may, 2000 volume 37 - number 5 the professional...

The Professional

GEOLOGIST

MAY, 2000Volume 37 - Number 5

The Professional

GEOLOGIST

A publ icat ion ofThe American Inst i tute of Professional Geologists

A publ icat ion ofThe American Inst i tute of Professional Geologists

• AIPG’S CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM• EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMN - Certification and Credibility

• AIPG ENCOURAGES ILLINOIS REGISTERED GEOLOGISTS• PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE - Societies and Policy Makers

• AIPG 2000 - 37th ANNUAL MEETING PROGRAM • RECRUITING AT THE WORKPLACE

RECRUITING AT THE WORKPLACE

To AIPG members:Below is a letter that IT Corporation has sent to its geologists. Feel free to use it as a

template for a letter to employees at your company. Let’s share the benefits of AIPG withour colleagues and friends.

Dawn H. Garcia, CPG-08313, Membership Development ChairTo volunteer to help with AIPG’s Membership Development Committee, please contact

Dawn Garcia at (520) 792-2800, ext. 206 or .

Dear Colleagues:

The American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) is conducting a member-ship campaign. [IT Corporation] recognizes the value of professional development of our asso-ciates, and has joined with AIPG to notify geologists working within [The IT Group] of thisopportunity.

AIPG is a national organization that promotes the advancement of science and the pro-fession of geology, has established professional and ethical standards, and represents the pro-fession before government and the public. This group actively participates on boards fornational, state, and local agencies and professional organizations, including the NationalEarth Science Week, USGS, state geological surveys, and state boards of technical registra-tion. Its members are recognized as leading geologists in all geologic specialties.

Membership within AIPG can help in career development by allowing you to interact withpeers, clients, government representatives, and the public on a non-project basis. Positiveinteraction outside of the workplace helps you in your career development, plus reflects pos-itively on the company. AIPG members with the “Certified Professional Geologist” creden-tials also have the appropriate certification that can be used in our business.

AIPG offers three different membership categories for geologists: Certified ProfessionalGeologist, which requires a degree in geology, plus 8 years of work experience; RegisteredMember, which is applicable for state-registered geologists who are not seeking CPG sta-tus; and Member, which is appropriate for geologists who are still gaining the necessarywork experience. Details regarding the membership categories, plus an application, are avail-able from the AIPG website (www.aipg.org). Questions regarding the membership campaignor AIPG in general may be addressed to Dawn Garcia, CPG-08313, at [email protected].

YOURCOMPANY’SLOGO HERE

The Professional Geologist (USPS 590-810 and ISSN 0279-0521) is published monthly by theAmerican Institute of Professional Geologists, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, CO80031-3681. Periodicals Postage Paid at Arvada, Colorado and additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: The Professional Geologist, AIPG, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200,Westminster, CO 80031-3681.

Subscriptions for all Members and Adjuncts in good standing are included in annual member-ship dues. Subscription prices are $30.00 a year for Members’ additional subscriptions and $40.00a year for non-members for 12 issues (for postage outside of the U.S. add $10.00 for Canadaand $18.00 elsewhere). Single copy price is $3.00 for Members and $4.00 for non-members.Claims for nonreceipt or for damaged copies are honored for three months.

Entire contents copyright 2000 by The Professional Geologist. Original material may be reprint -ed with permission. Deadline for articles and advertisements is six weeks preceding publication.Advertising rates available upon request. Opinions and views expressed by the authors are theirown and do not necessarily reflect those of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, itsstaff, or its advertisers.

2000 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEOFFICERS

PRESIDENT PRESIDENT-ELECTDennis Pennington Robert H. FakundinyNational Envir. Tech. Corp. 3288 River Rd., 9-JP.O. Box 204 Rensaelaer, NY 12144Telford, PA 18969-0204 O: (518) 474-5816O: (215) 723-9300 Fax: (581) 486-3696Fax: (215) 723-9344 [email protected]@enter.net

VICE PRESIDENT SECRETARYThomas M. Berg Michael D. LawlessOhio Geological Survey Draper Aden Associates4383 Fountain Square Dr. 2206 S. Main St.Columbus, OH 43224-1362 Blacksburg, VA 24060O: (614) 265-6988 O: (540) 552-0444Fax: (614) 268-3669 Fax: (540) [email protected] [email protected]

TREASURER EDITORKelvin J. Buchanan Myrna M. KilleyHB Engineering Group IL State Geological SurveyP.O. Box 2391 615 E. Peabody Dr.Reno, NV 89505-2391 Champaign, IL 61820O: (775) 786-4515 O: (217) 244-2409Fax: (775) 786-4324 Fax: (217) [email protected] [email protected]

EDITOR-ELECTVirginia T. McLemoreNM Bureau of MinesCampus StationSocorro, NM 87801O: (505) 835-5521Fax: (505) [email protected]

ADVISORY BOARD REPRESENTATIVESWilliam H. Hoyt James A. JacobsUniv. of Northern Colorado FAST-TEK Eng. Support SvcsChair, Earth Science Dept. 247 B Tewksbury Ave.Greeley, CO 80639 Pt. Richmont, CA 94801O: (970) 351-2487 O: (510) 232-2728Fax: (970) 351-1269 Fax: (510) [email protected] [email protected]

William V. Knight Marilyn A. Plitnik5617 S. Quebec Ave. 7127 Old Seward Hwy.Tulsa, OK 74135 Anchorage, AK 99518H: (918) 496-0352 O: (907) 563-2890Fax: (918) 496-0358 Fax: (907) [email protected] [email protected]

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200

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

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

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PUBLICATIONS MANAGERWilliam J. Siok Wendy J. [email protected] [email protected]

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTCatherine A. O’Keefe - [email protected]

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

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

AIPG FOUNDATIONKel Buchanan

Henkle-Buchanan GroupP.O. Box 2391

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

[email protected]

MAY, 2000Volume 37, Number 5

The Professional

GEOLOGISTRECRUITING AT THE WORKPLACEDawn H. Garcia, CPG-08313 IFCAIPG ENCOURAGES ILLINOISREGISTERED GEOLOGISTS 2AIPG’S CONTINUING PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:What is Proposed—Why AIPG is Doing This—How You and Other CPGs will be Affected

Tom Fails, CPG-03174 4-7

AIPG 2000 - 37th Annual MeetingWelcome Letter 18Program 19-20Keynote Speakers 21Hotel Reservation Form 21Registration Form 22Wisconsin Geologic Information 23Technical Sessions 24Field Trips 25Short Courses 26Spouse/Guest Tours 27Evening Activities 28List of Other Activities 29Housing and Flight Arrangements 29

FRONT COVER – Wisconsin State Fossil - TrilobiteName: Thaleops ovata. Age: Ordovician. Formation: PlattevilleLocation: Lancaster, Wisconsin. Size: 1.2 inches across. Remarks: Nice exampleof a rare trilobite - from an old collection. Source: www.trilobites.com

BACK COVER AND PAGES 18-29 - Photographs were provided courtesy ofthe Milwaukee Convention Bureau, Pfister Hotel, and Dale H. Rezabek,CPG.

DEPARTMENTSPRESIDENT’S MESSAGE - Societies and Policy Makers 3EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMN - Certification and Credibility 8LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING GEOLOGY 9AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MONTHLY REVIEW 10-11PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES - Column 54 12PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIRECTORY 13-15CALENDAR 16

2 The Professional Geologist • MAY 2000

The effort by geologists to organize in order to promotecommon interests is typified by a meeting of IllinoisRegistered Geologists that occurred on October 23, 1999 inJoliet. These professionals came together and were joined byAIPG 1999 President Tom Fails, 2000 President DennisPennington, TPG Editor Myrna Killey, and Executive

Director Bill Siok. The meeting was called to determine howbest to organize within Illinois in order to represent the com-mon interests of Illinois Registered Geologists with a singlestrong voice. The assembled Illinois geologists elected to cre-ate an Illinois Chapter of AIPG. AIPG is proud to have beenable to contribute to this important professional effort.

AIPG ENCOURAGESILLINOIS REGISTERED GEOLOGISTS

Illinois registered professional geologists at organizational meeting of Illinois Section of AIPG.

Ron St. John, CPG,addressing IL registeredprofessional geologists. 1999 AIPG President Tom Fails speaking with two

Illinois registered professional geologists.

AIPG Executive DirectorBill Siok, CPG, addressing

Illinois registered professionalgeologists.

2000 AIPG President Dennis Pennington, CPG, addressingIllinois registered professional geologists.

Photographs courtesy of Myrna M. Killey, CPG-06033

MAY 2000 • The Professional Geologist 3

Much can be said about the role ofthe geoscience community in support-ing our public institutions and policy-making. Too often, the technical com-munity ignores the public or, at least,hides when controversial issues arise.The geologic professions also have nottruly recognized the importance of com-municating facts and information tolawmakers so that intelligent decisionscan be made by our policy makers. Weeven avoid speaking to the generalmedia that have a major influence onthe public, and, hence, lawmakers. Howmany times have you asked yourself,where did they obtain such incorrectdata? In some cases, misrepresentationof data or the censure of news is inten-tional, but more often it reflects a lackof knowledge of a technical area by ajournalist. Additionally, sometimes ourtechnical people don’t explain data andconsequences of interpreting data, orhave their own political agenda to pro-mote.

As the global market changes and theneed for experts in resources and theenvironment as well as geologic hazardsincreases, we must, as a profession, bethere. In many cases, our professionalsocieties in the United States, Europe,and North America must communicateour knowledge so that others will notmake the same mistakes or waste valu-able public monies on policies that candestroy industries or cause more prob-lems than the original concern.

An example of a key public issue thathas many effects on how our industriesand society may function is globalwarming caused by man. There is apolitical faction that feels 20-25% of thecountries of the world are causing glob-al warming while close to 75% of theworld is excluded from any concerns ofglobal effects. That, in itself, is inter-esting for the simple reason that whilemany new industrialized countries ornon-European countries are excludedfrom having to control greenhousegases, the United States, Canada, andsome European countries are told by theinternational community to limit green-house gases. Some of these countriesthat are excluded by controls can, infact, produce more greenhouse gasesthan many of the European countriescombined. This automatically impliespolitical rather than scientific reasonsfor controlling greenhouse gases. Thereare many sources of information whichindicate that global warming by manmay or may not be happening, yet somecountries are intent on restricting somesocieties while excluding other societiesfrom controls. Rarely is there any dis-cussion on natural global warmingcycles or analysis of the geologicalrecord. Issues discussed don’t seem toinclude the reconciliation of data fromatmospheric temperature measure-ments (which indicate cooling temper-atures) and land temperature meas-urements (which indicate warmingtemperatures). Because of the influenceof politics, it is difficult to trust the opin-ions of some on this issue. Professionalsseem to make an opinion and then tryto justify it. Simple physical laws oftenare ignored. For example, the amountof sea ice versus land ice at both poleshas not been adequately discussed. Inaddition, the effect of solar cycles andhistorical chemical cycles on globalwarming of the earth have not beenobjectively discussed to identify natu-ral or man-made issues that may affectglobal warming. Where are our main-stream scientific societies on this issue?Some of our institutions have madegeneral statements about the issue

while staying on top of the so-calledfence. A few associations have statedtheir view, but are ignored by thenational media. There are other insti-tutions that almost appear to supportglobal warming by man simply to obtainfunding. However, most are silent. Thereasons for the silence could be a lackof consensus or an avoidance of contro-versy. If the reasons for silence are theavoidance of controversy, our scientificassociations may be failing the public.Even a statement related to a lack of anadequate information base to presentan opinion would be welcome. Somehowour public must be made to understandthat the issue is complex and is not justa simple concern over restricting car-bon dioxide emissions. After all, natu-ral sources of carbon dioxide far exceedman-made sources of carbon dioxide.Also, the influence of water vapor in theatmosphere (as a control on heat trans-fer) has not been widely considered inrelation to the influence of carbon diox-ide.

Other issues such as groundwateruse and building in geologic hazardareas, although evaluated locally whena crisis occurs, are not brought to theattention of national and regional polit-ical bodies concerns are short lived. Theextent of these issues often is notbrought to the attention of policymak-ers on a consistent basis, thus allowinglawmakers to make decisions withoutrealizing that a large database exists.In my opinion, the role of scientific asso-ciations, in part, is to help lawmakersand others become aware that geologi-cal data exist that could help formulatemore practical policies. Earth ScienceWeek is an example of a successful pro-gram.

In summary, geosciences can have amajor impact on public policies, but wemust be more aggressive in providingthe necessary tools to help our electedrepresentatives make the right deci-sions. Networking and combiningresources of associations are key to oursurvival as we enter this new milleni-um.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE — Dennis Pennington

Societies and Policy Makers


Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is a current “buzz-phrase” in the physical science and engineering professions. TheCPD programs and requirements being adopted are similar to thoseused by the accounting, legal, and medical professions for over a cen-tury. Emphasis is mainly on required continuing education, withaspects of professional practice, ethics, regulatory functions,and com-puter applications sometimes considered. Many states that registeror license professionals, including geologists and engineers, arebeginning to require continuing education and periodic regulatoryreviews. Examinations for registration are common at the post-col-legiate entry level or after several years of experience have beenobtained. This continues a practice first established in the US dur-ing the late 1800s for entry into the professions but which is rarelyused abroad. An examination requirement for new CPGs was con-sidered by the 1999 Executive Committee and tabled pending fur-ther investigation, evaluation, and discussion. AN AIPG EXAMI-NATION IS NOT BEING PROPOSED. INSTEAD, A PROPOSALFOR A CERTIFICATION ADVANCEMENT AND MAINTENANCEPROGRAM IS DESCRIBED HERE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.This is a slightly revised version of the Proposal for a CertificationRenewal Program and CRP Logbook approved unanimously by the1999 Executive Committee that will be published in the June 2000TPG. You are asked to read this article in order to familiarize your-self with the Proposal, Program, and Logbook when published, inpreparation for a vote by the membership to accept or reject theProposal on the 2000 ballot. If adopted, this Proposal and Programwill institute the greatest single change in AIPG practice and cred-ibility since our founding and begin the process of bringing theInstitute and its members closer to parity with our certifying organ-ization peers. The purpose of this article is to familiarize you withthe basics of the proposed Program, which is based on systematiccontinuing education and professional participation by participat-ing CPGs.

WHAT IS PROPOSED—The Task Force for Continuing Professional Development origi-

nally designed a Certification Renewal Program (CRP) based uponContinuing Education and Professional Participation activities to becarried out and recorded in an annually-provided CRP Logbook.Points, based upon the time, effort involved, and importance of theactivities, would be assigned to specific activities and recorded inthe Logbook. An annual total of 10 points each in ContinuingEducation (CE) and in Professional Participation (PP) would berequired over a 6-year CRP period. With 60 points or more each inCE and PP after 6 years, certification would be advanced to theCertified Master Professional Geologist (CMPG) rank for the fol-lowing 6-year period.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE FOL-LOWING, AS IT IS NOT THE INTENTOF THIS PROPOSAL TODE-CERTIFY ANY EXISTING CPG IN GOOD STANDING BYARBITRARY IMPOSITION OF NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR CON-TINUING EDUCATION, CERTIFICATION RENEWAL, OR SIMI-LAR PROGRAMS.

After further consideration of the long-term effects of the pro-posed CRP on “new” CPGs, the Task Force has selected a more rel-evant program name – Certification Advancement and MaintenanceProgram (CAMP).• PARTICIPATION IN THE PROPOSED CAMP WOULD NOT BE

REQUIRED FOR ANY EXISTING CPG CERTIFIED PRIOR TOTHE DATE OF ADOPTION OF THE RELEVANT BYLAWS.THEIR CURRENT STATUS AS CPGs IN GOOD STANDINGWOULD CONTINUE, AS IN THE PAST. HOWEVER, EXIST-ING CPGs WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO VOLUNTARILYPARTICIPATE IN THE CAMP. Voluntary participants who accu-mulated the required 120 point total over 6 years would beadvanced to the CMPG rank, to be held for the next 6 years. Itwould be necessary for them to voluntarily continue in the CAMPfor the second 6-year CAMP period and accumulate 120 pointsin order to maintain their CMPG for another 6 years. If they didnot continue, their CPG rank would be automatically restored ingood standing after 6 years, with their CMPG rank being sus-pended. Voluntary participants who did not succeed in accumu-lating 120 points over 6 years would not be advanced to CMPG,but would retain their CPG rank in good standing. They couldtry another 6-year CAMP period if they wished, or withdraw fromthe CAMP permanently without prejudice.

• PARTICIPATION IN THE PROPOSED CAMP WOULD BEMANDATORY FOR ALL “NEW” CPGs CERTIFIED AFTER THEDATE OF ADOPTION OF THE RELEVANT BYLAWS.Mandatory participants who accumulated the required 120 pointsover 6 years would be advanced to CMPG rank, to be held for thenext 6 years. Participation in the CAMP would be mandatory forthe following 6 years, after which their CMPG rank would bemaintained for an additional 6 years if 120 points were againaccumulated. Those “new” CPGs who did not succeed in beingadvanced to CMPG rank after 6 years would still be able to main-tain their CPG if they participated in another mandatory CAMP.Additional detail will be found in the complete Proposal for aCAMP to be published in the June TPG.

• CAMP would not be available to Members, Registered Members,Associate Members, or Students.

• SO RELAX! NO CURRENT CPG READING THIS ARTICLEWILL EVER BE SUBJECT TO CAMP PARTICIPATION ANDREQUIREMENTS UNLESS HE/SHE VOLUNTARILY PARTIC-IPATES. WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL; AS WITH ANY OTHERFORM OF EXERCISE, CAMP WOULD BE GOOD FOR YOU!

CMPG Compared to CPGCPG attests to the public that the holders have attained a rele-

vant education in the geosciences, five or more years of post-gradu-ate experience and competence in applied geoscience work, and rep-utations for integrity and ethical behavior at the time Certificationoriginally was granted.

Certified Master Professional Geologist (CMPG), to be grantedonly to CPGs who complete a CAMP successfully, will indicate more,as it attests to the public that the holders have pursued individual

AIPG’S CONTINUING PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:WHAT IS PROPOSED—WHY AIPG IS DOING THIS—HOW YOU AND OTHER CPGs WILL BE AFFECTED

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


continuing programs of education, professional development, andprofessional practice in order to maintain high personal standardsof integrity and competence for a period of six years or more sinceoriginally being Certified. A verified record of these activities couldbe provided by AIPG supporting the continuing professional statusof individual CMPGs.

Certification Renewal Director (CRD)Addition of one FTE employee at Headquarters as Certification

Renewal Director (CRD) will be necessary soon after the CAMPbecomes effective. The CRD will administer the CAMP for theNational CAMP Screening Committee, provide liaison between thatCommittee and Headquarters with the Section and Regional CAMPScreening Committees and with CAMP participants, and provideinformation regarding CAMP upon request.

Participation in CAMP ActivitiesRegistration with the CRD at Headquarters by existing CPGs

who wish to voluntarily participate in the CAMP would be neces-sary. “New” CPGs would be registered automatically. In either case,Headquarters would issue a CAMP Logbook annually to eachCAMPer. Applicants would be organized by the CRD into quarterlysub-groups identified by a “CAMP Year End-date” as they enteredtheir first CAMP year, in order to distribute the Program and espe-cially the work of the Section and National CAMP ScreeningCommittees evenly across the year.

The CAMP and the Logbook involve two types of professionaldevelopment activities, equally balanced between CONTINUINGEDUCATION (CE) and PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPATION (PP).Points are assigned to these activities, to be recorded in the Logbookas they are completed. The goal is to obtain 10 points or more eachper year in both CE and PP, or 20 points total annually. Points inexcess of twenty (amount yet to be determined) could be carried for-ward into the next year. Some flexibility to accommodate individualschedules is provided for, but a minimum total of 13 points per yearwould be required, since “playing catch-up” at the end of the 6-yearCAMP period would be difficult. Additional flexibility is provided byTechnical Contributions (TC), as described below. TC points couldbe used for either CE or PP in a given year. A total of 60 points ormore in both CE and PP at the end of the 6-year period would benecessary for advancement of CPGs to the higher CMPG rank forthe coming 6-year period.

Applications for Advancement to CMPG atEnd of 6-year CAMP Period

Application would be made at the end of the 6-year period, basedupon your “CAMP Year End-Date,” for advancement to CMPG. TheApplication and the six Annual CAMP Logbooks would be forward-ed to the CRD at Headquarters, together with a check for an amountcalculated to meet the Headquarters cost of administering the CAMPprocess. Our present estimate is that one additional FTE (the CRD)at Headquarters would be necessary to administer the CAMP onceit is completely underway. The Application Fee is estimated to beabout $40 to $50 at present, considerably less than $10 per CAMPyear. CAMP is to be administered on a strictly break-even basis, asCAMP is for the benefit of AIPG’s membership, and not AIPG’s rev-enue stream.

Unusual schedules, remote locations, graduate school obligationsand other special factors could make it difficult for a CAMP partic-ipant to accumulate 10 points each in CE and PP each year. Anyparticular year, any CAMP participant who has been unable to ful-fill a basic 6-year CAMP period due to one or more of these or sim-ilar factors, could attach a statement describing the applicant’s par-ticular situation and requesting special consideration by theNational CAMP Screening Committee to the Application forAdvancement to CMPG. In addition, provision has been made forSubstitute CE/PP Activities to be available to participants who livein isolated locations or who are subject to frequent longer term, work-related travel.

Application ScreeningCopies of the Application and Logbooks would be supplied by

Headquarters to the applicant’s CAMP Screening Committee at theSection or Regional (multi-Section) level. The members of these localScreening Committees know local conditions and the applicants best,and can discuss the Applications and Logbooks directly with theapplicants when necessary. Recommendations would be made by thelocal CAMP Screening Committees to the National CAMP ScreeningCommittee, as with CPG applications. Final decisions onAdvancement to CMPG or Maintenance of CPG or, in some cases,reduction to Member, would be made by the National CAMPScreening Committee. Appeals for reconsideration could be made tothe National Executive Committee, as with CPG.

OutcomesDifferent outcomes will result after the National CAMP Screening

Committee decisions are made or confirmed:

Voluntary CAMP Participants(limited to existing CPGs).Voluntary CAMPers would be advanced to CMPG rank forthe following 6-year period if 120 points or more wereobtained and accepted. Participation in the following 6-yearCAMP period would be voluntary, but necessary if continu-ation in the CMPG rank was desired. Voluntary CAMPerswho did not obtain 120 points or more would maintain theirCPG rank in good standing. They would be able to volun-tarily participate in the CAMP during the new 6-year peri-od or to leave the Program.Mandatory CAMP Participants (all “new” CPGs)Mandatory CAMP Participants would face a wider range ofoutcomes:

• those who had obtained 120 points or more and were rec-ommended for Advancement would be advanced to CMPGrank for 6 years, with participation required in the CAMPduring this 6-year period

• those who had not obtained 120 points or more and wererecommended for Maintenance would not be advanced toCMPG rank, but would retain CPG rank while they under-took their required second 6-year CAMP period for advance-ment to CMPG, and would be advanced to CMPG for a six-year period if successful on their second try. CPG could bemaintained in good standing so long as mandatory partici-pants obtained 80 points or more (but less-than 120) in eachconsecutive CAMP period.

Continuing Education Activities (CE)Points may be obtained by successful completion for credits of rel-

evant geotechnical or associated discipline CE courses in a varietyof formal, structured educational settings including distance learn-ing. Lesser numbers of points may be obtained for the same relevantformal, structured courses if audited on a non-credit basis, for infor-mal in-house company training, for regulatory review courses, forshort courses and field trips conducted by professional or geosciencetechnical organizations, and for additional authorized courses orrefreshers. The number of points to be earned will depend upon sub-ject relevancy, the number of contact hours involved, and the degreeof required student interaction.

Professional Participation Activities (PP)Points may be obtained for active professional practice, active

membership and participation in the activities of AIPG at the Sectionor National levels including Officer or Committee work, as well asfor similar membership and participation in the activities or lead-ership of our national geoscience technical organizations,ASBOG/State Boards, etc., and through volunteer work in geology-related outreach and advocacy, citizen-lobbyist, and/or educationalor community activities.


Technical Contributions (TC)Points may be obtained through publication of peer-reviewed tech-

nical papers, articles, or books on relevant subjects, or presentationof similar non-peer-reviewed articles, papers, or talks to scientific orgeneral audiences. TC Points could be applied to either CE or PPrequirements in any given year, but not to both.

Are You a CAMPer Now? Possibly So!The number of points obtainable for a wide variety of CE, PP, and

TC activities are considered to be generous. In addition, points couldbe obtained for many CE, PP, and TC activities undertaken to sat-isfy the requirements of others—a geoscience technical organiza-tion, state board of registration, state or other governmental agen-cies, employers, etc. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MANY CPGs ARE SUF-FICIENTLY INVOLVED IN CAMP-TYPE ACTIVITIES ALREADYTHAT THEY WOULD BE EARNING 20 OR MORE POINTS PERYEAR IF THESE ACTIVITIES HAD BEEN SYSTEMATICALLYRECORDED AND EVALUATED IN A LOGBOOK. THE CAMP ISDESIGNED TO HELP, NOT HINDER, CPGs AS THEY ADVANCETHROUGH THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAREERS AND TO PRO-VIDE THEM WITH SUPERIOR CREDENTIALS.

WHY IS AIPG DOING THIS—Three critical issues that affect AIPG and CPGs now, and more so

than in the past, are credibility, competitiveness, and liability. Theproposed CAMP is designed to update and improve the capabilities,performance, and repute of AIPG and CPGs concerning these issues.Not all of our problems would be solved with adoption and imple-mentation of CAMP, but major improvements certainly will result.Each is discussed below in terms of both the Institute and the indi-vidual CPG.

CredibilityAIPG’s certification requirements, established in 1964, were

“state of the art” at the time. The CPG rank attests that the holderhad attained a relevant education in the geosciences, 5 or more yearsof experience in competent applied geoscience work, and a reputa-tion for integrity and ethical behavior at the time of Certification.And really nothing more since then. But professional geology hasmoved on while CPG qualifications have not. State registration ofgeologists, usually based upon similar criteria plus an examination,has affected the credibility of the CPG rank and AIPG. What remainsof our organizational credibility may now depend in good part onour advocacy and political relations activities, and especially ourwork in the area of ethics and integrity, where AIPG is perceived asgeology’s leader. A 1998 survey of the National CertificationCommission membership, which includes AIPG, received 188responses from certifying organization members. About 60% nowoffer more than one category of certification, 82% have certificationrenewal programs that usually require continuing education, andabout 80% require an examination test, usually written (President’sMessage, May 1999 TPG). AIPG has none of these, nor does it evenrequire participation in at least one geoscience technical organiza-tion! So far, two states require CE of their registered geologists andmore are considering a CE requirement. NSPE, AIPG’s engineeringequivalent, reported in 1998 that 29 states required, and 12 morewere considering, “satisfactory evidence of specified activities as acondition for renewal of the individual’s professional License.”Specified activities usually include CE. AIPG’s professional geolo-gist equivalents in Australia and Canada require CE and periodicrenewal. Ask yourself: is the credibility of CPG as great now as in,say, 1970? Further, CPGs should familiarize themselves with Canon3, Standard 3.3, Rules 1 and 2, and Canon 5 of the AIPG Code ofEthics with regard to how their individual responsibilities relate tothe issues of Continuing Professional Development.

So, what remains of the credibility of CPG and AIPG in this rap-idly changing professional and technical world? Like it or not, CEand certification renewal are coming for large numbers of geologists,especially those whose work affects the public’s health, safety, andwelfare. If AIPG does not strengthen and update its standards and

requirements now and start catching up with the states, our peers,and competitors, the Institute will decline and become increasinglyirrelevant in the years ahead.

CompetitivenessOur abilities to compete, as an organization of professional geol-

ogists and as individuals with the CPG rank, depend in part on thecredibility of AIPG and of AIPG’s certification. From the perspectiveof 44 years as a practicing geologist, I see that the degree of com-petition both among geologists and with others, especially PEs, forwhat is clearly geologic work has increased tremendously since the“oil crash” of the mid-1980s. Unemployed petroleum geologistsretrained as environmental and hydrogeologists have been compet-ing with increased numbers of newly-graduated geologists, all ofwhom must compete with PEs, geographers, environmental scien-tists, etc., in a steadily shrinking market for geologists and theirskills. State registration helped for a while, mainly by excludingthose least-qualified, but increasingly the benefit of registrationdiminishes as registered geologists are forced to compete amongthemselves. Through registration, the State assures the public thatits registered geologists have met or exceeded a state-defined min-imum level of competence necessary to enter a pool of “qualified reg-istered geologists” in that state. A good way to gain recognized cre-dentials that elevate and distinguish the holder from his/her com-petitors in this vast pool, and from competing PEs as well, is certi-fication by a national organization of geologists. AIPG is not alonein certifying geologists—DPA/AAPG, AIH and NGWA do so for theirapplied geoscience specialists. Don’t kid yourself—certification isincreasingly of value to registered geologists who seek visibility incompetitive situations. The competitive impact of certificationdepends in good part on the credibility of that certification, com-pared to registration and/or no certification whatsoever. By increas-ing the credibility of AIPG and its certified members through thenew CMPG rank and the “recertification requirements” of CAMP,the credibility and competitiveness of those holding the CMPG andCPG ranks are clearly increased as well. Visibility and public per-ception are important in competitive situations and can be improvedwith the “right credentials.” CMPG, with its documentation and insti-tutional backup by AIPG, will clearly be a superior credential, as itwill “guarantee” the current credibility of the holder. One Task Forcemember has said it very well:

“The CPG status ought to remain what it has always been– a designation of professional competence and integrity. TheCMPG status then necessarily becomes a reward in the formof peer recognition for those whose performance goes sig-nificantly beyond the basic requirements for professionalcertification. This will promote competitiveness in manyAIPG folks, and the perception of this kind of thing by thepublic will eventually elevate AIPG certification programsover the state registration programs.”

LiabilityTo the degree that AIPG at one point in time certified the qual-

ifications of professional geologists, granted certification, and neverhas checked or verified these qualifications again, AIPG is at risk.Sure, the Code of Ethics says “Members should strive to improvetheir professional knowledge and skills” (Canon 5, Standard 5.1).Most do but some do not. Yet their CPG rank suggests to the publicthat all is well when it may not be. Or isn’t. Complaints have notbeen common, but complaints do occur. In our increasingly litigiousnation someone has to be blamed and “has to pay!” This is usuallythe one with the deep pockets, thus automatically excluding mostgeologists. So what about their organizations, which register or cer-tify these creeps? Can’t sue the state, so what about the certifier?AIPG has anything but deep pockets, but just the cost of defendingourselves against “misrepresentation” or worse could break us. Howcan AIPG best protect itself? One of the best ways is to maintainrecords of the education and training activities of our certified mem-bers over the years after certification was granted—records thatshow they have worked hard to maintain and improve their skillsand certification qualifications.


As for the individual certified geologist, a systematically main-tained record of education and professional activities, year by year,which is periodically reviewed to determine whether the organiza-tion’s certification standards have continued to be met and main-tained since initial certification, has great value. A verifiable recordcould be provided by AIPG in support of the individual’s continuingprofessional status to the individual, the public, prospective employ-ers or clients, and potential legal adversaries. Keep in mind – goodrecords will keep you out of trouble with the IRS and some evenmore threatening folks on occasion. As to registration, the state willnot defend you against a serious charge, as the state has registeredyou to protect the public from incompetents.

HOW YOU AND OTHER CPGs WILLBE AFFECTED

A Task Force for CPD survey was circulated during late 1998-early 1999 to obtain membership input on several CPD-orientedquestions. Unfortunately, some sections did not distribute the sur-vey, but nevertheless 396 CPGs, from eleven Sections with about1530 CPGs at the time, did respond. So the response rate of CPGsactually polled was 25.9%, a valid sample. (See President’s Message,June 1999 TPGfor a complete report.)

Significant responses to three questions concerning ContinuingEducation of CPGs were received. In the following: neutral, no-opin-ion, and non-responses (6 to 10%) are excluded with only Yes or Noanswers compared.• Is some type of continuing education required of yourself to remain

current with new ideas, methods, concepts, etc?Yes 76.1% No 23.9%

• Would you support a mandatory minimum continuing educationrequirement for CPGs?Yes 66.0% No 34.0%

• Would you participate if AIPG had a voluntary continuing edu-cation requirement for CPGs?Yes 83.1% No 16.9% Strong support for a voluntary CE program is indicated among

current CPGs. Will 80% of existing CPGs actually participate in avoluntary CAMP that includes CE for 6 years to obtain the CMPGrank? Probably not, but 50%, perhaps more, might be willing if theCAMP is sufficiently broad and flexible to allow individual CPGs topersonalize their participation. The Task Force has worked hard toprovide a broad selection of CE and PP activities for incorporationinto individual CAMPs. It is time for the Program to start. Changes,adjustments, and improvements will become necessary and can bemade once the CAMP is underway, especially given the rapid growthof Online Education. This is only the beginning of a long-term, con-tinually evolving program.

Why would 50% or more of existing CPGs participate in CAMP?Probably for as many personal reasons, wants, and desires as thereare participants with their personalized programs and ambitions.Several common ones might be:• It is voluntary, not mandatory, and thus easier to accept.• They already may be involved in enough CE, TC, and PP to earn

20 points per year if recorded, so why not get some extra creditfor all this?

• Or they have not been sufficiently involved in CE and PP to earn20 points, but with a little more effort and organization could doso and improve their professional knowledge, skills, and contactsfor higher levels of competence, effectiveness, and professionalincome, and perhaps advancement to CMPG as well.

• It is a challenge, something that many CPGs will respond to outof professional pride and competitive spirit.

• The new rank, CMPG, will be a more valuable and powerful cre-dential than CPG, being based on annual documentation of accom-plishments validated by AIPG and potentially useful for a vari-ety of situations and purposes.

As for the existing CPGs who do not participate in CAMP, a mul-titude of personal reasons can exist for not doing so – lack of time,money, desire, relevance, need, enthusiasm, whatever. For those near-ing or at the end of their careers, this is especially understandable.What else, pray tell, do they have to prove—except to themselves?

The mandatory aspect of CAMP for “new” CPGs is another mat-ter. Would the mandatory aspect of CAMP have an adverse effect onrecruitment of “new” CPGs? Perhaps. But we will not know until theCAMP, in the presently proposed form, has been in effect for sever-al years. If a “monster” has been created, the national ExecutiveCommittees of the future can modify, or do away with, the require-ment. The TFCPD survey referred to earlier took the age of thoseresponding into account. Although their identity was not required,their CPG number was. Someone certified in 1970 will usually be ofa different generation than someone certified in 1995. The youngerrespondents were clearly much more in favor of a mandatory CErequirement than were their seniors. The degree of competition forwork, which they face regularly, is much greater than 15 or 25 yearsago. Consider this as well: If the Proposal for a CAMP is acceptedby the membership, it will not start immediately. A minimum of twoyears, possibly more, will be necessary to write the necessary newBylaws, get the CAMP organized and running, and the first CAMPersenrolled. It may be 2004 before the CAMP is fully functional and asignificant number of “new” CPGs are mandatorily involved. Thefirst CMPGs may not be granted until 2006 or later. Given the rapidrate at which Continuing Professional Development, especially CE,is growing, programs and systems like CAMP may be so well-estab-lished and broadly accepted as necessities by then that AIPG willnot be ahead of the wave, but a part of it, moving forward. Timeschange.

The benefits to be obtained by CAMPers will have real value:improved and expanded knowledge and skills through CE; stronger,more effective geoscience organizations, both professional and tech-nical, through PP; and true contributions to our science through TC.All of us spent 4 to 8 years, perhaps more, obtaining our geosciencedegrees, at great cost in time, effort, and money to ourselves, ourfamilies, and others. We considered that the pleasure and excite-ment of being a successful, employed geologist was worth the cost.Who could ask for a better career? However, many of our friends andassociates who received similar degrees never had the good fortuneto work as geologists, or were forced to leave. But perplexingly, inview of the potential for such professional misfortune for any of us,some geologists appear to be unwilling to invest further in them-selves by protecting and maintaining their competence and credi-bility as geologists through “striving to improve their professionalknowledge and skills” (Standard 5.1, AIPG Code of Ethics). The rea-sons for not doing so are legion, as above. But whether we areemployed, either as an employee of a geoservices company for now,or truly self-employed, we all are “self-employed.” It is in our bestinterests to remain competent, credible, and competitive as special-ists in applied geology, because if we do not, our employment by acompany may not continue, or if truly self-employed, we may nolonger remain viable as a consultant or independent geologist. Wecan’t afford to do otherwise. Each of us must follow our self-inter-est, as no-one else will do so for us. On a personal note, virtuallyeverything I use today in exploration of unconventional reservoirswas learned during the past ten years. As a consequence, I remainemployed and in demand even after 44 years as a petroleum geolo-gist. Hard work in continuing and expanding my educational back-ground and broadening my experience and industry/professionalcontacts—all at my own expense in time, effort, and money—haspaid off. If CAMP had been in existence, I’d have been a CMPG foryears, because all of this is a part of what I regularly do. And shouldbe for all of you as well (if you’ve managed to read this far). Ours isa beautiful science and profession. AIPG wants to help you stayinvolved in it. CAMP can help, a lot.


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMNCertification and Credibility

William J. Siok, CPG-04773

Elsewhere in this issue of TPG is an article by Tom Fails,CPG-03174, regarding the issue of continuing professionaldevelopment as a condition of certification for future candi-dates. This is an issue that is extremely critical to the futureof AIPG as a certifying organization. Whether or not the con-cept, developed by Tom’s committee and endorsed in princi-ple by the Executive Committee, is ultimately put into prac-tice will determine whether AIPG Certification has signifi-cance into the future.

The American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)was founded in 1963 to certify and serve as the advocacyorganization for professional geologists. In 1963, there wereno mechanisms, outside of the often fickle and usually inde-pendent academic realm, to attest to a geologist’s professionalcompetency. Whereas other professional practitioners, suchas doctors, engineers, attorneys, and accountants, were sub-ject both to peer scrutiny and statutory oversight, geologistsin general were not. The founders of AIPG recognized thatgeologists, who play a crucial role in promotion of the publichealth and in supporting the well-being of society in gener-al, needed a sanctioning organization of peers in order tominimize the potential for unscrupulous practitioners andto attest to the basic qualifications of professional geologists.This organization would also function as advocate on behalfof the entire profession, regardless of the specialty practiced.

In order to establish a credible basis for attesting to anyparticular geologist practitioner as competent, AIPGfounders sought to devise a credential that codified the min-imal requirements for basic competency. That credential was(and is) the AIPG title of Certified Professional Geologist(CPG) (AIPG Bylaws 2.3.1.4). When this title was original-ly bestowed, there were no registration statutes for geolo-gists in the United States. Consequently, AIPG certificationwas highly valued and widely sought after as a defining anddemonstrative credential.

The AIPG title of CPG became the standard that definesthe minimal educational, experiential, and ethical qualifica-tions necessary to be considered a professional geologist byone’s peers. The Certification also serves as an identifier thatprovides a level of confidence to the public and employers.The efforts put forth by AIPG founders established, once andfor all, that practicing geologists represent a profession, andthat they were, as a group, prepared to establish their placeas important contributors to the marketplace and to society.Geologists, typically an assortment of independent thinkers,were beginning to act in concert for their own self-promotionand preservation.

Within a decade or so of AIPG’s creation, actions weretaken in some of the states, by independent groups of geol-ogists, to establish registration or similar licensure require-ments for geologists. Initially, AIPG did not enthusiasticallyendorse or support these attempts, since Certification wasassumed to be the ultimate professional credential. As statesestablished outright registration, or in some cases certifica-tion, AIPG recognized that its certification alone was not

accepted by many practitioners as the only credential desir-able. Eventually, AIPG realized that certification could, andought to, coexist with government - sanctioned registration.

In 1999, the AIPG Executive Committee determined thatAIPG Certification criteria, as measures of an individualgeologist’s competence, professional integrity, and ethicalcomportment, should be made more stringent. The intent ofstrengthening AIPG Certification requirements is to simul-taneously increase the desirability of Certification by prac-titioners and its significance to the public and industry as astandard of excellence. AIPG has as its goal the acceptanceof its Certification as a recognition and assurance to the pub-lic equivalent to that accorded to Board Certified Physiciansand Certified Public Accountants. A government - issuedlicense is not in and of itself sufficient evidence of a geolo-gist’s competence.

Licensed (registered) geologists should enhance theirlicense to practice by qualifying for and achievingCertification. But this credential needs updating in order toremain useful. Continuing professional development is amechanism for updating the certification. Continuing pro-fessional development is accepted by most practitioners asa normal career activity, necessary if one is to remain cur-rent with ever—changing technology and law, and if one isto remain competitive in the shrinking professional geologymarketplace.

Please read Tom’s article with care. AIPG is, in a sense,at a crossroads. Members continue to support the concept ofcertification, but also recognize the absolute necessity of put-ting more substance behind the credential. On the nationallevel, there are increasing instances of geologists unable topractice in a given state because they lack registration cre-dentials in that particular jurisdiction. Some of the currentregistration laws and regulations do not have provisions forreciprocity or fail to address the issue of temporary permitsto practice. These obstacles to the practitioner’s ability toearn a living must be removed.

One of AIPG’s roles is to work, in concert with sister asso-ciations, towards establishment of uniform registration stan-dards throughout the US. AIPG’s credibility and effective-ness as advocate is greatly enhanced by the perceived sta-tus of the CPG credential. If the boards that oversee andadminister the various registration statutes recognize thestature of AIPG certification, AIPG’s credibility as an advo-cate for the profession is guaranteed. One way of assuringthat credibility is to enhance the certification credential ina manner that increases its desirability by practicing geolo-gists.

Give this serious consideration. If you wish to weigh in onthe subject, your thoughts will be most appreciated. (ContactTom or send your e-mail or letters to headquarters.) If youfeel particularly aggrieved by some aspect of AIPG’s certifi-cation or a state’s registration statute, please do get involvedon the Section or National level. Our effectiveness as advo-cates is directly proportional to the number of members whojoin the fray.

The question is, then, does AIPG continue to enhance thecertification credential, or allow it to become less significantover time (I do not refer to geologic time)? It’s really up to you.


BackgroundRoadless areas within the National Forest System have

been the subject of congressional hearings, lawsuits, andappeals over the past three decades. The U.S. Forest Servicedefines roadless areas as those without either classified orauthorized roads. During the 1970s, the Forest Service ini-tiated an inventory of roadless areas of 5,000 acres or larg-er to evaluate their wilderness character and value. Two suchassessments, termed Roadless Area Review and Evaluation,were conducted and have been labeled RARE I and RAREII. The agency estimates that there are about 54 million acresof inventoried roadless areas and 380,000 miles of road inits system. Forest Service areas without official roads usu-ally include rugged terrain, are inaccessible for some otherreason, have low timber values, or are considered environ-mentally sensitive. However, it does appear that some areas,where roads existed in the past but have reestablished forest-ed conditions, are now considered roadless. In addition, someof the areas in the initial inventory have since been con-gressionally designated as wilderness.

The Forest Service ProposalIn October 1999, President Clinton ordered the Forest

Service to study the issue of how roadless areas within thenational forest system would be managed in the future. Laterin October, the agency issued a notice of intent to prepare anenvironmental impact statement (EIS) to address the issue.What has created some confusion among those interested inaccess to forestlands is the agency’s involvement in four seem-ingly overlapping initiatives and how these initiatives wouldinterrelate. The four concurrent activities are a roadless areainitiative, a road management policy, a planning rule, andan overall strategic plan. The release of the EIS statementwas accompanied by the announcement of a two-part processfor the future. Part one included a strict limitation on activ-ities such as new road construction in inventoried roadlessareas. Part two was designed to manage inventoried road-less areas and to determine what protections should beextended to uninventoried roadless areas. The draft EIS isscheduled to be released in May 2000, to be followed by thefinal EIS by the end of the year.

Congressional ConcernTwo subcommittees of the House Resources Committee

have conducted hearings concerning the Forest Service pro-posals. The hearings were held on consecutive days by theHouse Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee, chaired byRep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho), and the HouseEnergy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, chaired byRep. Barbara Cubin (R-Wyoming). Several members of bothsubcommittees extensively grilled both Forest Service ChiefMike Dombeck and Department of Agriculture UnderSecretary for Natural Resources and Environment JimLyons. Of primary concern was the congressional perceptionthat agency plans had been formulated solely with input fromthe Heritage Forest Campaign, which the subcommittee lead-

ership characterized as “extreme environmentalists.” Bothsubcommittees charged that President Clinton’s announce-ment and the Forest Service proposals were issued withoutthe advice or opinions of anyone except the few members ofthe Heritage Forest Campaign.

Forest Service PositionAgency representatives maintained that they have held

numerous town meetings across the country and receivedthousands of public comments concerning roadless areas.Apparently many of the comments suggested the agency pro-vide additional protection for roadless areas. Reportedly, theForest Service plans to utilize a science-based framework fordealing with roads within the national forests, and to havethe decision of whether to build, maintain, or close roadsmade at the local level. Also indicated was the need to sat-isfy maintenance requirements for the existing road systemat an estimated, but yet unfunded, cost of $8.4 billion. TheForest Service prefers to invest resources in projects withgreater public support and fewer environmental impactsthan building roads in roadless areas. There was also thehope registered that new regulations would eliminate themillions of dollars expended annually to satisfy appeals andlitigation costs.

ConclusionAlthough it is extremely unlikely that mining or oil and

gas activities will take place on Forest Service roadless areas,there is concern that geologists have access to national for-est lands for scientific research and to conduct field studies.However, it must be recognized that entry onto any forestservice land for any purpose is only with permission fromthe management of the particular forest. There have beenseveral instances where field party leaders were unawarethat specific permission was necessary, especially wherethere had been unrestricted access in the past. Many of theaccess problems have come from a lack of understanding ofincreased Forest Service responsibilities. Their agency is nowfaced with much greater emphasis on the protection of drink-ing water sources; areas of high or unique biodiversity; areasof cultural or historic importance; areas of unique or impor-tant seasonal habitat for wildlife, fish, and plant species; andthe need to provide protection against invasive, noxious, orexotic pest or weed species. Therefore the agency has becomemore accountable for monitoring activities on their lands.

For those interested in following the topic, keep an eye onthe Forest Service road management website athttp://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/. With the release of thedraft EIS, the accompanying comment period, the promisedseries of public meetings, and the intense congressional inter-est, the structure of the agency’s final rule is not yet forged.

The Government Affairs column is a bimonthly featurewritten by John Dragonetti, CPG-02779, who is SeniorAdvisor to the American Geological Institute’s GovernmentAffairs Program.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING GEOLOGYConflict Over the Forest Service Proposed Roadless Plan

John J. Dragonetti, CPG-02779


FEBRUARY 2000• High Prices at the Pump Lead to

Senate Hearing• Nuclear Waste Bill Fails to Veto-

Proof Itself• US Geological Survey Seeks User

Input on Future Activities• President’s Budget Features Big

Boost for Science Programs• AGI Joins in Call to Support Math

& Science Teacher Training• Looking for a Few Good Summer

and Fall Interns• Not Too Late to Join In

Congressional Visits Day• Schedule of Upcoming GAP

Activities• New Material on Website

High Prices at the Pump Leadto Senate Hearing

With oil prices at record lows lastyear, Congress focused attention on leg-islation to provide tax incentives for thedomestic petroleum industry. Now—with oil prices hovering around $30 perbarrel and price spikes for diesel fueland home heating oil—congressionalfocus has shifted to tax relief for con-sumers and calls for increased domes-tic production in order to decreasereliance on foreign oil. At a February 24hearing of the Senate Energy andNatural Resources Committee, themain witnesses—including formerEnergy Secretary James Schlesinger—argued that US dependence on foreignpetroleum puts the country in a predica-ment when it comes to economic andnational security concerns. Althoughthe witnesses mainly discussed thecommodities market, they also notedthat the fluctuation in the cost of oilcould be dampened by the production ofmore domestic petroleum. In heatedopening statements critical of theClinton Administration’s attitudetowards petroleum development, manysenators called for new federal policyregarding the production of domesticpetroleum. Committee ChairmanFrank Murkowski (R-AK) was espe-cially vocal, blaming overly strict envi-ronmental policy that has closed manyareas of the country to exploration anddevelopment as one of the causes of thedecrease in national oil productivity.

More at .

Nuclear Waste Bill Fails toVeto-Proof Itself

The latest congressional attempt tooverhaul the nation’s high-level nuclearwaste disposal program came to a headin early February. Senate EnergyCommittee Chairman Frank Murkow-ski (R-AK) forced a vote on S. 1287,which he introduced last summer afterhis previous bill (S. 608) met with sub-stantial opposition. In a major conces-sion to the Administration, S. 1287 doesnot include provisions to establish aninterim storage facility adjacent to theproposed permanent site at YuccaMountain in Nevada. In place of inter-im storage, the bill authorizes the fed-eral government to take possession ofwaste at individual sites and alsoauthorizes early receipt of waste at theYucca Mountain permanent repositoryfacility when construction begins.Compromise efforts ran aground, how-ever, over a provision that would shiftresponsibility for developing radiationstandards from EPA to the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission (US NRC).Shortly before the final vote,Murkowski offered, then withdrew, onelast compromise that would havereturned responsibility to EPA butrequired that rules be consistent withrecommendations from the US NRCand the National Academy of Sciences.S. 1287 passed the Senate on February10 by a 64-34 vote, a large plurality butthree short of the 67-vote supermajori-ty needed to override a veto. The com-panion legislation in the House, H.R.45, has been awaiting floor action pend-ing the fate of the Senate bill. Thus thefailure in the Senate to achieve a veto-proof majority may signal the end ofreform efforts in this Congress. More at.

US Geological Survey SeeksUser Input on Future

ActivitiesOn March 22 and 23, 2000, the USGS

is sponsoring two days of listening ses-sions to help share its plans for fiscalyear 2002 and beyond. The USGS issponsoring these sessions at itsNational Center (12201 Sunrise Valley

Drive, Reston, VA 20192) as an oppor-tunity for users of earth and life sciencedata and research to share their viewson future science directions of theUSGS. The sessions will be organizedaround broad science topics, and cus-tomers who have registered in advancewill have an opportunity to give a briefpresentation of their science needs andissues. Registration information can beobtained by sending an e-mail messageto [email protected]. You may alsocall the USGS Office of External Affairs,703-648-4599. For anyone who wishesto provide input, but who cannot attend,please submit ideas to the same e-mail. Registrationdeadline is March 13, 2000. For moreinformation contact Gail Wendt, USGSOffice of External Affairs, 703-648-5604or 703-648-4599 ([email protected]).

President’s Budget FeaturesBig Boost for Science

ProgramsPresident Clinton released his pro-

posed budget request for fiscal year (FY)2001—the last full budget cycle of thisAdministration—on February 7th. Asexpected from the President’s earlierremarks at Caltech and his State of theUnion Address, federal funding for sci-ence agencies and programs received agenerous increase in the president’srequest. For the geosciences, the bigwinners were the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) and the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS)—up 17 per-cent and 10 percent, respectively —bothrequesting their largest dollar increas-es ever. Most of the science agencies areup in this budget request. NOAA isrequesting a 20 percent increase, andEPA’s request is up nearly 10 percent.With the theme “Strength ThroughScience,” the Department of Energy hasrequested an 8 percent increase for itsresearch and development (R&D) budg-et. R&D at the Department ofAgriculture would increase 3.1 percent.Within this rosy picture, however, thereare a few down notes including a pro-posed 3 percent decrease for earth sci-ence at NASA and a proposed 8.2 per-cent decrease in upstream petroleumR&D within DOE with major shifts infunding to more downstream naturalgas technology research. For more infor-mation on the President’s request visit

AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MONTHLY REVIEWMonthly review prepared by Margaret Baker and David Applegate, MEM-0002,AGI Government Affairs Program, and AGI/AAPG Geoscience Policy Intern Alison Alcott.


http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/approps_pres2001. html or for informa-tion on the appropriations process athttp://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/appropsfy2001.html.

AGI Joins in Call to SupportMath & Science Teacher

TrainingOne of the hot topics in Congress is

the reauthorization of the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act (ESEA),which includes authorization of theEisenhower Professional DevelopmentPrograms for math and science educa-tors. Currently, ESEA is working its waythrough the Senate Health, Education,Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Comm-ittee. HELP Chairman James Jeffords(R-VT) released the latest version ofESEA, a modified S. 2, in late January.This version of the bill would not onlyremove the set aside for Eisenhower(currently at $250 million) but alsowould allow funds from the program tobe converted into block grants thatcould be used for other purposes (i.e. nospecific language for math and scienceeducators). This year marks the fourthyear in which professional developmentfor science and math educators has beenup for congressional elimination. Inresponse to the latest threat to theEisenhower program, AGI has againjoined with other science, math, engi-neering, and technology organizationsto urge Congress, especially the SenateHELP Committee, to maintain the fed-eral priority for math and science edu-cation by sending a joint statement. ASenate HELP hearing on ESEA isexpected the first week of March andfloor action quickly thereafter. Moreinformation on ESEA reauthorizationis available at and a copyof the e-mail alert is available at.

Looking for a Few GoodSummer and Fall Interns

AGI is seeking outstanding geo-science students with a strong interestin federal science policy for a twelve-week geoscience and public policyinternship in Summer 2000 and a four-teen-week internship in Fall 2000.Interns will gain a first-hand under-standing of the legislative process andthe operation of executive branch agen-cies. They will also hone both their writ-ing and Web publishing skills. Stipendsfor the summer interns are funded joint-

ly by AGI and the AIPG Foundation andfor the fall interns by the AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists.Applications must be postmarked byMarch 15, 2000. For more informationon application materials and the intern-ship, visit .

Not Too Late to Join InCongressional Visits Day

Please consider joining us inWashington for the fifth annualScience-Engineering-TechnologyCongressional Visits Day (CVD) onApril 4-5, 2000. Over 200 scientists andengineers from academia and industrywill be voicing their support forincreased federal investment in scienceand technology. We would like to see astrong contingent of geoscientists visit-ing their members of Congress and con-gressional staff on Capitol Hill. We needyour help to identify geoscientists whowould be interested in participating,and we particularly encourage the lead-ership of AGI’s member societies tocome. CVD consists of an opening dayof briefings by key administration andcongressional leaders followed by a dayof constituent meetings with senators,representatives, and their staff. AGIwill join with AGU to hold a pre-brief-ing for geoscience participants on thefirst day, and we can help arrange theconstituent visits. The preliminaryschedule is up at . If this event appeals toyou or you know of someone who wouldbe interested in coming to Washington,please contact Margaret Baker by e-mail or phone at(703) 379-2480 ext. 212.

New Material on WebsiteThe following updates and reports

were added to the Government Affairsportion of AGI’s web site(http://www.agiweb.org) since the lastmonthly update:• FY 2001 Geoscience Appropriations

Update (2-29-00)• President’s FY 2001 Budget

Request (2-29-00)• FY 2001 Appropriations: VA/HUD

and Independent Agencies (2-29-00)• High-Level Nuclear Waste Update

(2-29-00)• Mining Law of 1872 Reform Update

(2-29-00)• Update on Domestic Oil and Gas

Incentives Legislation (2-28-00)

• Summary of Hearing on High OilPrices (2-28-00)

• AGI Action Alert: Senate EducationBill Removes Eisenhower Scienceand Math Provisions(Posted: 2-23-00)

• Science Education Policy Update(2-23-00)

• Mining Law of 1872 Reform Update(2-18-00)

• Special Update: The President’sFiscal Year 2001 Budget: Part 2 -Agriculture, Energy, Interior, EPA,NASA, NOAA (2-12-00)

• Special Update: The President’sFiscal Year 2001 Budget: Part 1—NSF and USGS (2-8-00)

• Domestic Oil and Gas IncentivesUpdate (2-4-00)

• Solid Waste Update (2-4-00)

Monthly review prepared byMargaret Baker and David Applegate,AGI Government Affairs Program, andAGI/AAPG Geoscience Policy InternAlison Alcott.

Sources: Environment & EnergyUpdate, Library of Congress, NationalScience Teachers Association, SenateCmte. on Energy & Natural Resources,US Geological Survey.


PROFESSIONAL ETHICS & PRACTICES - Column 54Compiled by David M. Abbott, Jr., CPG-04570, Ethics Committee Chairman, 2266 Forest Street,Denver, CO 80207-3831, 303-394-0321, fax 303-394-0543, [email protected]

The Ethics of Class Notes on Web Pages(April 2000)

A college cheating scandal and related honor code pro-ceedings occurred recently in which the availability of rele-vant material on a web page played a role. Reportedly a pro-fessor assigned a computer programming homework prob-lem that many in the class viewed as extremely difficult andbeyond the capabilities that could be reasonably expected ofstudents in the class. Reportedly even the graduate teach-ing assistants had difficulty understanding and solving theproblem. The professor posted a solution to the problem ona publicly available web site with no admonitions that itshould not be used for the assignment. The professor’s solu-tion was downloaded from his web site and a number of stu-dents allegedly used it in preparing their assignments, somewith little or no change. The professor subsequently accused44% of the class of violating the college’s honor code. Afterhearing 35% of the cases, the college disciplinary committeeconcluded that the charges were unsustainable due in partto lack of convincing evidence against particular students.One of the evidentiary problems was that although the col-lege network logs could demonstrate that particular com-puters accessed the professor’s web site, that was insufficientto prove that a particular student was using the computer.The college was unable to distinguish between those whoacted properly and those who acted improperly. Thus all caseswere dismissed.

I’ve simplified the situation in the foregoing summary tofocus on the posting of the solution to the homework prob-lem on a public web site by the professor prior to the duedate. Given that this was the case, to what extent can stu-dents legitimately use the information? Is collaboration onhomework a problem? When does collaboration cease andbecome copying? How much difference is required betweenthe professor’s solution and a student’s to avoid or success-fully defend against a charge of plagiarism?

The issue of collaboration occurs frequently in most of ourwork. How much collaboration is required to warrant jointauthorship rather than an acknowledgment? To what degreeis taking responsibility for the work relevant? In the case ofhomework, each student is responsible for his or her ownwork. In the case of a professional paper or project, the answermay be less clear.

The evidentiary problems presented in this case are a sep-arate but very real issue in ethics enforcement. Adequateevidence must exist to prove the allegations. Allegations arenot enough, even if there is some supporting evidence. Thisis a common problem. I had a chat with a colleague recent-ly in which the names of a couple of geologists whose repu-tations for ethics are suspect came up. I happen to be rea-sonably familiar with both geologists mentioned, and I alsoknow that the activities of both have been investigated. Sofar as I know, insufficient evidence exists to sustain chargesagainst either.

Returning to the cheating scandal, there is reason tobelieve that some students cheated while others did not(although they may have come close to the line). Nevertheless,the result was dismissal of the charges against all. While theresults of the case may not seem particularly satisfying, Isuggest that some useful results did occur. The importance

of the college’s honor code was highlighted. One hopes thateveryone learned from this. Some of the questions askedabove may be examined more fully. Students obtained a clear-er idea of how the rules against cheating apply. And profes-sors obtained a clearer idea of how their actions can help orimpede the sustaining of charges made. Perhaps some ofthose who stepped over the line, or even near it, have learnednot to do so again. Are such results enough?

Answers to the questions and other thoughts on the sub-ject are welcomed. Having a policy that cheating is wrong isall well and good. But what does it mean in practice?

Call for Ethics Papers for AIPG-Sponsored Session at GSA 2000 in Reno

AIPG is again sponsoring an ethics session at theGeological Society of America’s 2000 Annual Meeting in Renofrom November 12th to 15th. Ethical case histories and otherpapers dealing with geoscience ethics issues are being soughtfor this session. Ethical questions demanding rapid answerscan occur in the midst of the busiest times of one’s career.By exploring the experiences of others, one can reflect andprepare for those times when there may not be time forlengthy reflection. Papers will explore ethical situationsencountered in the author’s professional experience.

Student papers (meaning any full-time student regard-less of membership grade in this case) are encouraged aswell, because ethical situations occur throughout one’s careerfrom the beginning to the end. The AIPG Foundation hasbeen asked to financially assist the participation of AIPGMembers “any category” who are full-time students andwhose abstracts are accepted.

If you are interested in submitting a paper, please let meknow. The formal procedure for submitting papers is avail-able through the GSA website, www.geosociety.org/meet-ings/2000. Abstracts are due by the latter part of July.

IMPORTANT!NOTICE TO MEMBERS

AIPG does not condone the use of themembership database—addresses,telephone numbers, or e-mail address-es—for solicitation or circularization.AIPG does not authorize any memberor non-member to use the AIPG mem-bership database for such purposes. Theuse of the AIPG membership databasefor such purposes is strictly prohibited.If you have any concerns regarding theunauthorized use of the AIPG database,please contact headquarters.


PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIRECTORY

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

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

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

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

Petroleum; Data ManagementGeohazards; Courses & Seminars

(CDs available)

P. O. Box 864424, Plano, TX 75086

English/Spanish/French

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

Dennis Pennington, P.G.President

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

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

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

s

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

LARRY R. RHODES, P.G.PresidentMailing Address:

P.O. Box 24080Lexington, KY 40524

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

Bluegrass Industr ial Park115 Eisenhower Court

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

ELLIS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC.Valuations • Geology • Economics

www.minevaluation.com

TREVOR R. ELLISCertified Minerals Appraiser-AIMA

Certified Professional Geologist-AIPGMineral Economist-MS

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


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

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

Richard W. Hurst, Ph.D.President

Organic & Inorganic Geochemistry ~ Age-Dating of ReleasesLitigation Support ~ Statistics ~ Contaminant Fingerprinting


Full Service Environmental Consulting and Contracting

Roger Breeden, CPG, REPSenior Project Manager/Geologist

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

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

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

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

South Louisiana and European E & P Projects

Basin Analysis Coalbed MethaneExploration Management Salt Dome Problems

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DRILLERS, INC.MARK ZBYLOT, CPG 7757

Operations Manager

Monitoring Wells, Direct Push SamplingEnvironmental Soil Sampling

Geotechnical Exploration

2209 Wisconsin St. 972.620.8911Suite 100 888.950.3007Dallas, Texas 75229 FAX 972.406.8023

ADVERTISE HERE!12-MONTH LISTING FOR ONLY:

AIPG Member $200.00

Non-member $300.00

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



NEW AIPG PUBLICATIONCOMING SOON!

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK and LIABILITY MANAGEMENT forCORPORATIONS AND CONSULTANTS

by

Charles D. Fletcher and Evan K. Paleologos

If you need:

• a timely review of tools and techniques available for environmental risk management• a comprehensive but "quick-read" approach to subject matter fundamental to every company and firm that is

influenced by environmental regulations and lawsuits• a synopsis that answers such questions as "How do I control my risk exposure and shield my profits" and

"How can a small or mid-sized consulting firm bid haz-waste and superfund projects without betting the farm"...

...THIS BOOK IS FOR YOU. Written from a consulting geologist's point of view on what is important in financialrisk management, this book addresses how companies and consultants use modern insurance techniques, riskfinancing models, environmental management systems and pollution prevention to reduce their environmentalliability. The book also discusses, by example, how environmental regulations and potential changes in regula-tions can affect corporate exposure both in the US and internationally.

Draper Aden AssociatesBlacksburg, óó Richmond, Virginia

Engineering ó Surveying ó Environmental Services

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

2206 South Main Street • Blacksburg, Virginia 24060

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

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

The

Ernest K. Lehmann& Associates Inc. Groupand

North CentralMineral Ventures Inc.

Suite 62212 South 6th StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402

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

SPECIALIZEDENGINEERINGConstruction Quality Control • Environmental ConsultingGeotechnical & Forensic Engineering

• Vibration Monitoring• Geophysical Surveys

• Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL)

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

World WideGeologic, Mining,

and Mineral EconomicsConsulting Services and

Mineral Project Management

Since 1967

HB Management GroupEngineering, Risk Analysis,

Turn-Arounds.(Svetovalec/InÒenior).

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

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

EUROPEAlpska 8

4248 LesccSlovenia

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


CALENDAR

ADVERTISERS INDEXAIPG Annual Meeting B CKrueger Enterprises, Inc. 11Professional Services Directory 13-15

2000May 30-Jun. 3. AGU 2000 Spring Meetingin Washington, DC. Contact: HarveyLeifert, American Geophysical Union, 2000Florida Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.20009, e-mail: [email protected] or website:http://www.agu.org.

Jun. 18-23. The Pacific Section of theAAPG and the Western Region SPE willhold a joint convention at the Westin Hotel,Long Beach, CA. Contact: AAPG, P.O. Box979, Tulsa, OK 74101, Ph.: (918) 584-2555.

Aug. 3-5. Conference on the History ofGeologic Pioneers, Troy, NY. Call forpapers. Contact: Northeastern ScienceFoundation, Inc., affiliated with BrooklynCollege of the City University of New York,P.O. Box 746, Troy, NY 12181,Ph.: (518) 273-3247,e-mail: [email protected],http://www2.netcom.com/~gmfstf/

Aug. 3-8. GeoDenver 2000, Denver, CO.Contact: American Society of CivilEngineers http://www.asce.org/confer-ences/geo2000.

Sep. 6-8. 1st World Conference onExplosives and Blasting Technique,Munich, Bavaria, Germany. Sponsored by:International Society of ExplosivesEngineers and by German Society ofExplosives Engineers, Ph.: +46 8 679 1700or fax +46 8 611 1091.

Sep. 17-20. The Society for OrganicPetrology, 17th Annual Meeting,Bloomington, IN. Contact: Maria Mastalerz,Indiana Geological Survey, 611 N. WalnutGrove, Bloomington, IN 47405, Ph.: (812)855-9416, e-mail: [email protected],http://adamite,igs.indiana.edu/tsop

Oct. 10-14. AIPG 37th Annual Meeting,Learning form the Past - Directions for theFuture, Milwaukee, WI. Contact: JackTravis at (920) 854-7869, e-mail:[email protected], http://www.aipgwis.org.

Nov. 12-15. Managing Earthquake Risk inthe 21st Century, Sixth InternationalConference on Seismic Zonation,Palm Springs, CA. Contact: EarthquakeEngineering Research Institute, 499 14thSt., #320, Oakland, CA 94612, Ph.: (510)451-0905, e-mail: [email protected],http://www.eeri.org.

Dec. 3. RMAG Annual Meeting, A NewExploration Strategy for UnconventionalBasin Center Hydrocarbon Accumulations,Denver, CO. Contact: The Rocky MountainAssociation of Geologists, 820 16th St.,#505, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 623-5396or (303) 573-8621.

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

AIPG ANNUALMEETINGS

October 10-14, 2000Milwaukee, Wisconsin

www.aipgwis.org

2001St. Louis, Missouri

2002Reno, Nevada

AIPG Membership Totals

As of As of04/01/99 03/30/00

CPG - Active 4,129 3,943CPG - Retired 506 522Cand. for Cert. 58 45Member 17 37Registered Memb. 16 13Associate Memb. 6 5Student Affiliate 80 71Honorary 17 19

TOTALS 4,829 4,655

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

Name AIPG No.

Address

Address

City/State/Zip

New phone numbers: Office Home

Fax E-mail

Only one change notification is necessary for all AIPG publications.

AIPG, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, CO 80031-3681(303) 412-6205 • fax (303) 412-6219 • [email protected]

Visit the AIPG Booth #647

during the 2000GSA Annual Meeting November 12-15, 2000

Reno, Nevada


NEW APPLICANTS AND NEW MEMBERS - (3/02/00 - 03/28/00)

Applicants for certification must meet AIPG’sstandards as set forth in its Bylaws on educa-tion, experience, competence, and personalintegrity. If any Member or board has any fac-tual information as to any applicant’s qualifica-tions in regard to these standards, whether thatinformation might be positive or negative,please mail that information to Headquarterswithin thirty (30) days. This information will becirculated only so far as necessary to processand make decisions on the applications.Negative information regarding an applicant’squalifications must be specific and supportable;persons who provide information that leads toan application’s rejection may be called as awitness in any resulting appeal action.

Applicants for

Certified Professional GeologistMI-Brian F. Burke

Soil & Materials Engineering, 2663 Eaton RapidsRd., Lansing MI 48911-6310. Sponsors: GaryDannemiller, Bruce Hulman, Cheryl Kehres-Kietrich.

CO-Thomas A. Chapel 375 E. Horsetooth Rd., Bldg. 3 #100, Fort CollinsCO 80525. Sponsors: David Glater, NeilSherrod, Wilson Bowden. Sponsors: DavidGlater, Neil Sherrod.

TX-Joseph P. Ebert 7511 University View, San Antonio TX 78249.Sponsors: Don Ficklen, Kevin Sedlak, MichaelMacDonald.

MI-Robert J. Lint Envir. Sci. & Engineering, Inc., 7985 MackinawTrail #200A, Cadillac MI 49601. Sponsors:

Robert Hilty, Erik Johnson, James Veenstra.

PA-Teresa M. Misiolek 4671 Waterfall Dr., Macungie PA 18072.Sponsors: Keith Marcott, Laurie Scheuing, JackSerwik, Scott Sklehar.

AK-Holly L. Morris P.O. Box 671085, Chugiak AK 99567.Sponsors: Lori Robison, Charles Bigelow,Robert Rogers.

IL-Mark L. Sievers 4 Halleck Ave., Edwardsville IL 62025.Sponsors: Timothy Biggs, Steven Handley,David Meyer.

OH-Karl J. Urbach-Mallin 1552 Winton Ave., Lakewood OH 44107.Sponsors: Karl Valek, Frank Beodray, DaveFarrington.

Applicant for Registered MemberIL-Christopher M. Ingalls

208 Triton Ln., Naperville IL 60540. Sponsors:David Jedlicka, Thomas Reed.

Applicant for MemberNE-Adam S. Kessler

10685 Charles Plaza, Apt. 821, Omaha NE68114. Sponsors: Steve Morrissette, JanMazgaj.

New Certified Professional GeologistsAK-Fredericksen, Rick S. CPG-10483

4164 James Dr., Anchorage AK 99504, (907)333-8140

AK-Benko, Barry A. CPG-104841668 Kiana St., Fairbanks AK 99709, (907) 451-5424

OH-Justice, J. Matthew CPG-10485114 E. Whittier Ave., Fairborn OH 45324, (937)285-6664

MI-Mitchell, William M. CPG-104867560 N. Indian Lake Dr., Scotts MI 49088, (616)329-1600

OK-Nash, David L. CPG-104871154 Merrymen Green, Norman OK 73072,(415) 361-5548

NY-Patchett, Robert G. CPG-104884080 Rockwell Rd., Marcellus NY 13108, (315)446-9120

TX-Larson, Mark J. CPG-104902501 Learmont Dr., Midland TX 79705, (915)682-4559

PA-Zei, Robert W. CPG-1049129 Bluff Rd., Thorndale PA 19372, (610) 594-3940

MI-Tolbert, James N. CPG-104925243 Connemara Ct. SE, Grand Rapids MI49546-9600, (616) 940-4231

New MembersVA-Dotten, Daniel L. MEM-0045

5768 North Bear Creek Rd., Wise VA 24293,(540) 395-5958

CO-Fickel, Christopher R. MEM-00474699 Nautilu

may, 2000 volume 37 - number 5 the professional...

Documents