AASG 2009 SPRING LIAISON MEETING MINUTES(March 15th- 18th)

MONDAY NOTES:

USGS Plenary Session

Meeting: USGS Plenary Session Location: Main Interior Building, 1849 C. Street, Washington, D. C. North Penthouse RoomDate: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 9:00 - 10:00 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:

AASG Lead: Nick TewOther AASG Attendees: All (notes – Jeff Halka, John Parish)

Key Points and Issues Discussed:The Plenary Session commenced at 9:00 A. M. in the North Penthouse Room of the Main Interior Building. A welcome introduction was made by Randy Orndorff (USGS -- Associate Program Coordinator for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program), followed by AASG President, Nick Tew. Process for selecting a new Director for the USGS was briefly discussed, but little insights were given. Peter Lyttle (USGS, Acting Associate Director for Geology) spoke on behalf of Suzette Kimball. Lyttle said that the USGS was advised by its Legislative contacts that the National Geologic Mapping Act (NGMA) was a serious program and not to be messed with. The Act is basically good and functional. Lyttle encourgage AASG members to convey that message to Kimball as reinforcement. Lyttle also presented an award to Nevada State Geologist Jon Price for his dedicated work on the NGMA Advisory Committee; and, presented an award to Vicki McConnell, State Geolgist from Oregon, for her service to the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) for the past three years. Matt Larson (USGS, Associate Director for Water) noted that the 2009 Omnibus Bill provides for funding of the USGS at $1.042B, which is about $37M over the 2008 Budget. USGS plans funding enhancements for CO2 Sequestration, earthquake hazards, minerals, continental shelf mapping, Great Lakes mapping, and Balkum Fm. oil studies. Larson characterized the 2009 budget as the best in eight years.Barbara Wainman (USGS) stated that all USGS programs tentatively have been approved. Ms Wainman provided:

A copy of the first USGS Calendar That there was no news regarding a Director for the USGS That the Water director may be Ann Castle National Map project has been moved into the Geography Unit Stimulus funds will go the National Map to modernize the program, with most funding toward LiDAR and

Elevations. The focus of LiDAR work likely will be coastal states oriented. With respect to CO2 sequestration methodology, she recommended that USGS Paper 3097 (2008) be reviewed.

The methodology is scheduled for implementation in 2010.

Other issues

Grants.gov - Discussed problems with Grants.gov particularly the rejection of 2 or 3 states from STATEMAP due to inability to submit proposals in time. Although, the USGS indicated that they would look into this, perhaps by modifying submission criteria, the general impression was that they felt that they had little ability to alter the procedure or to develop some leniency. Linda Gunderson (USGS Chief Scientist for Geology) responded that the USGS has received permission to develop an alternative to the Grants.gov application program, but has not yet received specifications on how to develop the alternative. This will likely be a continuing issue, with the Stimulus funding reportedly going through Grants.gov the system is likely to be seriously overloaded. However, the issue is being brought to the attention of the USGS administration.

Stimulus funding - Little of the funding going to the USGS will be available for programs. Most is allocated to deferred maintenance, some for stream gages, repairing monitoring wells, and (of course) to earthquake monitoring. There is a possibility that funding within DOI may be reallocated depending on the ability of individual bureaus to make progress. USGS feels that it is well positioned to jump on the stimulus funding and thus will not be likely to loose any of the allocated funding. None of the stimulus funding can be co-mingled with ongoing programs. All in all the impression was that little stimulus funding would flow to state surveys through the USGS.

Administration Transition - The Obama administration focused a lot on issues related to climate change, energy (alternative), water, and hazards. These issues can all be directly addressed by the USGS and the state GS's.

Geography - Geography is likely to have increased emphasis within the USGS, particularly in regards to LIDAR, geohazard mapping, etc. The National Geospatial Program will manage these efforts.

Carbon Sequestration - The USGS is nearing completion on an assessment methodology for carbon storage. Upon public release will be soliciting public comments for 60 days (notification from Suzette Kimball arrived April 2nd requesting scientific community comments by April 17th). One of the issues brought up at the session is that the assessment is based on a limited number of data points.

Outcome/Action Items:No real action items noted for the state surveys; USGS did indicate that they would follow up on the Grants.gov issues.

USGS Water Census Breakout

Meeting: USGS Water Census and Groundwater BreakoutLocation: North Penthouse Room of the Main Interior BuildingDate: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 10:15 – 11:00 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:USGS Supervisory Staff

(noted absentees: Suzette Kimball, Acting Director; Eric Evenson, Coordinator for the Water for America Initiative; David Applegate, Sr. Science Advisor for Earthquakes and Geologic Hazards)

AASG Lead: David WunschOther AASG Attendees: ALL

A welcome introduction was made by David Wunsch (AASG) followed by Bill Cunningham and Matt Larson (USGS).

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Dave Wunsch noted the effots fo the federal Subcommittee on Ground Water (SOGW), which several state

survey staff have been actively engaged. The SOGW recognizes that states have key roles in groundwater monitoring, and have recommendd that a “national ground water monitoiring network” be initiated, and that $1M be appropriated through the USGS for pilot projects. This effort has the support of several ground water associations, councils, and agencies

Cunningham and Larson (USGS) advised that USGS Circulars #1323 (Groundwater Availability in the US) and #1331 (Managing Water Resources) be reviewed.

It was noted that AASG supports the Water Initiative in National Mapping, and that a telephone call to Suzette Kimball could be made to reinforce her awareness of that support

Sustainable funding for the water programs was reduced from the asking amount in the latest budget; however, USGS will reproposed original amounts for the 2011 budget.

Water use pilot project in Ohio is phasing out.

2010 projects are: research in saline resources estimated withdrawal of groundwater for consumption effects on groundwater of climate change – recharge supply

(Water data collection standards vary from one state to another, which is a challenge for results analysis)

Peter Scholle (AASG) empahsized that the USGS should develop a true partnership program with the states, especially in the form of funding grants. Larson (USGS) responded that the partnership is built into the Act, and that existing program funding is 30% Federal and 70% to the states.

David Wunsch proposed that a StateMap-like funding model be incorporatd for developing the national monitoring network. Language to this effect is included in the SOGW final report. Funding would assist with:

Database – undecided architecture (USGS only, or all state data as well). Along lines of Virtual Data Center for state data acquisition and sharing of GW well data

Monitoring well infrastructure needs for the states Operational costs

Rex Buchanan (AASG, Kansas) noted the need for data credits for VDC or website use. Data tracking for states is important for funding support.

Outcome/Action Items: AASG will relay message of support of National Ground Water Network program during our Liaison visits

USGS National Geologic Hazard Breakout

Meeting: USGS Hazards Breakout, Volcano ObservatoriesLocation: North Penthouse Room of the Main Interior BuildingDate: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 11:00 – 12:00 p.m.

Met with: John Eichelberger Telephone Number: 703-648-6711 E-mail: jeichelberger@usgs.gov

AASG Lead: Vicki McConnellOther AASG Attendees: All

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Western States successful program State Surveys can play major role in success of observatories as operations and scientific partners There is money for state surveys to become involved in process

o Surveys can handle operations and tasks and reduce overhead costs that can be turned back into operational funds

o Provide unique hazards perspective of the State Many potential volcanoes are not monitored

o Examples: Glacier Peak and many in the Cascades Possibility of integration with earthquake programs Opportunity to use new processing capabilities to process real time GPS to help with forecasting techniques being

employed. Bob Swenson (AK) remarked about the relationship of 3-way partnership in Alaska with University/State Survey/

USGS works very well - All have distinct responsibilities and can produce financial savings Possibility that FAA will “belly up to the bar” with funding for flight safety in FY11 Stimulus money likely go to modernization of monitoring equipment Should be money for state survey involvement

Outcome/Action Items: Contact John to discuss collaboration opportunity and funding.

National Park Service (NPS)

Meeting: National Park Service (NPS)Location: Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW, Room 7429Date: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 1:30-2:15 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Lindsay McClelland 202-513-7185 lindsay_mcclelland@nps.gov

AASG Lead: Jon PriceOther AASG Attendees: Joe Gillman, Jim Cobb, Don McKay

Key Points and Issues Discussed: What stimulus opportunities exist in Parks and how could we leverage any issues with state

surveys? Stimulus money for NPS focused on infrastructure; could be money for AML closures on

federal lands $ (NPS has $72M ready to go to projects) Desire a base budget increase in the near term for GRD Other money not likely to be utilized for geology Bruce Heise (Denver) may have some funding for geologic mapping (CA, VA, MA, AZ, WV;

Has provided support to AASG UT, NM) NPS wants to develop some base level mapping at all NPS facilities

(not historical sites)

Geologic Data Preservation:o Maintain some curatorial or repository function that tracks NPS specimens/collections

such as geologic map data; paleontology; bibliographically; specimenso Do some work with BLM to provide these services

AASG states could potentially act as storage locations for some long-term collections asuniversities do not want to maintain collections; or could direct them to other appropriate locations.

NPS would like to see geology support in the parks as they tend to hire communicators ratherthan science.

John Day fossil beds is a good example as they use high quality exhibits to demonstratechanges in climate; ecosystems; and minerals.

Could ASSG provide expertise to parks? Perhaps we could act on this when seasonal employees are trained; would like to get more geologists into the programs. AASG rep. Should contact Park Superintendent. Not clear if this would be a funding opportunity.

World Heritage Program:o Nation will pull together a list of sites for considerationo Most of the sites are culturalo Only 14 sites identified for next decade to be included for consideration

White Sands NM Petrified Forest NW Hawaiian Islands – marine ecosystem and time progression of volcanoes over

hot spots Mt. Vernon

Geo Parks Parks – UNESCO geoparks [Google]GSA: Wes Hill – lead

18 nations participating Includes relationship of humans to earth science Regional perspective Cultural, economic, environmental “Goldbelt byway” in Colorado Florissant Fossil Beds Garden Park Cripple Creek/Victor Mines

Educate through Geotourism:o What are interests of state surveys and what would be guidelines for involvement?o Please give AASG more information on what details; what is involved; criteria;

requirements;o NPS possibly interested in getting on the agenda for Park City;

Outcome/Action Items: Invite NPS representative to discuss Geoparks at AASG Annual Meeting

Minerals Management Service (MMS)

Meeting: Minerals Management Service (MMS)

Location: Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW, Room 7000ADate: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 1:30 – 2:30 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Roger Amato, 703-787-1282 Roger.Amato@mms.govGeologistWilliam Waskes 703-787-1287 Will.Waskes@mms.govOceanographerGeorge Dellagiarino 703-787-1526 George.Dellagiarino@mms.govGeologist/Resource EvaluationKeith Good 202-208-3530 Keith.Good@mms.govChief of StaffRenee Orr 703-787-1376 Renee.orr@mms.govManager, 5-yr Lease Sale Progs(represented by Carry Haggerty)

AASG Lead: Nick TewOther AASG Attendees: Harvey Thorleifson, David Wunsch, Jamie Robertson, Jeff Halka

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Keith Good gave a discussion of MMS budget. 2010 had not been released as of yet. Work on the MMS 5-Year Plan

has been put on the back burner with the new Administration OCS Policy Committee: Currently the large producing states (TX, MS, AL, AK) and Industry members are seated At

large seats have not been appointed. DOI Secretary will appoint these seats. Energy Legislation – nothing has happened in this regard. MMS received no stimulus funds. July of 2010 MMS will release a new OCS assessment Alternative Energy: Rulemaking is ongoing for off shore renewable energy programs. A discussion ensued about

current projects, including a deep water (> 100’) off of New Jersey. Interim Policy-there is some interest for data collection on east coast Sand and Gravel Program; continuing Katrina/Rita follow-up Alternate Energy – discussion of MMS role in offshore wind, EPACT directed need for MMS, other agencies to get

cooperative interests Resource Assessment/East Coast Energy Potential. MMS may break up area into segments. Sharing of information

with Canadian Government and West Africa. Proposed 5 yr. OCS leasing program for 2007-2012 document is available Gas Hydrates; discussion of first report on Gulf of Mexico

Outcome/Action Items:None

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Meeting: Bureau of Land Management (BLM)Location: Main Interior BuildingDate: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 1:30-2:30 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Mitchell Leverette 202-452-5088-3752 Mitchell_Leverette@blm.govChief, Solid Minerals DivisionTed Murphy (now stationed in Alaska)

AASG Lead: Ed DealOther AASG Attendees: Roy Breckenridge, Bob Swenson, Vicki McConnell, John Parrish

Key Points and Issues Discussed: BLM budget …will have to wait and see what happens in FY10 Stimulus package monies primarily targeting renewable energy programs

o Solar, wind, geothermal, biomasso Working on application process, may be opening pilot offices

$28 mm tagged for abandoned mines Mitch says that president understands that non-renewables will remain part of the energy mix and that O&G and

coal are still ‘on the table’ [maybe not the same table as the money though] Uranium will be part of the Clean Energy portfolio

o BLM has processed 50,000 new claims in 2008 10k of those around Grand Canyon area, Bill floating around that will withdraw that area from claim activity

Other big issues out thereo Tribal responsibilities [not sure what he meant by that]o Mining reform bill, (Rep. Rayhal), includes 8% royalty tax on gross, part of which will go to abandoned

mines Some stimulus money directed towards plugging abandoned wells in NPRA Oil Shale

o Federal rulings issued o Secretary pulled some leases for a second round and will re-look at royalty issues

Final publication available for Phosphate miningo Selenium issue in Idaho, negative impact on Monsanto plant

CO2--- very little involvement – one person on ‘fluid’ side of equationo New administration will want BLM to become more involved

Oil & Gas operations and energy transmission likely affected by numerous ESA listings, e.g., Sage Grouseo Potential to slow development way downo All boils down to NEPA processo Interstate transport of power all turned over to FERC

Abandoned Mines programso FAST…Fix a Shaft Today

Information and educational No money for State Surveys Partnered with NMA and others Educational tool, not meant for operations Not complete agreement on the program among BLM because of liability issues

Stimulus Moneyo State surveys should meet with regional office to identify funding opportunitieso They were not completely clear what is out there now, and how the programs will shake out, but you

should be talking with your local directors as soon as possibleo When looking for Stimulus, think GREEN, GROWTH, AND YOUTH

Example they gave…… trail rehab

MOUo Has been distributed internally for comments

o Will email Vickie Red-line version

Outcome/Action Items: Make sure MOU is sent ALL Surveys should contact local BLM offices to pursue stimulus funding opportunities fairly soon if interested

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)Meeting Cancelled

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)

Meeting: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)Location: Interior South Building, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 220-SIBDate: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 3:30 – 4:30 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:John Craynon 202-208-2866 jcraynon@osmre.govChief Regulatory SupportGlenda Owens 202-208-3186 gowens@osmre.govActing directorAlfred Whitehouse

AASG Lead: Jim CobbOther AASG Attendees: Joe Gillman, Don McKay

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Carbon Sequestration is a focus of clean coal technology; what are possibilities from this technology and OSM

programs AML sites in KY being utilized as valuable commercial property. Peabody contributed $2 million to a CO2 test well in west KY. FutureGen discussion; largely embraced by local public; seen as public benefit plus economics associated with a job

creation Decatur, IL project Mt. Simon formation in Illinois Knox formation in Kentucky CO2 injection in Virginia as part of DOE demonstration Illinois hosted Chinese delegation to discuss CO2 project Underground Mine Map Proposals for FY10

o 10 proposals receivedo $900K requestso $200-300K funding available for awardso Ranks due April 3 for recommendations to OSM managemento User interfaces on maps that can be accessed by the public but will be clear which state agencies have been

utilized for the information (minemap.com)

Stimulus projects being planned o existing agreements?o could be area of emphasis in FY10

In-situ gasification o has been some research UCG (ND, China, Indiana)

National Commission on Energy Policyo meeting projectedo Coal Production Demands in the USA

Illinois Basin largest growth in next several decades UCG – OSM could be involved

o protection of hydrologyo unknown

EPA has proposed ruleo Lisa Jackson – industry accounts for GGE, CBM, and CO2

Applied Researcho may be looking at fugitive CO2 measures

Outcome/Action Items:

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

Meeting: Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)Location: Main Interior Bldg. – 1849 C St. NW Room 7000BDate: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 3:30 – 4:30 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Jon Kolak 202-456-6081 jkolak@ostp.eop.govPolicy Analyst

AASG Lead: David WunschOther AASG Attendees: Jeff Halka, Jamie Robertson, Nick Tew

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Held a wide ranging discussion on issues, without a significant focus on action items. This was partially due to

the fact that the Office did not yet have a confirmed director. Note that Rich Holdren was confirmed as Director on March 20th.

Generally discussed the status of the USGS particularly with regard to appointing a new Director. Jon felt that it would be a while, probably not before June. He is assigned to the office until the fall. Beyond that time it would require a mutual decision between OSTP, the USGS and himself as to whether he continued in OSTP.

Inequity of the water program model within the USGS. Discussed the fact that the Water District model fosters competition rather than cooperation, and is thus a poor business model.

OSTP also coordinates the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), an interagency coordinator within the Executive Branch. Within the NSTC there is a Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Jon is assigned to Subcommittees within this Committee (Disaster Reduction; Water Availability and Quality; Toxics and Risks). Presently the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources director position is vacant, but Obama has a designee (Cherri Abbot?)

There is anticipation that the NSTC will have an enhanced role within the new administration.

There is also a Subcommittee on Scientific Collections with the Committee on Science. They issued a report in January (which Jon sent a link to) which he thought would include information on data preservation that might be useful for the NGDPP. This might be particularly useful when the program comes up for re-authorization.

Jon was apprised of the interest on the part of AASG to have the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and the SECURE Water Act reauthorized. Both in the omnibus lands bill which subsequently passed.

Outcome/Action Items: No focus on action items. This was partially due to the fact that the Office did not yet have a confirmed director

Department of the Interior (DOI) – Water

Meeting: Department of the Interior (DOI) – Water & ScienceLocation: Main Interior Bldg. 1849 C Street NW, Room 6641Date: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Amy Holly 202-208-3324 Amy_Holley@ios.doi.govActing Assistant SecretarySuzanne Weedman Suzanne_Weedman@ios.doi.gov

AASG Lead: Vicki McConnellOther AASG Attendees: Bob Swenson, Roy Breckenridge, Ed Deal, John Parrish

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Hot topics now…. Energy and Climate Change

o Water will be part of entire pictureo Some confusion of why fund EPA water and DOI water programso Will require some education of new administration

Stimulus “Crazy Process”o Need to come up with a Plan and take it to OMBo USGS ahead of gameo Positive remarks from team concerning USGS and State Surveys

Secure Water Acto Need to work with Senate Energy Committeeo Education Key to keeping in

(This meeting was not informative as this person is acting and a placeholder that will not be there in few months)

CO2……She felt that administration was focused on Biosequestration Salazar…very engaged and proactive

o Well-versed in water and land issueso “Impressive people” being put in high spots

No information on USGS directoro Suzette suggested it could be a Biologist or Chemical Engineer; Don’t know

Outcome/Action Items: None; re-contact for fall appointment if new people in place.

North American Carbon Capture & Storage Association (NACCSA)

Meeting: North American Carbon Capture & Storage Association (NACCSA)Location: The Atlantic Building, 950 F. St.Date: Monday, March 16, 2009Time: 3:30-4:30 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Kipp Coddington 202-756-3300 Kipp.coddington@alston.comAttorney

AASG Lead: Rex Buchanan

Other AASG Attendees: Jay Parrish, Peter Scholle

Key Points and Issues Discussed:As a first meeting, substantial time was spent on introductions of what our two organizations do: NACCSA are a lobbying group (Kipp is an attorney and a registered lobbyist) for the growing group of “interested

parties.” Currently represent the coal industry, oil industry, pipeline

companies but have few power generation companies as members They are largely dealing with current CO2 use in enhanced oil recovery Extended discussion of realities of CO2 sequestration and role of geological data

and geological surveys in site characterization.

Outcome/Action Items: They will provide strong letter of support for reauthorization of the

Data Preservation bill if we request it. We should do that at the appropriate time. They are willing to act as contact point to help find industrial

partners for DOE sequestration proposals. Kipp Coddington asked that we keep him informed on The National Map.

TUESDAY NOTES:

Department of Energy (DOE) – CCS

Meeting: Department of Energy (DOE) – CCSLocation: Forrestal Bldg. 1000 Independence Avenue, SW room 4G-084Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 8:30 – 9:30 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Bob Wright 202-586-4753 robert.wright@hq.doe.govSenor Program ManagerBob Kane 202-586-4753 robert.kane@hq.doe.govSenior Technical Advisor for Carbon Management

AASG Lead: Nick TewOther AASG Attendees: Jay Parrish, Bob Swenson, Peter Scholle, John Parrish

Key Points and Issues Discussed: The $50 million funding included in the stimulus bill for geologic characterization of potential carbon storage sites will

be open to regional partnerships and state geological surveys. The solicitation will be out soon and will have the details. The CCS training and research funds ($20 million) are for universities and centers through regional partnerships, including interns. Most likely, this opportunity will not be limited to universities.  FutureGen or FutureGen-like activities will get $1 billion.  There will be an alternative to Grants.gov for submission of proposals.

They noted that we could ask for Data Preservation money as part of a geologic characterization study. China and Canada are also competing for CS money. Also, Ontario may want to ship CO2 to PA.

DOE noted that have a better relationship with USGS in recent months but the GS still don’t recognize or appreciate the work of regional partnerships. A USGS Liaison (Doug Duncan) has improved their working relationship.

Both DOE attendees were enthusiastic about Data Preservation Program

Outcome/Action Items:

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)

Meeting: USDA – CSREES Sustainable Agriculture Research and EducationLocation: 1400 Independence Ave. Room 328 A – The Whitten BuildingDate: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 9:00 – 9:30 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Robert Hedberg 202-720-5384 rhedberg@CSREES.USDA.GOV Interim National Program Leader/Sustainable AgPhil Rasmusen

AASG Lead: David Wunsch Other AASG Attendees: Harvey Thorleifson, Don McKay, Jon Price

Key Points and Issues Discussed:•.

This was the first meeting between AASG and the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Hedberg is a former Science Fellow and contacted Wunsch through the Fellows Network about possible cooperation with AASG. AASG members introduced AASG and handed out pamphlets, etc.At the outset, it was noted that:

CSREES legislation calls for a role for State Geologists, or USGS, on advisory councils. The Farm Bill will soon change the name of CSREES to the National Institute for Food and Agriculture. Their primary role is as a funding partner for Land Grant Universities. They have both federal and regional formula funds, and competitive funds, and their mandate includes topics

such as the Census of Agriculture, and 4H. Their budget is $1.25B, and they have a staff of 300 people. Their role is science, not regulation. Their mandate is REE, which stands for research, education, and economics. Under the Farm Bill, the

Undersecretary for REE was made the Chief Scientist, and they have a new Science Council. They have dealt with topics such as soil mapping, land access issues, and invasive species.

SARE is an important program for them – Sustainable Agriculture Research and Educationo It is a 20-year-old program, with a budget of $20M (75% research and education, 25% professional

development).o SARE supports innovative work on sustainable agriculture as an alternative to the old monolithic

agriculture.o The program has regional administrative/advisory councils, and they need a geologist to sit on the

western panel. They prefer a person with enthusiasm for the topics being addressed. The positions are primarily held by USGS people, but they are open to the states.

o A new strategic plan is being developed for SARE.o SARE often has small pools of funds for “hands on” projects that benefit soil conservation, water issues,

etc. May benefit Surveys.

Outcome/Action Items: AASG will offer to contact western state geological surveys, to help ensure that they fill the vacancy for their western

Council. Will invite Phil Rasmassen (stationed in Utah so convenient for AASG Annual Mtg) to present to the group.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Meeting: National Science FoundationLocation: NSF Bldg. Arlington, VADate: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 8:30 to 9:30 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Robert Detrick rdetrick@nsf.govDivision Director for Earth Sciences (EAR/GEO)James Whitecomb 703-292-4725 jwhitcom@nsf.govSection Head, Deep Earth ProcessesRichard Cuenca Hydroscience Program DirectorLina Patino EAR Education and Human Resources ProgramDave LambertEAR Instrumentation and FacilitiesRayburn OrinPaleontology (?)Steve Harlan

AASG Lead: Rex BuchananOther AASG Attendees: Jamie Robertson, Vicki McConnell, Jeff Halka, Roy Breckenridge

Key Points and Topics Discussed: Bob Detrick is the new GEO/EAR Division Director. Time was spent

briefing him and his program directors on AASG. Seemed very interested and said that NSF does not discriminate against state surveys.

NSF said that the agency received 50% of annual budget with the $3Billion of stimulus funding.

$3 B research and related activities $1 B MRSE acct./major research instrumentation/academic research Formulating spending plan to submit to OMB soon Goal to obligate 80% of funds by end of fiscal year 2009 Plan is to fund some of the 3,000 proposals they have on hand focusing on: Young Investigators/New PI’s;

Solving Problems and Issues; Enrich Existing Projects A bit concerned about the reporting requirements as they are not allowed to add any staff Lina Patrino talked about Workforce Development Looking to focus on Post Doc Fellowships/Grad Student Fellowships Looking to increase diversity in the earth science workforce Looking toward international research as a way to increase diversity The idea is to develop human capital Noted that the next round of grants submittal on Geoinformatics will be July Richard Cuenca briefed us on hydrologic sciences activities

o He stated that the portal for the Hydrologic Info System (HIS) is moving to complete integration within two years. Being designed by a consortium of universities called CUAHSI (http://his.cuahsi.org/)– notes that USGS is advocating a similar portal ? Apparently USGS, EPA, USDA, NRCS and some local water agencies are uploading data into HIS already

o EAR Hydrologic Sciences Panel has several federal agencies on it: USGS/EPA/BLM/BoR/USCoENSF GEO/EAR emphasis

Climate Change:o Developing regional scale climate modeling - adaptation o CO2 mainly covered by basic research in geo

engineering ? All things H2O Area of increased interest: SBE o Social Behavioral Sciences and Earth Sciences interactions o Emerging area of research _ NSF has developed an Earth Science Literacy Pamphlet – will distribute to SGs

Second area of increased interest: cross directorate research i.e., Earth Science/Biology - Covers multiscale modeling in space and/or time

Land Use Dynamics – small program looking at geomorphic models

Outcome/Action Items: Make membership aware of HIS portal and its development. Should be of interest to all surveys with water

responsibilities.

National Council for Science & Environment (NCSE)

Meeting: National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE)Location: 1101 17th Street, NW #250Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 8:30-9:30 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:David Blockstein 202-207-0004 david@NCSEonline.orgExecutive Secretary cell: 301-906-4958

AASG Lead: Joe GillmanOther AASG Attendees: Jim Cobb, Ed Deal

Key Points and Issues Discussed: University Affiliate Program

o promote universities through collaborative information sharingo promote Higher Education Sustainability Act 2008

Interested in advocating the need for geologic data preservation. Development of the Encyclopedia of Earth

o policy issues, environmental, water, energyo objective positionso peer reviewed

o content is free to publico Water Censuso Gina McCarty, Office of Air & Radiation

Earth Portalo encyclopediao e-newso forum-blogo panel discussion

Coalo limitationso implicationso transmission

Outcome/Action Items:

Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)

Meeting: IOGCCLocation: 1333 New Hampshire Ave NW, Jefferson Room – 10th floorDate: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 10:30 – 11:30 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Kevin Bliss iogccdc@verizon.netIOGCC Washington Representative

AASG Lead: Nick TewOther AASG Attendees: Peter Scholle (notes), Bob Swenson (notes) John Parish

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Hydraulic fracture bill to remove exemption from Clean Water act

o Allison Anderson (Senate Staffer) suggests to not shake the tree until language is proposedo Nick - this is a very Big Deal with far-reaching affects on; O&G ops, CBM ops, and even frac’ing for

enhancement of water well flowrates.o Bliss thinks there is a chance that a single line amendment may be proposed in some other unrelated bill

and all will need to watch very closelyo EPA frac’ing concerns are being pushed through the Safe Drinking Water provisions and in the Federal

CCS section Kevin mentioned possible moves to establish a separate Federal agency to regulate CO2 and CO2 sequestration

Carbon Tax vs. Cap & Tradeo Bliss suggests Tax would be much bettero Transparency and simplicity is keyo No way to regulate and police C&T

IOGCC pushing Fossil Fuel R&Do Suggests change in Administration is shifting tide, even in Carbon energyo OMB is starting to embrace the concepto Some Democrats are supporting, example Bingaman

Energy Bill o Rewrite underwayo Will include CO2 sequestration languageo Kevin predicted the President’s budget would essentially eliminate funding for R & D for Oil & Gas; but felt

Congress would likely restore at least some funding.

Net Receipts sharing from O&G production on Fed leaseso Started by OMB

o Included in 2009 Appropriations billo Was 50-50, now 48%-52%o New Mexico delegation should push hard given amount of money at stake

CO2 Regulationso IOGCC (Bliss) thinks the states should take the lead and pass legislationo Feds cannot address the 100’s of local regulatory issues o Wyoming is ahead of the game with comprehensive plano ND very closeo CA and NM is being held up…..Legislation needed to set state’s rights

Federal CCS Regulationso EPA is using model developed by IOGCCo EPA appointed State regulator for development

Our own Nic Tew is that appointee Stimulus Money

o IOGCC supporting Orphan well programo States could get $138mmo Lots of work to do in some states for P&A activity

Outcome/Action Items: None

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Meeting: National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Location: S. Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW room 5140Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 10:30 -11:30 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Noller Herbert 202-720-2520 Noller.herbert@wdc.usda.govP.E. Director, Conservation Engineering Division Darren Hickman 202-720-4485 Darren.hickman@wdc.usda.govNational Environmental EngineerLyn Gillespie 202-720-2972 Lyn.gillespie@wdc.usda.govNational Construction EngineerMark A. Locke 202-720-5858 Mark.locke@wdc.usda.govNational Design EngineerMaxine Levin 202-720-1809 Maxine.levin@wdc.usda.govSoil Survey DivisionDave Thackeray 202-205-8249 Dave.thackeray@wdc.usda.govNational Civil EngineerJerry M. Bernard 202-720-5356 Jerry.bernard@wdc.usda.govNational Geologist

AASG Lead: Don McKayAASG Attendees: David Wunsch, Jon Price, Harvey Thorleifson,

Notes from the meeting are shown below, taken largely from Jerry Bernard’s e-mail to attendees dated 18 March 2009. 

Jerry M. Bernard National Geologist and MEO Project Manager Conservation Engineering Division USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 6132-S Washington, DC  20250

(202) 720-5356, fax (202) 720-0428 jerry.bernard@wdc.usda.gov

Initial Discussion Items (see notes below)

1.  Budget update for NRCS 2.  Stimulus Program opportunities for state survey collaboration 3.  Geologic data preservation 4.  Workforce issues and opportunities for state surveys to assist 5.  Soil Survey status 6.  LiDAR and opportunities for collaboration 7.  ACWI SOGW National GW Monitoring Network

1.   Budget update for NRCS

Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h1105:

Excerpt about NRCS funding TITLE II CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, $758,000.

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS: For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including preparation of conservation plans and establishment of measures to conserve soil and water (including farm irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water, and interests therein for use in the plant materials program by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and maintenance of aircraft, $853,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010, of which $31,650,000 shall be for the purposes, and in the amounts, specified in the table titled `Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations Congressionally-designated Projects' in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act): Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for construction and improvement of buildings and public improvements at plant materials centers, except that the cost of alterations and improvements to other buildings and other public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: Provided further, That when buildings or other structures are erected on non-Federal land, that the right to use such land is obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a.

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, including but not limited to research, engineering operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005 and 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating to the activities of the Department, $24,289,000, to remain available until expended, of which $23,643,000 shall be for the purposes, and in the amounts, specified in the table titled `Natural Resources Conservation Service, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Congressionally-designated Projects' in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act): Provided, That not to exceed $15,000,000 of this appropriation shall be available for technical assistance.

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM For necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1012), and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating to the activities of the Department, $40,000,000, to remain available until expended.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out projects for resource conservation and development and for sound land use pursuant to the provisions of sections 31 and 32 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607); the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f); and subtitle H of title XV of the

Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $50,730,000: Provided, That not to exceed $3,073,000 shall be available for national headquarters activities.

2.   Stimulus Program opportunities for state survey collaboration NRCS will receive $50M for Watershed Rehabilitation, $145M for Watershed Operations, and $145M for Floodplain Easements.

3.   Geologic data preservation AASG discussed their "National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program".  NRCS geologists and state conservation engineers are encouraged to contact their "State Geologist" in case they will be disposing of any samples.  AASG said that they would like to have the "right of first refusal," in order to continue their quest to gather relevant geological data.

4.   Workforce issues and opportunities for state surveys to assist

AASG provides copies of their roster of State Geologist contacts and a copy of their flyer, "Geoscience and Publis Policy--A View from the State Geological Surveys

Jerry Bernard provided a brief overview of the NRCS Geology MEO (result of an A-76 competition that resulted in the in-house government group (MEO) winning the contract) and a list of MEO Geology contacts, attached.

NRCS State Conservation Engineer contacts and Conservation Engineering Division staff contacts are available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ENG/.

It was agreed that the NRCS would notify the AASG president of any geologist vacancy announcements.  NRCS will be advertising to fill a vacant MEO position in WI.

5.   Soil Survey status Maxine Levin provided copies of the recently released Soils Planner (first page copy attached).  She also noted that NRCS has 145 soil survey areas, working on long range projects towards the 2012 update of the soil surveys.  A listing of the NRCS State Soil Scientists is found at http://soils.usda.gov/contact/state_offices/.

6.   LiDAR and opportunities for collaboration Discussion in general about possibilities of collaborating on contracts to acquire LiDAR imagery.  Also some limited discussion about 3D LiDAR (tripod-mounted).  Gerald Bawden, USGS, Sacramento, is doing some research and development on this technique.

There will be a soil-survey update starting in 2012. LiDAR may be used as needed in this work.

A green-laser LiDAR sees through water.

Larry West with USDA is talking with the USGS about their geochemical survey.

7.   ACWI SOGW National GW Monitoring Network A pilot ground water project was proposed to the ACWI by the Subcommittee on Ground Water.  The proposal and ACWI's approval are available on the ACWI website.

Outcome/Action Items: Nick Tew should contact Jerry Bernard, who needs another copy of the NRCS-AASG MOU.

American Geophysical Union (AGU)-missingAASG SPRING LIAISON NOTES:

Meeting: American Geophysical Union (AGU)Location: 2000 Florida Ave. NWDate: March 17,2009Time:10:30-11:30 am

Met with / Title: Telephone Number: E-mail:

Peter Weiss 202-777-7507 pweiss@agu.orgPublic Information ManagerKate Von Holle 202-777-7509 kvonholle@agu.orgPublic Affairs ManagerPaul Cooper 202-777-7504 pcooper@agu.orgEducation CoordinatorRangasayi Halthore 202-777-7505 RHalthore@agu.orgAssociate Executive DirectorElizabeth Landau 202 777 7535 elandau@agu.orgSenior Public Affairs CoordinatorMaria-José Viñas 202-777-7530 mjvinas@agu.orgPublic Information CoordinatorGene Bierly 202-777-7506 ebierly@agu.orgSenior ScientistKaitlin ChellPublic Affairs Coordinator

AASG Lead: Jeff HalkaOther AASG Attendees: Breckenridge, Buchanan, McConnell, Robertson

Key Points and Issues Discussed:

- Fred Spelhaus is officially retired and emeritus- AGU Public affairs group is now fully staffed-We explained AASG to the new staff, presented the transition brochure -AGU reacting to stimulus with focus on National Labs and Universities-Main topices are climate change, energy and water (9 new bills have been introduced) -AGU’s largest group are hydrologists and atmospheric scientists-Travel grants for students are increasing-Most of the discussion migrated to education including: training and education in field sciences communication between social sciences and hard sciences on how to frame sicence younger students are more skilled and interested in networking AGU supports Host a Legislator program Some scientists are poor at communication and need training or a representative (a surprise?) Same for Deans and administrators (AAAS “ Tiffany” training)-Paul Cooper, Education and Human Resources Coordinator, was very engaged and proactive, he led most of the conversation, The EHR section is gathering assessments and metrics.

Action Items and Suggested Course(s) of Action:

-Mostly a get acquainted with the large new staff and the basis for future cooperation. -Student travel grants are available

Congressional Research Services (CRS)

Meeting: Congressional Research Services (CRS)Location: 101 Independence Ave, SE (Madison Bldg.) Library of Congress - SouthDate: Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Time: 10:30-11:30 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Gene Whitney gwhitney@crs.loc.gov

AASG Lead: Jim CobbOther AASG Attendees: Joe Gillman, Ed Deal, Jay Parrish

Key Points and Issues Discussed:

CRS Congress and Committee Liaison staffo CRS not attached to committee or Congresso 600 topical experts that provide analyses for Congress and staffo write reports to explain technical issues to Congress: ANALYSIS, PROS, CONSo any issue Congress may be interested ino Congress only cliento 1/3 general distribution reportso 2/3 spent on confidential reports to Congresso balanced and objective approach with effects of decision making includedo 535 Congress with 15,000 stafferso SEC changing category of reserves for oil and gas (possible/probable reserves)o can do a general issue paper if misinformation is being published by Congress

US CO2 Emissionso 7 billion metric tons/yearo 40% from stationary sourceso 2.8 billion metric tons/year from stationary sources

Insala – 1 million tons/yearo Sleipner – 1 million tons/yearo Weyburn – 1 million tons/yearo need 2,800 fields of this size operating simultaneously to address U.S. CO2

o many states need to be investigating transportation/not disposalo no plant is producing; capturing; separating; disposing of CO2

TOPICS OF NOTE:

Energy/Water nexus – what is energy footprint of watero 17% of energy in California used to move watero energy credits for H2O conservation

National Renewable Electricity standardso national push for renewables

Carbon valuationo cap and trade (builds uncertainty)o carbon tax

Electric transmissiono long distance to load centers requires infrastructure developmento smart grid upgrades

Long-term transition to renewables from fossilso fossil fuel still very cheap

USGS Methodologyo strategic mineralso magnets for electric motors 90% produced in Chinao swapping dependence from one energy source to anothero receive state reports on minerals and energy

One of the most incomprehensible parts of the energy picture is scale policy makers and public do not understand energy use and requirements.

Outcome/Action Items:

National Mining Association (NMA) – Lunch meeting

Meeting: National Mining Association - LunchLocation: 101 Constitution Ave.Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Katie Sweeny 202-463-2627 ksweeny@nma.orgGeneral CounselDavid Finkenbinder 202-463-2636 dfinkenbinder@nma.orgVice President Congressional AffairsJulia GustafsonDirector Congressional AffairsThiago Antinori 202-463-2644 t.antinori@nma.orgCongressional Affairs Specialist

AASG Lead: Jon PriceOther AASG Attendees: ALL, notes - Don McKay, Jamie Robertson

Key Points and Issues Discussed: K. Sweeny commented that NMA is working to educate the administration and the Hill about mining by providing

educational materials regarding coal and minerals, and particularly with respect to the economic contribution made by mining. The website has been updated and contains Congressional District level information.

J. Gustafson indicated that AML projects and cleanup are in 3 provisions in the stimulus bill for lands managed by US Forest Service ($650 million), BLM ($125 million) and NPS ($189 million to $585 million ).

D. Finkenbinder commented that House and Senate are looking at an energy bill tied to climate change and including cap and trade provisions. Sen. Boxer and Rep. Waxman will do the drafting the bill with a Memorial Day target. DOE Secretary Chu testified March 17 and commented on green transmission lines, new and improved grid, renewable energy standards, a tax component of cap and trade, and auction versus sale of credits. In any case, carbon capture and storage (CCS) will be a major focus and will be needed soon. Also important will be enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and enhanced coal-bed methane (ECBM) standards, energy financing, and energy loan guarantees. New clean energy endeavors will be addressed with $3.4B, including $1B for FutureGen. Nuclear, coal, and gas R&D will be addressed as will mountain-top mining and the 404 program. He mentioned EPA’s proposed rule to make CO2 the 5th

pollutant. Everyone would then need to obtain a permit.

J. Gustafson commented on the mining law and mineral programs. A new 8% gross royalty and a 4% gross royalty on existing operations would cause loss of jobs, good jobs. There was a subcommittee meeting 2 weeks ago. The Chairman may fast track his bill, which would require a 2/3 majority of the House. NMA is educating members regarding the AML and mining law issues. No Senate bill has surfaced yet, but drafting is underway. Julia mentioned Jon Price’s presentation as a good source of relevant information, noting that 8% of world exploration funds are spent in the US.

V. McConnel asked about NMA’s position on the Public Lands Omnibus Bill. NMA is opposed.

D. Wunsch mentioned the NGGDPP, NEPA 2005, etc. K. Sweeny replied that NMA focuses on USGS appropriations. For example, they are supporting the minerals program. NMA seemed more interested than in the past on Data Preservation program. AASG provided them info and will keep them apprised of the program and reauthorization.

Outcome/Action Items:

Keep NA informed of our funding priorities and the bills that contain them. NMA is strong at lobbying, but don’t expect them to support bills that contain provisions that they judge as counter to their interests, e.g. the Public Lands Omnibus.

Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)

Meeting: Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)Location: 1201 15th St. NW, Suite 300Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 1:30 – 2:30 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Ryan UllmanLegislative AssistantFrederick Lawrence 202-857-4722 flawrence@ipaa.orgVP Economics & International Affairs

AASG Lead: Bob SwensonOther AASG Attendees: Peter Scholle (Notetaker-John Parrish )

Key Points and Issues Discussed:

Concerns of the IPAA are: NCGMP Reauthorization – opposed to the Omnibus Bill because of current language restricting

access to Federal lands. Said Ominibus Bill will not pass until August ’09. Carbon Tax and/or Cap & Trade will happen in next 10 years. Hydraulic fracturing of petroleum reservoirs opposed by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-

California) on the basis of groundwater contamination. Organizations with the word “petroleum” in their titles are “banished” from Capitol Hill – sign of the

times.

AASG urged IPAA to become involved with supporting Data Preservation, CO2 Sequestration, and geothermal work.

Outcome/Action Items:

Department of Energy (DOE) – Geothermal

Meeting: Department of Energy (DOE) - GeothermalLocation: 950 L’Enfant Plaza – 6th floorDate: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 1:30 – 2:30 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Ray Fortuna 202-586-1711 Raymond.Fortuna@hq.doe.govGeothermal Program StaffJay Nathwani 202-586-9410 jay.nathwani@ee.doe.govTechnology ManagerMurphy, Michael murphy.150@osu.edu InternNicole Reed, intern, Penn. State Environmental Systems EngineerInternKathy CookIntern

(Ed Wall, who heads the DOE Geothermal Program, was ill with a fever and unable to attend.)

AASG Lead: Jon PriceOther AASG Attendees: Don McKay, Harvey Thorleifson, David Wunsch

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Stimulus Package opportunities for geothermal studies

o DOE Geothermal was anticipating $400M, to be spent on Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which includes many topics. Some funds will go to low temperature power generation and geothermal heat pumps, which might be a separate solicitation in April. A National Geothermal Database is in development, including geological data. Funds are to be spent on varying timelines, and it is their impression that $400 million will have to be obligated within 1.5 years (or maybe 2.0 years), while spending will take longer. They may use a rolling solicitation option. Two solicitations are open, on R&D and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) demonstrations. Stimulus funds will require weekly reporting. Industry-coupled drilling will also be funded under the stimulus, as will Geothermal Resources Exploration and Definition (GRED). An April RFP will be open for 60 days. Funds will go to USGS to support the national geothermal resource assessment – DOE will pay USGS to look at the entire US.

DOE geothermal energy programs budgeto FY10 is expected to be positive for geothermal. April solicitations will cover all aspects of geothermal. Funding for

FY09 is $44M, up from $20M in FY08.

Ongoing and future projects

Potential of the Gulf Coast geopressured-geothermal (GP/GT) resource.

Externally funded (e.g. Google) geothermal studies

Outcome/Action Items: States interested in geothermal opportunities should watch for the solicitations coming from DOE.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO)

Meeting: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)Location: Hall of States, 444 N. Capitol Street , NW –Suite 249Time: 1:30 – 2:15 p.m.Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Met with: Telephone: E-mail:John Horsley 202-624-5810 jhorsley@aashto.orgExecutive DirectorJim McDonnell 202-624-5448 jimm@aashto.orgDeputy Program Director for Engineering

AASG LEAD: Roy Breckenridge

Other AASG Attendees: Halka, Robertson, Buchanan, McConnell

Key Points and Issues Discussed: AASHTO mostly represents the State's Dept of Transportation (or State Highways Administrations). Geologic mapping was discussed as a key component to highway planning, and thus the reauthorization of the

Cooperative Mapping Program is a priority need. We mentioned the applications of geologic mapping to hazards, materials, engineering and route selection. They mentioned to us that materials costs are expected to ratchet up 50% to $50B. We discussed the impact of mining reform and new regulations on the supply of construction materials

John Horsley suggested arranging a joint meeting at the next liaison session with both AASHTO and the National Stone Sand and Gravel Association (NSSGA). The president of NSSGA is Joy Wilson

There was anticipation that there would be no Highway Bill next year, thus hindering highway activities. However, the stimulus package clearly would have an impact on construction activities

Horsley did not know about LIDAR and its potential usefulness for highway planning and Vicki enlightened him with

the applications The AASHTO is concerned about the potential for impacts on highways from climate change. Because they

commonly design and build for a 100 year life span, they are concerned about the potential impact highways and structures (e.g. rising sea levels changing clearances under bridges, changing ground moisture level and rising water tables would change highway foundation conditions)

John identified that $25 million a year comes from the National Cooperative Highway Program to the States to address technical problems that need resolution. Often this funding flows from the State Highway Departments to Universities, but he thought it might be a source of funding for geological surveys. Some of these activities are coordinated through the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research. However, the avenue to obtain funding would be for the individual state surveys to approach their respective Highway Administrations.

Outcome/Action Items: The AASG Liaison Committee should consider arranging a joint meeting with NSSGA and ASSHTO. Geological surveys should contact their state DOTs for potential funding.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) - cancelled

Coastal States Organization (CSO)

Meeting: Coastal States Organization (CSO)Location: Hall of States BuildingDate: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 2:30-3:15 pm

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Kristen M. Fletcher 202-508-3861 kfletcher@coastalstates.orgExecutive DirectorJulia Wyman 202-508-3860 jwyman@coastalstates.orgPolicy Analyst (also editor of pubs)

AASG Lead: Vicki McConnellOther AASG Attendees: Halka, Breckenridge, Robertson

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Vicki McConnell introduced AASG and gave general outline of state geologic surveys

o Noted that some state surveys work more closely than other with Coastal Zone Management Act personnel depending upon agency missions/state

o Yes, Great Lakes fall under CZMA Initial meeting with CSO so they gave a general overview of issues – 4 main:

o Reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act (part of NOAA) - CSO has prepared a draft and submitted. At this point the House and Senate have different versions of the reauthorization.

o Climate Change Adaptation – Sees coast as the frontline to effects. Primary area of focus is on the impacts of sea level rise. Seeking funding to assist state's in their efforts to address the impacts of sea level rise.

o Creation of an Ocean Trust Fund (recently recommended by the US Commission on Ocean Policy). Funding is recommended to come from federal royalty payments from offshore hydrocarbon production.

o Alternative Energy development in Coastal areas (e.g. wind, tide) - particularly concerned about the impact on coastal resources.

CSO is looking to expand membership in the Coastal Coordination Committee, which presently includes NOAA, EPA and the CSO

o The committee provides a forum for program managers to pursue opportunities for integration and coordination between programs.

o The CSO feels that the USGS should be included as well as FEMAo Invited AASG to consider naming someone for the subcommittee on Climate Change

Spent the rest of the time discussing bathymetry, lidar, and geoscience data preservationo They are keen to see all of them advanced and would be interested in advocating

Outcome/Action Items:

AASG was asked to designate a representative to Coastal Change Committee (CCC) work group on Climate Change AASG should make them aware of the USGS Coalition AASG should keep them on the list for letters of support for lidar and data preservation A well informed and connected organization, AASG coastal states should continue contact at liaisons and beyond

Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and Earthscope

Meeting: Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and EarthscopeLocation: AAAS BuildingDate: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Robert Woodward 202-682-2220 woodward@iris.eduUSArray DirectorJohn Taber 202-682-2220 (X125) taber@iris.eduEducation and Outreach Program Manager

AASG Lead: John ParrishOther AASG Attendees: Rex Buchanan, Bob Swenson, Peter Scholle

Key Points and Issues Discussed: IRIS is an NSF-funded consortium that deals with a global seismograph network, a data management program,

and education and outreach. John Taber reviewed the status of the transportable array. Have had 33 stations adopted and made permanent thus far, including 22 in Oregon and 8 in Arizona. They can

provide maintenance and operation of stations for $4 to $7 K per year. Will move into Alaska in 2013. They are willing to loan equipment, like geophones. Will be in Great Plains states installing stations in the west, getting permits in the east Students identify sites and talk with landowners; professional permitees get the permits. They can produce maps

of station locations by Congressional district. May look particularly at prospective nuclear power plant locations. Doing a reception on April 29 and looking for sponsors from the geologic community. No financial commitment.

Will be at Reserve Officers Assn., probably 200-300 attendees. Would like help with invite list, use of logo, and announcement on web sites.

Earthscope national meeting in Boise on May 12-15. Also offer outreach activities and have small displays available, including kiosks that they can loan. Willing to talk about IRIS at Park City meeting.

Outcome/Action Items:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Meeting: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Office of Water and CO2 SequestrationLocation: EPA East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 2123 EastDate: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Beth Hall 202-564-3883 Hall.Beth@epa.gov Chitra Kumar 202-564-2232 Kumar.Chitra@epa.gov Holly Waldman 202-564-9909, Waldman. Holly@epa.gov Mike Muse 202-564-3892 Muse.Mike@epamail.epa.gov Patricia Pfeiffer 202-564-4096 Pfeiffer. Patricia@epa.gov Sean Porse Porse.Sean@epa.gov Jyl Lazuckin

AASG Lead: Harvey Thorleifson

Other AASG Attendees: David Wunsch, Jon Price, Don McKay

Key Points and Issues Discussed: EPA rulemaking on CO2 – status and updates General discussion on AASG priorities, stimulus funding, global water research coalition, climate change – EPA

Office of Water released a climate change strategy a few months ago

Presentation by Sean Porse on:

Public Comment Highlights, EPA's Geologic Sequestration RulemakingOffice of Ground Water and Drinking Water March 17, 2009Overview: EPA-State Coordination and Collaboration; Comment Schedule Review; Comment Topics and Synopsis; Next Steps

EPA-State Coordination: Communicating with States through Office of Water Letter to States (April 2008) Meeting with ECOS, IOGCC and GWPC State co-regulator workgroup membership Tracking progress of State regulatory and legislative developments on GS Addressing issues of importance to States

Additional Collaboration: Continuing regulatory development through EPA regulatory workgroup consists of-48 members including

Department of Energy (DOE) and State permitting agencies Collaborating with EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) on policy, technical and cost analyses Consulting with federal agencies: The Bureau of Land Management & The United States Geological Survey, The

Internal Revenue Service, Tribes and States Co-funding research with DOE modeling ground water impacts of CO, injection at Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory

Comment Schedule Review: Proposal Published: July 25, 2008; Two Public Hearings: September 30, 2008: Chicago, IL; October 2, 2008:

Denver, CO; Comment Period End Date: November 24, 2008; Comment Period Extension: December 24, 2008; 365 public submissions - 151 unique comments

Comment Topics: Conversion from Class [I (Oil and Gas) to Class VI Primacy, State Funding, and Expertise Injection Depth and Related Topics Post-Injection Site Care Timeframe and Closure CO2 Stream Characterization Financial Responsibility and Liability Requirements Public Participation, Involvement, and Perception EPA Statutory Authority Coverage

Comment Synopsis: Conversion from Class 11 (Oil and Gas) to Class VI: New requirements are not necessary, By regulation

clarify the distinction between Class II and Class VI operations Primacy: Allow separate primacy for Class VI wells, Provide flexibility to permitting authorities; State Funding: UIC programs are not adequately funded to support current well classes, Class VI wells

will need more funding; State and Federal Expertise: There is insufficient technical capacity, experience, or funding to address GS projects, ensure USDW protection and GS success

Injection Depth and Related Topics: Do not allow injection above the lowermost USDW vs. Allow injection above the lowermost USDW either universally or under specific geologic circumstances, Do not establish a minimum injection depth vs. Establishing a minimum injection depth based on site specific criteria, Do not allow aquifer exemptions for Class VI wells vs. Allow aquifer exemptions for Class VI wells either under current or modified criteria, Prohibit injection into coal seams, basalts, salt domes vs. Allow injection into all formations regardless of type/depth

Post-Injection Site Care Timeframe and Closure: The timeframe should be more than 50 years. There should not be a fixed timeframe, 50 years is "arbitrary" and excessive, 50 years with flexibility is supported (by multiple organizations) and is a good "default", The Agency should develop a performance standard to replace a fixed timeframe

CO2 Stream Characterization: EPA should not allow injection of hazardous constituents (e.g., CO2 impurities) through Class VI wells, Specificity is requested regarding the purity of CO2, More clarity is needed about when the determination is made about whether the CO2 is a RCRA hazardous waste or not (How do you make this determination?), Carbon dioxide should not be classified as a hazardous waste and does not warrant treatment more stringent than Class I Hazardous wells receive, Class VI wells should be given a RCRA exemption/the rule needs more clarity regarding RCRA requirements

Financial Responsibility and Liability Requirements: Include specific language for FR requirements in the rule, Self-insurance should be an option vs. self-insurance should not be an option, A Federal/Industry partnership may be useful in addressing liability (rather than it resting with the owner/operator), EPA should consider the fact that the final rule will "send a message" to the financial world about CCS (e.g., the benefits and risks), EPA should address compensation for degradation of private water supplies, What will EPA do slier 50 years/site closure if there is groundwater contamination?, Limit CERCLA liability (in permit)

Public Participation, Involvement, and Perception: Need to engage the public early in the GS project development process (e.g., during discussions about siting; permitting; etc.), Need to engage specific parties in the GS project development process (e.g., local governments, utilities, citizens and property owners, private well owners), Need to raise national awareness about GS technology, what it is, and what role it would play in climate change mitigation, Need to be aware of public perception of GS and ensure that the requirements do not stigmatize GS and undermine public confidence in the UIC program

EPA Statutory Authorities Coverage: RCRA/CERCLA Authorities, Clean Air Act Authority, In conjunction with State Laws (e.g, pore space issues); Climate Change: EPA should have a comprehensive approach to Climate Change and not a "piecemeal approach" through various program offices, statutes, agencies and departments, This issue is too important to ignore, EPA should act quickly to finalize the rule

Anticipated Next Steps for GS Rulemaking, Activity & Milestone: Workgroup Kickoff - January 2009; Workgroup Conference Calls - Monthly (Jan - Sept 2009); Determine Need for NODA - March 2009; OMB Review of NODA - June 2009; Signature and Publication of NODA - November 2009; Public Comment Period for NODA - November-January 2010; OMB Review of Final Rule (without NODA) - Fall 2010; Final Rule Publication (without NODA) - Late 2010; Final Rule Publication (with NODA) - Early 2011

EPA-OFFICE OF WATER & CO2 SEQUESTRATION

Rule Making for CO2 – EPA is drafting rules that relate to groundwater protection. These rules do not address effectiveness of the technique (leakage), nor do they address safety issues. Expect final rules in late 2010 or early 2011.

Stimulus Package – EPA has money for “gray infrastructure” (projects involving cement, such as water treatment plants). There is an RFP on the street for state water projects, to be awarded by July and completed by February 2010. A project that is on a state’s “intended use plan,” it has a good chance of being funded, because it is, by definition, “shovel ready.” Weekly progress reports are required.

Climate Change – See EPA’s office of water strategy (Appendix C to its Draft National Water Program Guidance). They are coordinating efforts with NOAA, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Association of State Water Administrators is having (or already had?) a meeting on climate change in late December in Denver.

Water Research – EPA is trying to rationalize its water-research program. They are looking at the Global Water Research Coalition, a London, England organization that involves utilities from Europe, South Africa, and Australia.

Seed Money – EPA has some seed money to help states put on appropriate conferences. They will contract with a company that provides logistical support.

Outcome/Action Items: As appropriate, State Geologists may want to contact the appropriate leads within their states to make sure

opportunities are not missed.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Meeting: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) - InteriorLocation: New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, Room 5104Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 3:00-4:00 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Charles Stern 202-395-3752 charles_stern@omb.eop.govProgram Examiner, USGS Natural Resources DivisionEmily SharpProgram Examiner, (attended to hear our interest/concerns in OCS sand and gravel)

AASG Lead: Ed DealOther AASG Attendees: Joe Gillman, Jay Parrish, Jim Cobb

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Introductions/AASG Overview

o National Geologic Mappingo Data Preservation

Parrish discussed the National Map, the need to update these maps, and the importance of LIDAR to enhance mapping accuracy. Apparently this was not the first time Charlie had heard of LIDAR, because he immediately referred to it as “crack for geologists”. Charlie’s concerns are costs; what part(s) of The National Map could be given up for LIDAR. Jay suggested orthophoto quads. Charlie was also interested in the efficiency of acquiring gravity and magnetics along with LIDAR. The stimulus money includes $12 m for LIDAR and $3 m for orthophotos.

Charlie was very interested in hearing our views of problems in the USGS. What is working, what is not, and what is the USGS not telling him? Mostly we did not answer this question.

Cobb brought up the National Seismic Hazard Map, and his disagreement with high risk assessments in the mid-continent and particularly western Kentucky.

The costs of the Water Resources Division of the USGS were discussed. Charlie acknowledged that after years of trying to cut the Minerals Division only to see Congress restore those cuts, OMB has given up and reversed direction on that.

Outcome/Action Items: Charlie indicated he recently was on a geology field trip and would like to do more. Also he would be very interested

in attending the AASG annual meeting. Emily Sharp was there to hear our concerns on OCS sand and gravel, but no one in our group was familiar with the

issues. Nick Tew or another representative(s) of a coastal state should follow up with Emily. In the past, the National Park Service has won informal recognition for delivering terms such as viewscape and

soundscape. Though not in the same vein, I nominate Charlie’s definition of LIDAR as “crack for geologists” as this year’s memorable term.

USGS Minerals Program

Meeting: USGS Minerals Program (NOT ON REGULAR SCHEDULE)Location: Cosmos ClubDate: Tuesday, March 17, 2009Time: 5:00 p.m.

Jon Price, Bob Swenson, and Roy Breckenridge Met with Kate Johnson, head of the USGS minerals program. Using two 2008 reports by the National Research Council as justification, Jon offered to help build support for a global analysis of mineral (and energy) resources similar to USGS Professional Paper 820 (“United States Mineral Resources”), which, in 1973, in a few pages for each major mineral and energy commodity (64 commodities or groups of commodities, 722 pages total), provided a snapshot of known and likely domestic resources in the context of the global resource base. There should be enthusiasm for such a document from the Departments of Defense, State, Interior, Commerce, and others. Kate indicated that the USGS minerals team is moving forward with a global assessment of a handful of commodities and will have 16 commodities (including uranium) in its next national assessment.

Outcome/Action Items: Jon Price will follow up with Kate and others on ideas to revise a document that analyzes United States mineral

resources in a global context of current and future supply and demand and the known and likely domestic and global resources.

House Interior Appropriations-Meeting Cancelled

TheAssociation of American State Geologists

is pleased to invite you to the

2009 AASG Pick and Gavel Awards BanquetTuesday, the Seventeenth of March

Reception: six o’clock Dinner: seven o’clock

Keynote Address: eight o’clock

The Cosmos Club2121 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, D.C.

R.S.V.P. to David Wunsch, AASG by March 5th david.wunsch@des.nh.gov or 603-271-6482

Please indicate Reception Onlyor

Reception, Dinner, and Keynote AddressProper Attire Required

WEDNESDAY NOTES:

Senate Energy Minority Staff (Frank Gladics)Meeting: Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Minority StaffLocation: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rm. 314 (1st and Constitution)Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 9:00 – 9:45 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number Phone Number:Frank Gladics 202-224-2878 Frank_Gladics@Energy.Senate.govRepublican Professional Staff Member

AASG Lead: Roy BreckenridgeOther AASG Attendees: Peter Scholle, notes - Don McKay, Jamie Robertson

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Committee is working to get the Omnibus Bill passed – S22 & H146. BLM and other Fed. Agencies would be the

enforcers of bill provisions. An amendment on paleontological material (Coburn) is problematic. The bill could pass the Senate tonight. It contains >160 individual bills. House will have a simple majority vote on the overall bill next week in theory. The President will sign it. D’s are pushing renewables. The President will have the right to do what is necessary with respect to development of infrastructure in wilderness areas in order to “manage” the wilderness.

Reauthorization of NGGDPP portion of the Energy Bill is coming up. AASG should talk to the majority offices and the appropriators. Work on the basis of it being scientific data preservation for smart policy making regarding minerals, sequestration, energy, water, and rebuilding of the nation’s infrastructure. Sen. Bingamon, and Allison Anderson, and Patti Beneke and staff would be supportive of the NGGDPP reauthorization and putting it into an energy bill.

This committee has changed since the election. Sen. McCain is on the committee and Risch has replaced Craig. It was eastern centric and has become more western with new appointments. It also became a little more liberal than before.

The energy bill will be a slimmed down bill and may be up in the next couple of weeks.

2010 – D’s have the votes to get 90% of what Obama wants. Less money for mining and extractive resource management is likely, as is more for recreation with respect to forest programs. Lodgepole pine kill from beetles is a major issue.

It is doubtful whether mining reform will go this year, probably after 2010 election. Mining issues and proposals would be fair game for AASG analysis and comment: renewables (geothermal); solar will

gobble up a lot of land. Nuclear is the pet child of the R’s. D’s don’t want to talk about it. We need to do it all and should quit playing the either-or game. As energy becomes more an issue, people will come around to nuclear. Domenici and Craig were its spokesmen. Sessions is being more vocal on the issue; Risch (ID) will come to the forefront now. Corker (TN) is becoming a force in energy. He takes a common sense approach.

Outcome/Action Items: AASG should track mining and renewable energy

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Meeting: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Location: 1315 East-West Highway NOAA Climate Center Silver Spring, MDDate: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 9:00 – 11:00 a.m. (actually ended at 10:30)

Met with: Telephone: E-mailDan Walker Daniel.Walker@noaa.govDirector, Office of Coastal Resource ManagementRebecca Feldman rebecca.feldman@noaa.govOffice of Coastal Resource Management

AASG Lead: Bob SwensonAASG Attendees: Jay Parrish, Vicki McConnell

Key Points and Issues Discussed:Jay Parrish got to the meeting first. They were talking Lidar when Bob and I arrived a few minutes late due to back up at security. Dan is new to NOAA (formerly with OSTP and National Academy) and new to AASG so Bob spent some time briefing him and Rebecca on AASG. The focus at that point was S 22 (a moot point now), data preservation, and NCGMP reauthorization (Note: Dan worked at the KY Survey and knows Cobb, Wunsch, and is familiar with Surveys’ missions)Bob asked about plans for stimulus funds:

NOAA received $830 million to distribute broadly across NOAAo Habitat restorationo Computing enhancements with eye to improving climate models for regional adaptation studies

Dan Walker expounded on a variety of NOAA Climate Program issues – pretty impressive if you think he had only been in this position for a few days

What is the federal role in climate adaptation – e.g., transportation and infrastructure Happy to hear that new Director Jane Lubchenco likes the Climate Service idea (concept to create one stop

shopping for climate info and data similar to the Weather Service) Dan Walker expounded on a variety of NOAA issues as well – this guy can talk about anything!

NOAA FY ’09 budget up 5% FY 2010 unknown at that time Some chat with Jay Parrish about cooperative work with NASA to develop a worldwide gravity map to improve

the geode Very supportive of the integrated coastal/bathy elevation data captured by lidar and sonar – Jay Parrish talked a

bit about what he had heard was the focus of USGS lidar stimulus funds Briefed us on a subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology at OSTP (at for the time being)

Ocean and coastal mapping – interagency body and subgroup of the subcommittee (USGS (John Haines)/NOAA/EPA/CoE)

Tasked with coming up with a common view for data needs Possibly meet this year and set priorities

Urged us all to work with our Regional Climate Groups Good access points to Climate Office and always good to have local contacts RESA ARCS For those that have Sea Grant institutions – their extension person will be plugged into National Climate Service Jay or Bob introduced the idea that NOAA might consider co-locating weather stations at the Earthscope sites as

they march across the nation. Dan noted that most weather data need to be collected over a long period of time from the same place.

Rebecca discussed a just released sea level rise document she had worked on: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-1/final-report/default.htm Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region She explained that the process to develop the report could be utilized for any region Looked at three scenarios:

o Current rate of sea level rise, 3-4 mm/yro Current + 4 mm more/yro Current + 7 mm more/yr

She noted that at this time there is inadequate local data to forecast climate change The reason for the report is to get decision makers talking about preparing for sea level rise

Outcome/Action Items: none

House Energy Minority Staff

Meeting: House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Energy, Mineral Resources, Minority StaffLocation: 1540 Longworth House BuildingDate: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 9:00 – 9:45 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Tim Charters 202-226-7390 Tim.Charters@mail.house.govProfessional Staff MemberKathy Benedetto 202-226-2311 Kathy.Benedetto@mail.house.govProfessional Staff Member

AASG Lead: Jon PriceOther AASG Attendees: Nick Tew, Jim Cobb, Dave Wunsch, Ed DealDate: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 9:00-9:45 a.m.

Kathy made some useful observations and predictions.

Mining Law – The House bill (HR 699) will pass the House but get killed in the Senate by Harry Reid (D-NV). Omnibus Public Lands Bill – This includes a fossil bill that criminalizes collecting of fossils. Hydrofracing – Environmental lobbyists are pushing to outlaw or severely constrain hydrofracing of wells, to kill

coal-bed methane and shale-gas production Moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf – Nick Joe Rahall (D-WV) has stated that the moratorium will not come

back.

Outcome/Action Items: The AASG President should thank Kathy for her willingness to see that the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping

Program was reauthorized.

Geological Society of America (GSA)

Meeting: Geological Society of America (GSA)Location: 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 700 (AAS Building)Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 9:00-10:00 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Craig Schiffries 202-365-4405 csciffries@geosociety.orgDirector for Geoscience Policy

AASG Lead: Rex BuchananOther AASG Attendees: Joe Gillman, Jay Parrish, Harvey Thorleifson

Key Points and Issues Discussed:

GSAo national strategic objectiveso public policy – mission, vision, policy statementso strategic plan

NCGMP and GGDPA reauthorization

Most important issues facing Congressional leaderso energyo climate changeo water resourceso natural hazards

New Energy Billo may be able to get a data preservation title in there

GSAo hosted climate change briefing in Januaryo climate change bill (of any kind)o revenue from bill into geosciences

o carbon sequestrationo geoscience paleoclimate

GSA becoming the premier solid earth promoter in DC USGS Coalition

Outcome/Action Items: AGU, AGI, GSA, SSA

o Geosciences working group monthly meetingo Congressional visits dayo Modeled after AASG Liaison Committeeo Scheduled for Sept. 14o Consider date of Fall Liaison Meeting to coincide?

Senate Energy Majority Staff (Patty Beneke)

Meeting: Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Majority StaffLocation: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rm. 304 (1st and Constitution)(due to a shortage of meeting rooms we met in the Senate Cafeteria)Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 10:00 – 10:45 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Patty Beneke 202-224-5451 Patricia_Beneke@energy.senate.govSenior CounselAllyson AndersonProfessional staffMike ConnorProfessional staffMaggie WalserfellowKevin Rennertfellow

AASG Lead: Peter Scholle Other AASG Attendees: Jamie Robertson, Don McKay (notes), Roy Breckenridge (notes)

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Reauthorization of the NCGMP is moving with the Lands Omnibus. Stimulus package now working through departments, difficult budget next year Staff worked with Senate re: water bill, retaining IWRRI funds Plans for reauthorization of the NGGDPP follow a 4-year struggle with USGS for program and funding. The geologic

record of the subsurface is used for sequestration, site characterization, etc. We must find a way to handle the problem data preservation. Right now the Senate is drafting an energy bill. Patty asked, “Should NGGDPP be a program of DOE wherein USGS would be a partner? Dorgan, Chair of Energy and Water would be a great champion. Sen. Feinstein (CA), Ryan Hunt also useful. Patty said, “You could ask DOI if they think the program would be better off in DOE.” AASG Exec Comm. needs to be consulted, and we would have to think hard about shifting to DOE.

Patty suggested that our best route would be to get OMB and USGS to put it in the budget. Vince Matthews knows Salazar. Letters to encourage Salazar to do X would be possible. Patty suggests we push the executive side harder. Links to climate change are key now.

Considering USGS as a funding conduit, there are some better and some poorer examples. Statemap is a good example. Water programs at USGS are funded under a model that is an impediment.

Mike Connor will be new Bureau of Reclamation director

Outcome/Action Items: Consider writing letters to encourage Sec. Salazar supporting an increase in funding for our issue programs: NCGMP

and NGGDPP. Emphasize their linkages to climate change issues. AASG decision on Data Preservation Act - insert 2020 as reauthorization, possibly designate a new sponsor agency-

let Patty know now.

House Energy Committee Staff (Steve Feldgus)

Meeting: House Natural Resources Committee; Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals, Majority StaffLocation: Longworth House Office Building, Room 1626Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 10:00-10:30 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Steve Feldgus 202-225-9297 Steve.Feldgus@mail.house.govLegislative Staff

AASG Lead: Ed DealOther AASG Attendees: Nick Tew, David Wunsch, Jon Price

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Prediction: Minerals reform legislation will go through the House and stall in the Senate Reauthorization of the NCGMP is in the omnibus Lands Bill Changing control on energy issues: in 2005 the MMS had offshore authority on wind, tidal was not clear. FERC

tried to take control of tidal outside the 3 mile limit and out to 12 miles; industry backed FERC, and now the DOI has ceded their authority to FERC

OCS oil and gas: concerns over pace of development, environmental impacts, planning for O&G and renewables, and issue of non-producing leases. Look for a big energy bill this summer that will review OCS lease terms to allow more flexibility

Outcome/Action Items: The AASG President should thank Steve for his help in reauthorizing the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping

Program and the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program.

American Geological Institute (AGI)

Meeting: American Geological Institute (AGI)Location: 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 700Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 10:30 – 11:30 a.m.

Met Wth: Telephone Number: E-mail:Linda Rowan 703-379-2480 X228 rowan@agiweb.orgGovernment Affairs

Patrick Leahy 703-379-2480 X202 pleahy@agiweb.orgExecutive DirectorChris Keane 703-379-2480 X219 cmk@agiweb.orgTechnology and Comm. Director

AASG Lead: Harvey ThorleifsonOther AASG Attendees: Joe Gillman, Rex Buchanan, Jay Parrish

Key Points and Issues Discussed: Don McKay new mapping chair Jim Steinmetz contact person on this topic.

o Get this in front of everyone Connie Manson

o Status of state survey coverage on state survey publications Fisher Congressional Science Fellowship – economic conditions may stress the endowment Georef/Geoscience World

o Georef major revenue sourceo About half publications and subscribers are outside USo Direct metadata from some states electronic formatso Good discussions

Employment statisticso State surveys are working with a wide range of stakeholders to better understand.o Publications put out on geoscience workforce

Educationo Science Olympiad.o Possibly host a partnership with University to have a region evento Visions of Eartho 2009 Leadership Training

o Earth science training for teachers

Statistics on state surveys to track stimulus of job creation/job retentiono Internships available through AIPG/AASG

Transitiono New federal framework prepared transition documents for new Congress and will send to

state governors’ offices.o Would like to talk to State Geologists about sending out letters.

Stimuluso Not much money for state surveys.o EPA, BLM, Reclamation. DOE, received a lot of money.

FY10 Budget April 20th

House has to have programmatic requests in by April 10.o can have requests for USGS but need numberso give paragraph of 3-5 sentenceso April 20

New Billso NGM Public Land Omnibuso NEHRP Science & Technology Committee

Congressional Hazards Caucuso Bob Swenson, AK (Murkowski)o Joe Gillman, MO (Emerson)

Stimuluso mapping; changing percentageo water programs; changing percentageo possibly changing business

o aggregateo watero coastalo great lakes

NOAAo oceans and water ports

Outcome/Action Items: Karen/John put together white paper with some action items for consideration. Harvey Thorleifson/Lee Allison, June statistician report. Ann will send concept paper and information to Jim Cobb. Job statistics important. Gov. Affairs will resend email on letter to Governors.

Meeting: Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, majority and minority staff

Location: Dirksen SD 131

Date: March 18, 2009Time: 11 - 11:45 amMet with:       Ginny James, majority staff               202-224-7350              virginia_james@appro.senate.gov                  Rachelle Schroeder, minority              202-224-7277              rachelle_schroeder@appro.senate.gov

AASG Lead: Jamie RobertsonOther AASG Attendees: Scholle, Breckenridge, McKay

Key Points and Issues Discussed: For FY10, expecting to have individual subcommittee appropriations bills -- no Omnibus or CR Expect overall budgets for most agencies to stay relatively flat, but with some shifting of internal priorities We discussed Data Preservation Program -- severely underfunded -- and noted that the USGS didn't seem to

have it as any sort of "priority".  Mentioned need to begin working on reauthorization (initial program's authorization expires in 2010).

Both Ginny and Rachelle suggested the program needed a "champion" and identified Lisa Murkowski (AK), John Tester (MT) and Bob Corker (TN) as possibilities both also asked why the program couldn't be shifted from DOI to DOE where adequate funding was more likely

A broad and lively discussion ensued and Ginny noted with current (tiny) funding, it might be better to do a few "pilot" projects that would have more visible results than spend such small amounts across the country.

We shared our frustration that the NCGMP had not yet been reauthorized Both Ginny and Rachelle said -- with some energy -- that reauthorization was not all that crucial, and that once a

program has been initially authorized and demonstrated significant productivity, it can continue to be funded for years without formal reauthorization.  Appropriators "look for results."

Both expressed curiosity about the lack of a vigorous, targeted, and sizeable USGS request for stimulus money

Action Item

Both Ginny and Rachelle said it would be crucial for the Data Preservation Program to actually show up in the President's Budget, and suggested working with OMB, OSTP, and White House contacts to push for this.  It will also be important to get DOI to publicly acknowledge and support the program.  Possible to work through the Secretary's Office?

Department of Energy (DOE) – Fossil

Meeting: DOE-FOSSIL ENERGY, OIL & GASLocation: 1000 Independence Ave. SW room 3E-028Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 11:00 – 11:45 a.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Guido De Horatis 202-586-7296 guido.dehoratiis@hq.doe.govDirector, Oil and Gas Upstream TechnologyOlayinka (Yinka) Ogunsola

*Bill Hochheiser has retired.*Edie Allison couldn’t meet with us this day.

AASG Lead: Jim CobbOther AASG Attendees: Ed Deal, Jon Price, Nick Tew

Stimulus Package – DOE Fossil Energy is getting $3.4 billion. See their website for details. There will be (or have been) four solicitations. (1) One will be on capture and storage of CO2, particularly with beneficial uses such as EOR and from industrial sources (rather than from a coal-fired power plant). The would like to combine EOR with CCS with monitoring and verification so that they can kick-start a CO2 industry. There is $1B+ in this. It also includes innovative uses of CO2.(2) Training ($20M) for scientists and engineers of the future; this will be mostly for universities, but could involve state surveys.(3) Site Characterization ($50M) for CO2, including potential for EOR.(4) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) – big power plants. This may include FutureGen as $1.0B for “fossil energy, R&D” in the stimulus bill.

Proposed funding for DOE – would remove tax incentives for the oil and gas industry, presumably to make renewables more competitive.

DOE is investigating replacing CH4 in hydrates (clathrates) below permafrost with CO2 as a sequestration option.

Outcome/Action Items:

National Research Council (NRC)/Board of Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR) – Lunch Meeting

Meeting: National Research Council (NRC)/Board of Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR) – Lunch MeetingLocation: 500 5th Street, NW, Room 205Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009Time: 12:15 – 1:30 p.m.

Met with: Telephone Number: E-mail:Tony de Souza 202-334-2744 adesouza@nas.eduBoard on Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR)Elizabeth Eide 202-334-2744 eeide@nas.edu(BESR)Anne Linn 202-334-2744 alinn@nas.edu(BESR)Steve Parker 202-334-2744Water Science and Technology BoardIan Kraucunas 202-334-2744Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate

AASG Lead: Jon PriceOther AASG Attendees (notes): Jim Cobb, John Parrish

Will Logan has left the NRC and is now with the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate is in the midst of a $6M study, requested by Congress and funded through NOAA, on “America’s Climate Choices.” The study will look at adaptation and mitigation. Whereas the IPCC reports are more-or-less assessments of the state of knowledge, this study asks for science-based recommendations for action.

The Water Science and Technology Board is doing a new study on the National Water Quality Assessment Program of the USGS and a new study on NSF’s hydrological sciences program. Surprisingly, Steve Parker , Director of the Board, was unaware of the activities of the ACWI Subcommittee on Ground Water and efforts to create a national ground water monitoring network

Outcome/Action Items: Keep an eye on new and forthcoming NRC reports, which can be great justification for enhancing or building

programs within the federal agencies that are advantageous to state surveys.