Chapter 1: Introduction

As Simon Winchester opined in the highly acclaimed The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the Birth of a Science (Winchester, 2001), William Smith created, in 1815, “the first true geological map of anywhere in the world.” This map was entitled “The Delineation of Strata of England and Wales and a part of Scotland.” Winchester further commented that this “… is a map that heralded the beginnings of a whole new science. It is a document that laid the groundwork for the making of great fortunes-in oil, in iron, in coal, and in other countries in diamonds, tin, platinum, and silver — ​that were won by explorers who used such maps. It is a map that laid the foundations of a field of study that culminated in the work of Charles Darwin. It is a map whose making signified the beginnings of an era not yet over, that has been marked ever since by the excitement and astonishment of scientific discoveries that allowed human beings… to understand something certain about their own origins-and those of the planet they inhabit. It is a map that had an importance, symbolic and real, for the development of one of the great fundamental fields of study — ​geology — ​which, arguably like physics and mathematics, is a field of learning and endeavor that underpins all knowledge, all understanding.”

Since the development of the first geological maps over 200 years ago, such maps at some scale have been created for nearly the entire Earth and provide a scientific foundation for all modern societies. Geological maps are two-dimensional representations of vast amounts of three-dimensional geological information, and they convey the composition, spatial relationships, and age of rocks and structures at, near, and below the Earth’s surface. Geological maps are uniquely suited to solving problems involving Earth resources, hazards, and environments. For example, geological maps are used to discern the origin and distribution of mineral, energy, and water resources, as well as document the location and history of geological hazards, such as earthquakes, floods, sinkholes, and landslides. Furthermore, geological maps are the primary source of information for various aspects of land-use planning, including the siting of buildings, landfills, and transportation systems. Because the distribution and age of geologic strata and structures (e.g., faults and folds) are shown on geological maps, it is also possible to use such maps as a self-propelled time machine to progress through thousands and even millions of years of Earth history at a single location. To read a geological map is to understand not only where materials and structures are located, but also how and when these features formed. Thus, geological maps have a wide spectrum of applications to modern society ranging from mitigating the effects of natural hazards, enhancing public safety, facilitating environmentally sound economic development of Earth resources, and resolving fundamental research questions regarding the evolution of Earth’s physical environment.

Geological mapping is indeed a foundational activity of geology and remains a core scientific function of all geological surveys. When geologists embark on a mapping project, they review previous literature, including older geological maps. Based on this initial review, they develop hypotheses of what might be encountered. Once investigations begin, then every outcrop observed, every sample collected and analyzed, every drill core examined or obtained, every dataset that provides information on the geology of the surface and subsurface, and every iterative computer visualization and draft map that is constructed all contribute to a dynamic and ongoing progression of geological understanding. Through this process, geologists either confirm or reject initial hypotheses, form additional hypotheses, and/or create multiple working hypotheses along the way. Field activity and data collection almost always involve evaluating portions of a mapping area where additional information is needed, and this progresses with laboratory work and computer visualization until an acceptable measure of predictability of observations emerge. The final geological map integrates multiple interpretations of stratigraphy, geological structures such as faults, unit correlations and ages, paleontology, mineralogy, etc. This entire process follows the scientific method from initial background research, to forming and testing multiple working hypotheses, to analyzing data and drawing conclusions, and finally reporting results through publication of the geological map. The outcome of geological mapping can have a profound influence on our economy and ability to sustain and protect our natural resources. However, despite the importance of geological maps to nearly all aspects of society, and the scientific rigor required for their development, there have been very few quantitative analyses of the actual costs and, more importantly, the resultant benefits of such maps.

The purpose of this report is to provide economic analyses of the costs and benefits of geological mapping across the entire United States of America (U.S.), particularly as related to: “Public Law 102–285 102d Congress. Program Objective of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. SEC. 4c. 3B. studies that lead to the implementation of cost-effective digital methods for the acquisition, compilation, analysis, cartographic production, and dissemination of geologic-map information.” Costs dedicated to geological mapping were gathered from State Geological Surveys (SGS) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the period extending from 1994 to 2019. In addition, estimates of the benefits of mapping were collected in a questionnaire sent out to more than 81,000 individuals in both the private and public sectors. Nearly 4,800 responses to the questionnaire were received. This analysis is particularly timely given the substantial investment by the federal government in geological mapping over the past 30 years, with significantly enhanced funding since 2019. An important question is whether this public investment in geological mapping has yielded tangible results.

In this chapter, we describe the justification for this report, briefly review previous economic analyses of geological mapping, discuss the methods used in the remainder of the report, and outline subsequent chapters. An integrated approach is developed in the following chapters to (1) analyze the cost effectiveness of geological maps; (2) provide qualitative summaries of the societal applications and potential benefits of such maps; (3) analyze map investment choices; and (4) furnish compilations of national and regional returns to investments supported by geological mapping. Our analysis is the first thorough assessment of the Federal and State geological mapping programs across the U.S.

1.1: Justification

Geological maps are important tools to nearly all aspects of society, and thus it is critical to produce unbiased, scientifically supported maps. Thus, geological mapping has become a foundational activity for both the SGS and USGS. As discussed above, geological maps are generated to evaluate geological deposits at the land surface and in the subsurface for their potential to host water, energy, and mineral resources, as well as to identify and delineate geological hazards, all in support of environmentally sound economic development, community sustainability, and public safety.

Since the passage of the National Geologic Mapping Act in 1992, most investments for geological mapping have been made by the federal government through the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) enabled by the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 administered by the USGS and matched at 100%+ by individual states through their SGS. Some funds have also been provided by other federal programs, state and local governments, and private sector sources. The NCGMP is designed specifically to perform geological mapping and associated research in high-priority areas to sustain and improve the quality of life and economic vitality of the Nation (US DOI, 2023). There are three components to the NCGMP: (1) FEDMAP, (2) STATEMAP, and (3) EDMAP. FEDMAP directly funds the USGS for geological mapping; STATEMAP provides funding to SGS for geological mapping and requires a 1:1 match from the states for any federally awarded funds; and EDMAP provides funds to universities and colleges to train students (i.e., the next generation of geoscientists) in geological mapping and requires a 1:1 match from those universities and colleges for any federally awarded funds. Total funding for the NCGMP slowly ramped up between 1993 and 2011, but then declined in 2012 and remained stable between 2013 and 2019. However, since 2019, federal funding for mapping has increased significantly. The NCGMP experienced growth from $24.4 million in 2019 (US DOI, 2019) to $44.6 million in 2023 (US DOI, 2023). This resulted from congressional support for an acceleration of geological mapping by SGS (AASG, 2014) and the USGS (Brock et al., 2021) to meet strategic national, state, and local mapping priorities.

In late 2017, the USGS launched an initiative (now called the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative or Earth MRI) to modernize and accelerate geological mapping and geophysical surveys in areas where there may be reserves of critical minerals (USGS, 2023). These studies assist the minerals industry in increasing the domestic supply as directed by White House Executive Order 13817 (White House, 2017) and the Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2021 (P.L. 117–58, 135 Stat. 529). Geophysical surveys complement the geological mapping efforts by facilitating interpretation of the subsurface. Based on the Executive Order and the Infrastructure and Jobs Act, congressional actions added ~$11 million per year and $320 million ($64 million/per year for five years), respectively, to the annual USGS budget for the Earth MRI program.

Considering the sustained congressional support for the past 30 years and recent enhancements of the NCGMP, combined with the newly launched Earth MRI program, it is especially timely to evaluate the costs and benefits of public sector geological mapping to help gauge the value of the federal investment. In this report, economic analyses of the costs and benefits of geological mapping are used to estimate the value of geological maps that were produced and disseminated by SGS and the USGS during the period from 1994 to 2019. Several approaches are applied to assess the costs and potential benefits of the value of geological maps. As previously mentioned, this is the first economic analysis of geological mapping conducted for the entirety of the U.S., and the largest and most comprehensive jurisdictional economic analysis for geological mapping ever conducted worldwide.

1.2: Economic Analyses of Geological Mapping — ​Review of Previous Studies

For more than 100 years, analyses of the costs and benefits have been used to economically evaluate and prioritize federal and state programs, as well as private-sector projects. These analyses can be useful for apportioning resources or comparing projects for development (White House Office of Management and Budget, 2022). A cost estimate followed by assessment of the long-term value of those costs can help influence, rank, and direct decision making to justify and optimize present and future government and private investment. Therefore, cost and benefit economic analysis represents an important approach and can systematically help to identify and quantify the costs of proposed projects or a product (e.g., geological maps), as well as the benefits derived from that product. Such analyses can help to provide a justification for the proposed investments based on the expected outcomes.

Geological mapping generates geological maps and various derivative products based on credible Earth science practices, which require investments that may occur well before the outcome of that work is recognized or the monetary benefits realized. The benefits of geological mapping have been discussed anecdotally for more than 200 years. However, starting in the 1980s, governments began demanding more quantitative analyses and specific explanations regarding the expenditures of publicly-supported government activities. For example, a 1989 Illinois Senate Resolution (ISR-881) required that the Illinois State Geological Survey document the costs and benefits of their geological mapping programs. In response, Bhagwat and Berg (1991) first used the “avoided costs are benefits” approach for assessing the savings that could have been derived from utilizing geological information in two counties in Illinois using clean-up costs of contaminated sites from waste disposal and industrial activities as the basis. They concluded that the proper and adequate use of geological information can avoid costs during project execution as well as in the future. However, the magnitude of avoided costs is always an estimate. They discovered that the benefits of geological mapping were 5 to 11 times greater than the costs in their most conservative scenario. On the national level, the White House Office of Management and Budget requested the USGS to quantify the value for conducting their geological mapping (Bernknopf et al., 1993). Their estimation used a modeling approach that compared the costs of a project with and without the availability of geological information. The cost estimates in this approach also required estimation based on expert opinions from personal interviews. The expected net benefit (societal value) of using improved geological map information ranged from about $1.28 million to $3.50 million, with a cost and benefit ratio that ranged from 1:2 to 1:4.

Following the above early assessments, there have been several other economic analyses conducted for geological mapping and related studies. For example, Reedman (2000) and Reedman et al. (1996, 2002) examined different approaches to estimating costs and benefits of geological information. They reported on a Kenyan geological mapping study that permitted targeted drilling and reduced exploration costs by more than $307,000 USD. They further reported on the value of geological information based on several large mineral exploration projects in South America, Africa, and Asia, and for groundwater exploration in Nigeria. The latter resulted in a groundwater potential map that improved drilling success rates in multiple geological settings, yielding net benefits of greater than $1.15 million. Bhagwat and Ipe (2000) applied an approach at the state level in Kentucky to demonstrate that costs were exceeded in value by benefits with a ratio of at least 1:2 and possibly up to 1:28. Utilizing the same methodology as used in Kentucky, the Geological Survey of Spain arrived at a similar cost-to-benefit ratio estimate of a minimum of 1:2 (Garcia-Cortes et al., 2005). Bernknopf et al. (2007) studied an operational mining project in Canada and demonstrated that the use of newer geological maps resulted in the discovery of significantly more ore reserves. The economic value of the updated map ranged from $CAN2.28 million to $CAD15.21 million as compared to the $CAN1.86 million that it cost to produce the updated, finer resolution map (a multiplier effect of 8:1). Duke (2010) also investigated the impact of government investment in mineral exploration in Canada. Although not a mapping project, the study found that every dollar invested by the government created at least $5 invested by private industry. The mining association of Canada estimated that those benefits were up to 75 times the government investment. Kleinhenz and Associates (2011) used a questionnaire to solicit user input on benefits of utilizing geological maps and information in Ohio. In addition, an input-output model approach was used to estimate the multiplier effect of investment in geological research on jobs and wealth creation. They calculated that the aggregate value of the Ohio Division of Geological Survey was a minimum of approximately $575 million to the economy of Ohio, and only for the year 2010. In a report on the benefits of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno (Nevada’s state geological survey) to the state’s and region’s economy, Bhagwat (2014) estimated that the total value for geological maps sold was $13 million, and map user’s “willingness to pay” for each map was $6,414. With an estimated cost of $90,000 to $200,000 to produce each map in Nevada, the cost and benefit ratio ranges from 1:66 to 1:147 (Bhagwat, 2014). This high ratio was attributed primarily to the high value of Nevada’s mineral resources (e.g., gold and silver). Chiavacci et al. (2020) focused on a specific aspect of geological information as it related to variabilities of radon emissions and their health impact. In response, the Kentucky Geological Survey developed statewide and county-scale radon potential maps (Haneberg et al., 2020). This study found that over 200,000 cases of radon related lung cancer and 15,000 to 20,000 deaths were reported in the USA. The cost of caring and treatment per patient in the first year of having access to this geological information alone may be $3 million. Radon remedial action per house, on the other hand, costs less than $1,500. Finally, Lizzuo et al. (2020) reported that the economy of Arizona gained an estimated $30 million annually because of the availability of geological maps prepared by the Arizona Geological Survey, which has an annual budget of less than $1 million.

A summary of most of the above studies and many others can be found in Häggquist and Söderholm (2015) and Berg et al. (2019). Häggquist and Söderholm concluded that “Geological information can play a key role in addressing challenges of sustainable development, such as land degradation and groundwater protection, and contribute to improved decision-making processes…. The review of prior research shows significant economic benefits attached to the generation of this type of public information”. Similarly, Berg et al. (2019) concluded that “While methodologies for conducting the various economic assessments have many similarities, they do differ in scope and detail, but all show a very positive valuation for the mapping and modeling activity ranging from benefit-cost ratios of 4:1 to >100:1. All of them were conducted to report on the need for geological information to address resource, hazard, and other societal issues, and with the specific intent to justify the activity”.

These economic studies reported the need for geological information to address specific issues, protect the environment, and lower costs both for the public and private sectors. They importantly (1) marketed the value of geological mapping to stakeholder users and potential funders, and (2) promoted the need for mapping within jurisdictions that lacked a dedicated mapping program, thereby providing a significant economic incentive for conducting the activity.

1.3: Geological Mapping — ​A Candidate for Further Economic Analysis

Geological maps are based on extensive geological research, and their production has been a core activity of geological surveys since William Smith’s geological map of much of Great Britain in 1815. Allen (2003) reported that this map strongly influenced geological investigations by the world’s first geological survey organization, the British Geological Survey that was founded in 1835. For the first time, cross-sectional subsurface depictions, portrayal of the ages of strata and lithological differences, and structural relationships depicted on Smith’s map permitted predictions of rock occurrences and their properties in areas of sparse data. That map even included text that described various uses for the geological deposits. The 1815 map established a precedent for the next 200+ years of geological mapping and portrayal of geological information.

Geological surveys were founded on the premise of economic development, with mineral and energy resource discovery being their primary focus. The USGS was founded in 1879, with geological mapping at the core of its initial mission and continuing to the present. The first state geological survey was established in 1823 in North Carolina. By 1840, there were at least 15 SGS, and by the first few decades of the 20th Century, geological surveys had been founded in nearly every state. Today, geological surveys exist in every state, with the exceptions of Hawaii and Georgia. Most were initially charged with the investigation, delineation, and analysis of mineral and energy resources within their state or territory. Similar to the USGS, geological mapping has been a primary responsibility of SGS since their founding.

When the “environmental movement” accelerated in the 1960s (Frye, 1967), geological surveys maintained their traditional role of geological mapping in support of mineral and energy resources, but many also began to focus on mapping projects related to groundwater resources and protection issues, as well as geological hazards (e.g., earthquake faults, floods, landslides, and sinkholes), all of which additionally contributed to the economic prosperity and public safety of their jurisdictions. Most recently, a wider variety of economic sectors (e.g., real estate and construction) have directly utilized information derived from geological maps, and this has led to the need for investments in geological mapping for new developments (e.g., general infrastructure, transportation systems, pipelines, housing subdivisions, etc.). There are clearly many applications of geological mapping across a wide spectrum of economic sectors and therefore a broad range of benefits.

The process of creating a geological map is usually a focused, labor intensive, long-term exercise with an outcome in the form of a “map product”. The geological map not only has value to a broad range of industries, government agencies, and research institutions, but also can be used to minimize future and potentially costly liabilities resulting from uninformed land, resource, and/or development decisions that may occur without the map. In essence, having access to geological knowledge through maps can avoid some user costs in terms of time saved to gather the geological knowledge and by avoiding other costs that may result from insufficient knowledge about local geological conditions.

Geological maps typically have a relatively long “shelf life”. However, a high-quality geological map can be improved when advances in scientific methods allow for gathering of new or more detailed data and observations, thus permitting new interpretations. Nevertheless, considering the cost and considerable effort of initial government investment, once a map has been published, geological survey organizations generally “move on” to other areas prioritized for mapping. Revising an already mapped region usually does not occur within relatively short timeframes. Existing geological maps commonly remain for decades as the “best available data”, and the same map can be used multiple times by many stakeholders for numerous applications. Therefore, their benefits to society are cumulative, and maps generally accrue their value to society over a long timeframe.

It is important to note that, in recent decades, numerous computer and other electronic applications have influenced the mechanisms by which geological maps are produced, viewed, distributed, and used. Most geological maps are now produced in digital format. The paper geological map, although still useful and available, is employed much less often. Digital geological maps can serve as interactive electronic documents that package Earth science issues into geospatial frameworks. They capture the size, shape, depth, and composition of earth materials and allow for independent or blended displays of various data layers depending on the focus of the user. The combination of geological maps and supporting digital databases facilitates assessment of a wide variety of complex geological, land-use, mineral and energy resource, natural hazard, and hydrological issues.

Most importantly, geological maps produced by SGS and the USGS are viewed as a public good. They are a vital component of the Nation’s information infrastructure, available and accessible to all, and can be used by many at the same time without being “consumed”. Additionally, geological knowledge derived through mapping is typically provided free or at minimal cost by geological survey organizations after the initial cost of producing the map. To obtain a geological map, the consumer does not pay a price that is based on supply and demand, which differs from a consumptive good in a marketplace. Instead, a nominal cost is commonly charged for a paper copy (if needed by a user) to cover printing expenses, or in some cases a minor charge is assessed to download the digital database to help cover website and data dissemination costs incurred by the geological survey organization.

Geological maps are generally produced by the SGS and USGS and then used by a wide variety of industries, groups, and organizations. Because government organizations produce the bulk of geological maps in the U.S., the general costs incurred to produce the maps (i.e., federal and state investments) are typically available. For this report, the costs incurred for geological mapping for the period from 1994 to 2019 were obtained from every SGS and the USGS. The more challenging part of the analysis was quantifying the benefits or perceived value of the geological maps by major user groups, quantities that are generally not systematically recorded and may differ significantly per user group and/or region. A relatively detailed questionnaire (Appendix 2) was therefore developed to assess the benefits and/or perceived value of geological maps. This questionnaire was widely distributed across the entire country and received nearly 4,800 responses.

1.4: Scope of Work and Outline of Report

For this economic analysis, we used a multi-pronged approach to assess the value of geological maps in the U.S. Major components of this national study included the following:

• Assessment of costs incurred by SGS and the USGS with funds provided by the USGS through the NCGMP, matching funds provided by SGS, as well as funds furnished by other federal, state, and local sources. These costs were tracked through time for each SGS and the USGS.

• Compilation of comprehensive lists of known and potential map users for each SGS for distribution of the online questionnaire, which was designed to help define the value (benefits assessment) of geological maps.

• Assessment of benefits of the mapping programs in monetary terms where possible and in qualitative/descriptive terms, where quantitative input was not available.

• Establishment of the scope of geological mapping in terms of area covered, scale of mapping, and types of mapping (e.g., topographic, Quaternary, bedrock, and derivatives focused on specific natural resources and/or earthquake potential, geothermal energy, etc.) for each SGS and the USGS.

• Reporting of geological map demand based on online geological map views, downloads, and maps sold.

• Analyzing the questionnaire datasets for six defined regions across the U.S. to determine potential correlations between economic sectors within and between the regions.

• Providing a quantitative measure of geological map value assessment from independent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data based on the rationale that future Superfund mitigation costs could be minimized, or possibly avoided, if geological information had been available and used prior to the adverse development at the Superfund sites.

• Developing a qualitative assessment of the perceived value of geological maps based on stakeholder responses to the questionnaire.

• Estimating the use of different levels of investment in geological maps by U.S. economic sectors as a latent demand for specific map uses. The latent demand or capacity to invest in geological maps was based on the value of the map as an input in the production of private and public goods and services.

The above content is grouped into the following chapters, which collectively incorporate four approaches to assessing the value of geological mapping. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the major objectives and methodologies employed in this study. Chapter 3 reviews assessments of map producing agencies, such as SGS and the USGS, as gleaned from the questionnaire. Chapter 4 addresses the costs incurred for geological mapping by SGS and the USGS from 1994 to 2019. Chapter 5 describes the major components of a geological mapping program as a framework for understanding the associated costs. Chapter 6 analyzes results from the questionnaire to provide an initial approach to evaluating the quantitative benefits of geological mapping, including descriptions of respondent preferences for map type and scales and quantitative assessment of the perceived value of geological maps. Chapter 7 reviews the historical demand for geological maps, as evidenced by online views, downloads, and actual sales, thus providing insights on the usage of maps versus their perceived value estimates as benefits. Chapter 8 provides the second approach to assessing the costs and benefits of geological mapping by incorporating data from the cost sheets and questionnaire relative to six geographic regions of the U.S. This analysis includes funding levels for geological mapping by state and region, projected cost ranges for geological maps by region, and projected map costs for representative states from each region. Chapter 9 is the third approach and provides a quantitative value assessment of geological mapping from independent data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chapter 10 incorporates narrative responses to the questionnaire to provide a qualitative assessment of the value of geological maps, which complements the quantitative evaluation of costs and benefits covered in Chapters 4, 6, and 8. Chapter 11 presents the fourth approach in an econometric analysis involving major economic sectors and the capacity of such sectors to invest in producing geological maps. Chapter 12 covers input by respondents to the questionnaire about future geological mapping. Chapter 13 discusses lessons learned from this project and provides suggestions for future studies. Major conclusions are then reviewed in Chapter 14.

1.5: References

Allen, P. 2003, A geological survey in transition: British Geological Survey Occasional Publication 1, 220 p. https://earthwise.bgs.ac.uk/index.php/A_geological_survey_in_transition.

Association of American State Geologists (AASG), 2014, Resolution on AASG commitment to the role of geological mapping in society: Lexington, KY, 1 p.

Berg, R.C, MacCormack, K.E., Kessler, H., Russell, H.A.J., 2019, Chapter 4: Benefit-cost analysis for building 3D maps and models, in 2019 synposis of current three-dimensional geological mapping and modelling in geological survey organizations: Alberta Energy Regulator/Alberta Geological Survey, AER/AGS Special Report 112, p. 19–23.

Bernknopf, R. L., Brookshire, D.S., Soller, D.R., McKee, M.J, Sutter, J.F, Matti, J.C. and Campbell, R.H., 1993, Societal value of geological maps: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1111, 53 p., https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1993/1111/report.pdf.

Bernknopf, R. L., Wein A., St-Onge, M., and Lucas, S., 2007, Analysis of improved government geological map information for mineral exploration: incorporating efficiency, productivity, effectiveness, and risk considerations: Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 593, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1721, 55 p., https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1721.

Bhagwat, S., 2014, The Nevada Bureau of Mines: current and future benefits to the university, the state, and the region: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 38, 64 p., https://pubs.nbmg.unr.edu/NBMG-current-and-future-p/sp038.htm.

Bhagwat, S.B., 2016, Construction aggregates and silica sand in the economy of Illinois: Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 5, 28 p., https://library.isgs.illinois.edu/Pubs/pdfs/specialreports/sp-05.pdf.

Bhagwat, S.B. and Berg, R.C., 1991, Benefits and costs of geologic mapping programs in Illinois: Case study of Boone and Winnebago Counties and its statewide applicability: Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 549, 40p., https://archive.org/details/benefitscostsofg549bhag.

Bhagwat, S.B. and Ipe, V.C., 2000, Economic benefits of detailed geologic mapping to Kentucky: Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3, 39 p., https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/45200.

Brock, J., Berry, K., Faulds, J., Berg, R., House, K., Marketti, M., McPhee, D., Schmidt, K., Schmitt, J., Soller, D., Spears, D., Thompson, R., Thorleifson, H., and Walsh, G., 2021, 2020–2030 Strategy for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, Renewing the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program as the Nation’s Authoritative Source for Modern Geologic Knowledge: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2021–1013, 10 p., https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211013.

Chiavacci, S.J., Shapiro, C.D., Pindilli, E.J., Casey, C.F., Rayens, M.K., Wiggins, A.T., Andrews, W.M., and Hahn, E.J., 2020, Economic valuation of health benefits from using geologic data to communicate radon risk potential: Environmental Health, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00589-8.

Division G, U.S. Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023: U.S. Department of the Interior, 298 p.

Duke, J.M., 2010, Government geoscience to support mineral exploration: public policy rationale and impact: Report prepared for the prospectors and developers association of Canada, https://www.academia.edu/5085907/Government_Geoscience_to_Support_Mineral_Exploration_public_policy_rationale_and_impact.

Frye, J.C., 1967, Geological information for managing the environment: Illinois State Geological Survey Environmental Geology Notes 18, 12 p., https://archive.org/details/geologicalinform18frye/mode/2up.

Garcia-Cortes, A., Vivancos, J., and Fernández-Gianotti, J., 2005, Economic and social value of the MAGNA plan: Boletin Geologico y Minero, v. 116, no. 4, p. 291–305, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286984130_Economic_and_social_value_of_the_MAGNA_Plan.

Häggquist, E. and Söderholm, P., 2015, The economic value of geological information: synthesis and directions for future research: Resources Policy, v. 43, p. 91–100, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420714000804.

Haneberg, W.C., Wiggins, A., Curl, D.C., Greb, S.F., Andrews Jr., W.M., Rayens, M.K, and Hahn, E.J., 2020, A geologically based indoor-radon potential map of Kentucky: GeoHealth, v. 4, no. 11, 13 p., https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GH000263.

Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act, 2021, H.R. 3684 — 117th Congress (2021–2022), P.L. 117–58, 135 Stat. 529. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text.

Lizzuo, C., Bartels, A., Brands, C.C., and Yashi, A., 2019, Arizona Geological Survey economic impact report: Arizona Geological Survey Contributed Report OFR-19-A, 21 p., https://azgs.arizona.edu/publication/arizona-geological-survey-economic-impact-report.

National Geological Mapping Act of 1992, 1992, H.R. 2763 - 102nd Congress (1991–1992), P.L. 102–285, 106 Stat., https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/2763/text.

Reedman, T., 2000, Can geological surveying pay dividends?: British Geological Survey Earthworks, Issue 10, 20 p.

Reedman, A.J., Calow, R.C., and Mortimer, C., 1996, Geological Surveys in Developing Countries: Strategies for Assistance: Project Summary Report, British Geological Survey, Technical Report WC/96/20, Overseas Geology Series, 39 p., https://resources.bgs.ac.uk/PublicationPDFs/19598606.pdf.

Reedman, T., Calow, R., Johnson, C.C., Piper, D.P., and Bate, D.G., 2002, The value of geoscience information in less developed countries: British Geological Survey Commissioned Report CR/ 02/087N viii, 43 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 2019, Budget justifications and performance information Fiscal Year 2019: U.S. Department of the Interior, 148 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2023, National map of focus areas for potential critical mineral resources in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2023–3007, 4 p., https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2023/3007/fs20233007.pdf.

White House, 2017, A Federal strategy to ensure secure and reliable supplies of critical minerals—Executive Order 13817 of December 20, 2017: Federal Register, v. 82, no. 246, document 2017–27899, p. 60835–60837, accessed February 14, 2018, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/26/2017-27899/a-federal-strategy-to-ensure-secure-and-reliable-supplies-of-critical-minerals.

White House Office of Management and Budget, 2022, Guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs: Circular A-94, 22 p., https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A94/a094.pdf.

Winchester, S., 2001, The map that changed the world: Tale of William Smith and the birth of a science: Harper Collins Publishers, LLC, New York, 329 p.