first and second seasons and planned work for the third construction season. March 2016
Sacramento Section Chase White, Secretary On October 31, 2015, the Ray Taber Foundation held its first annual “Oktaberfest” Golf Tournament at the Yocha Dehe Golf Club in Brooks, CA. The Sacramento Section of AEG was proud to participate in this inaugural event to benefit the Ray Taber Foundation, established by Andy Taber and Harmon Taber in honor of their father, H. Ray Taber, one of AEG’s original founders. The mission of the Foundation is to advance the science of integrating geology and civil engineering in their application to the built world and contribute to the historical preservation and advancement of economically sustainable small ranch farming. The event was sponsored by Taber Drilling, SAGE Engineers, Geosyntec Consultants, Quincy Engineering, BKF Engineers, Granite Construction, Tensar, Armstrong & Associates Insurance Services, Bespoke Benefits, and the Yocha Dehe Golf Club. The “Oktaberfest” included a golf tournament followed by an evening dinner and drinks. Sixty people participated in the event this year, and 13 raffle prizes, including trips to Tahoe, CA, Reno, NV, and Disneyland (among others!) were donated in support of the Foundation. In total, the event raised $6,000, which the Foundation will use to support the AEG Sacramento Section’s Annual H. Ray Taber Founders Scholarship, DoD STARBASE Sacramento Academy, UC Davis Geotechnical Graduate Student Society, and the Esparto High Ag Community. We thank everyone who participated and look forward to the Second Annual “Oktaberfest” in 2016! The Sacramento Section took the holiday months of November and December off without any formal activities, and came back in the New Year of 2016 invigorated with plans for a new slate of upcoming events and activities. On January 26, we held our first Section Meeting of the year at a new venue, Wicked West Pizza & BBQ in West Sacramento. We were pleased to have Benjamin Lawson, Assistant Business Unit Manager for Maccaferri, Inc., as our featured speaker for the evening. Lawson gave a summary presentation entitled Maccaferri Rockfall Systems: A General Introduction that addressed design considerations, appropriate material choices, best practices for installation, and full-scale testing of rockfall systems. We were also given the opportunity to meet Laurie Racca, PG, Senior Registrar for the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists (BPELSG), who gave a brief overview of changes and efforts being undertaken by BPELSG with respect to standardizing requirements for licensure of Professional Geologists with those for Professional Engineers and defining the educational requirements for Professional Geologist licenses issued by BPELSG. (See related story on page 10 of this issue.) On January 28, the Section held the first meeting and study session of the newly formed FG/PG Study Group at the new Sacramento office of Kleinfelder. The group pored over their references and study guides while enjoying pizza and the opportunity to share in the experience of preparing for the
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
27
THE HOMEFRONT
The Sacramento Section FG-PG Study Group
ASBOG FG and PG exams and the additional California-specific PG exam. Our new Section Chair, Meredith Beswick, helped to conceive and promote this study group idea to aid our members who are seeking licensure and the advancement of their professional careers. The group plans to meet weekly on Thursday nights through March 17 at various locations around the Sacramento area. The meetings and study sessions are planned to be informal and collegial, providing a way to study and work through example problems with peers, find a flashcard/study partner, and have existential geologic conversations with peers and colleagues. The Sacramento Section has some upcoming events of note including a field trip to the nearly completed Folsom Auxiliary Spillway project site on February 5 and a Career Day with the Geology Department at California State University, Sacramento (Sac State) on Feb 17. We will provide summaries of these events for the next issue of AEG News.
St. Louis Section Stefanie Voss, Section Editor On November 11 we held a joint meeting with the New Madrid chapter of EERI and the St. Louis Section of ASCE. Dr. Robert Olshansky, FAICP, of the Department of Urban & Regional Planning at the University of Illinois was the 2015 EERI Distinguished Lecturer. He spoke on Cities, Earthquakes, and Time. Earthquakes occur with no warning and takes time to study and recover. His discussion included how planning should help in the long-term and not just the shortterm after an earthquake. Mitigation to minimize earthquake impacts is crucial since it only takes an instant to break everything and a long time to fix it. Planning should be part of rebuilding and rushing to rebuild can result in costly mistakes. Communities should think about where to rebuild and involve all stakeholders. Since earthquakes repeat themselves, communities should learn how to continue to improve and support recovery. He also discussed how structural standards should consider time after the earthquake, not just the duration of the earthquake. Our December 12 meeting featured Dr. Joel Burken of Missouri University of Science and Technology. His talk Introducing Phytoremediation included discussion on using plants as sentinels to mitigate human exposures to environmental impacts. 28
Plants can sense numerous chemicals and using tree core samples, hotspots can be identified quickly. In a New Haven, Missouri plume, cores were used to delineate and identify the source to the neighborhood, where no one would have thought to look. At a dry cleaner site in Rolla, MO, students were able to sample trees before the drill rig for the consultant was even unloaded. Research has found that rainfall has no impact on the results. The larger the tree, the higher the concentration will be. Our January 21, 2016, meeting kicked off an extremely busy start of the year. Mike Roark created our section website in the fall and introduced the website at the meeting. It is already setup to announce meetings and set up to RSVP to meetings. It is currently being set up to accept payment for meetings. Many thanks to Mike for all his hard work! The St. Louis Section congratulates Jim Williams for 50 years of AEG membership in January. Jim is a former Missouri State Geologist and advocates the protection of the licensure of geology in the state of Missouri and other geology-related causes. The section will continue the advocacy with Shaking Hands in Jefferson City. Peter Price led a group of volunteers on February 2, 2016, to meet with legislatures to discuss geology and its impacts on the state and the importance of professional geology. Our speakers for our January meeting were Pam Groose with the Missouri Board of Geology Registration and AEG Past President Duane Krueger. Pam discussed who makes up the board, what the board does, and the current issues facing the board. She said that nearly all but one of the vacancies from last year was filled. There was plenty of discussion about the field camp requirement for those wanting to take the exam in Missouri and taking the fundamentals exam as an exit exam for a geology degree. Duane is a founding member of the Missouri Geologists Consortium, which is a group of concerned geologist around the state that actively track state legislative bills that concern geology, education, natural resources, and licensure around the state. They also support various state boards. It was formed in 2013 to protect professional licenses from legislative attacks.
Jim Williams accepting his 50th anniversary card with AEG PHOTO BY: STEFANIE VOSS
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
THE HOMEFRONT
San Francisco Section Maggie Parks, Section Secretary In December, we hosted AEG President, Paul Santi, PhD, of the Colorado School of Mines, at Spenger’s in Berkeley, where he discussed Cultural and Economic Aspects of Hazard Mitigation: Debris Flow and Landslide Examples. Dr. Santi discussed the many factors that lead to the most vulnerable being disproportionately impacted by natural disasters. This was a very timely topic for us, as we are currently in the midst of El Niño storms in the San Francisco Bay Area. Our December meeting was our annual Holiday Mixer with the Northern California Professional Environmental Marketing Association (PEMA) and Groundwater Resources Association of California (GRA). It was held at Scott’s Seafood in Oakland. There were food, drinks, and a raffle for all our members to socialize and celebrate the end of the year. We’re still looking for a new meeting venue to replace Sinbad’s and Pyramid Brewing, which have both recently closed. If anyone has a great idea, please forward it along! We’d also like to thank our Corporate Sponsor Fugro for their support of our Section! As always, check our Section website www.aegsf.org for a copy of our latest newsletter, up to the minute news, meeting information, local job postings, and events. Dr. Paul Santi presenting his talk, “Cultural and Economic Aspects of Hazard Mitigation: Debris Flow and Landslide Examples
Southern California Section Inland Empire Chapter (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, Southern California Region) Shaun Wilkins, Secretary During the end of 2015 and early in 2016, the AEG IE Chapter offered three talks covering environmental and engineering geology issues specifically related to the Southern California geologic setting. Rather than moving our meeting around as in years past, we are now using a single venue to host all of our talks this year: the Pinnacle Peak Steakhouse in Colton, CA. They offer a large, private meeting room, competitive pricing, and everyone enjoys good BBQ. The November meeting speaker was Dr. Norman Meek, professor of geography and chair for the Department of March 2016
Geography and Environmental Studies at the California State University, San Bernardino campus. Dr. Meek enlightened the attendees with a discussion entitled How (In)Effective is the Headward Erosion Process? In the discussion, Dr. Meek provided a comparison of the various types of headward erosion and how they differ from headward incision. Several case studies in arid and semiarid landscapes were presented, which have led Dr. Meek to conclude that headward erosion is a largely ineffective process, even in weakly consolidated strata. He further postulated that significant headward erosion and drainage piracy typically only occurs when very active colluvial and other mass-wasting processes are common. Dr. Meek also discussed how most undergraduate geology text books incorrectly present, or ignore altogether, headward erosion and stream piracy as robust processes thereby misleading geologists early in their education. Our December meeting speaker was Dr. Jeffry R. Keaton, Principle Engineering Geologist for Amec Foster Wheeler. The presentation was entitled Earthquake Ground Motion for Design of Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge (US Highway 93), and provided a case study of how a detailed seismic analysis was performed for the Hoover Dam bypass bridge during the design phase of the 3.5-mile-long Hoover Dam Bypass project. Seventeen known, active faults within a 100-mile radius of the dam were considered in the analysis with maximum earthquake magnitudes determined for each fault, and peak horizontal accelerations were estimated using three ground-motion attenuation relationships. It was determined that the target 1 second spectral acceleration would be produced by a moment magnitude earthquake of 6.2 on the Mead Slope fault at a hypocentral distance of 16 km, or by a moment magnitude earthquake of 7.0 on the California Wash fault at a hypocentral distance of 36 km. At the conclusion of the discussion, the group was treated to a spirited computer model portraying the effects of seismic shaking on the bridge at 50-times scale. It was also revealed that in spite of the detailed seismic analysis of the site, that design of the bridge to resist movement would be governed by wind shear, as opposed to seismic sources as the calculated wind loading on the bridge exceeded the seismic design loading. January’s meeting featured Dr. Peter Robertson, technical and management advisor for Gregg Drilling and Testing based in Signal Hill, CA. Dr. Robertson presented An Introduction to the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) for Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Applications. The CPT continues to be increasingly popular as a site investigation method for most soil conditions. Dr. Robertson discussed how the test is fast, continuous, and repeatable and the results can be interpreted for a wide range of geotechnical and geo-environmental applications. The presentation provided an introduction to the CPT and highlighted the main applications and projects where CPT could be of use. Dr. Robertson also provided a historical and international context for the CPT methods.
DON’T SEE YOUR SECTION? Ask your Chair or Secretary to submit a report for the June issue.
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
29
THE HOMEFRONT
Southeastern Section Matthew Howe, Chair The AEG Southeastern Section has started off the year by hosting the 2015–16 AEG President, Paul Santi from January 24–26, 2016. President Santi visited the Atlanta metropolitan area and as Section Chair, I had the privilege of escorting him around town. While he was in Atlanta, he presented talks at the University of West Georgia, the University of Georgia, and Georgia State University. Despite the large snowstorm that buried portions of the Eastern U.S., President Santi arrived in Atlanta a little earlier than planned on the evening of January 24 in a rental car, instead of on an airplane. The following morning, I escorted him to the campus of the University of West Georgia and the only AEG SE Section Student Chapter, where he presented his talk Debris Flows Following Wildfire in the Western U.S. We were warmly greeted by an overflowing room of students from the Geosciences department, which provided pizza and some homemade goodies for this lunchtime presentation. After a quick tour of the campus, we drove to Athens, GA, for an evening presentation. We enjoyed a bite to eat at The Blind Pig Tavern and then drove to the University of Georgia Campus, where President Santi gave the same presentation to a group of students from the Georgia Geology Club. The following day started at Georgia State University, where again a packed room and pizza awaited us. President Santi gave his presentation on Cultural and Economic Aspects of Hazard Mitigation: Debris Flow and Landslide Examples. After the presentation, he had a discussion with students concerning their questions about coursework for applied geology, graduate school, and getting a job. Later that afternoon, we drove to the Fernbank Museum of Natural History, where the AEG Southeastern Section hosted a joint meeting with the Atlanta Geological Society. We had an impressive showing of AEG members and non-members that trickled in throughout the social hour, despite the weather. After another round of pizza, we all piled into the large auditorium and President Santi gave the same presentation as he did at Georgia State University. As a reminder, I encourage our Section members to check out the Southeastern Section’s webpage that can be found on the AEG website under the Sections tab, and to make sure they have their email updated with AEG HQ for information on upcoming meetings and events. Our Section is always looking for energetic volunteers, so if you are interested or know of someone that might be interested, please contact Section Chair, Matthew Howe (matthew.r.howe@gmail.com). Stay tuned for announcements about talks from the Jahns Lecturer, Jerry De Graff, in mid-October.
AEG President giving presentation at University of West Georgia in Carrollton, GA
AEG President giving presentation at the University of Georgia in Athens, GA
President Santi talking with AEG Southeastern Section members during the social hour in the atrium of the Fernbank Museum of Natural History in Atlanta, GA PHOTOS BY MATTHEW HOWE
30
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
March 2016
s r o s n o p S Corporate AEG is grateful to the corporations and individuals who contribute to our operating fund through their sponsorship.
titanium Kleinfelder, Inc. Chad Lukkarila 14710 NE 87th St, Ste 100 Redmond, WA 98052 425-636-7900 CLukkarila@kleinfelder.com www.kleinfelder.com
Silver Exponent Failure Analysis Associates Elizabeth Mathieson 475 14th St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510-268-5011 emathieson@exponent.com www.exponent.com
Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. Patrick Keating 2726 Walnut Ave. Signal Hill, CA 90755 562-427-6899 Info@greggdrilling.com www.greggdrilling.com Hoover Consulting Michael F. Hoover PO Box 30860 Santa Barbara, CA 93130 mfhoover@hoovergeo.com www.hoovergeo.com Robertson Geotechnical, Inc. Hugh S. Robertson 2500 Townsgate Road, Suite E Westlake Village, CA 91361 805-373-0057 hr@robertstongeotechnical.com www.robertsongeotechnical.com
Bronze Feffer Geological Consulting Joshua Feffer 1990 S Bundy Dr, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310-207-5048 josh@feffergeo.com www.feffergeo.com
Geodynamics Consultant Group, Inc. Harry Audell 33282 Golden Lantern Street, Ste 117 Dana Point, CA 92629 949-493-1352 gcg@geodynamicsinc.com www.homegeo.com
SAGE Engineers, Inc. Ara Sanjideh 2251 Douglas Blvd., Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 916-677-4800 asanjideh@sageengineers.com www.sageengineers.com
Become an AEG Corporate Sponsor today! Benefits of Sponsorship include: ■ Listing in each issue of AEG News ■ Listing on AEG website ■ At the Titanium, Platinum and President’s Club levels you will be directly supporting a student’s attendance at the AEG Annual Meeting. A portion of your sponsorship will fund a highly competitive award that will be given to a student submitted abstract for a technical or poster session. In addition, your company will be verbally recognized at the Annual Meeting.
We are applied geology! AEG is one of the very few organizations dedicated to supporting applied geology. Members of AEG include geologists specializing in engineering geology, environmental geology, and hydrogeology as well as other professionals in affiliated fields, such as civil and mining engineering, land-use planning, public policy and education.
Contact us at advertising@aegweb.org or 844 -331-7867 to sign up for sponsorship. March 2016
AEG NEWS 59 (1)
31