1. Planning for a New Data Preservation System for the Nation John C. Steinmetz Indiana Geological Survey Linda C. Gundersen U.S. Geological Survey and Tamara L. Dickinson U.S. Geological Survey

2. National Energy Policy Act of 2005 National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program Act of 2005 Implementation Plan delivered to Congress October 10, 2006 http://energy.usgs.gov

3. Studies by the American Geological Institute Sponsored by Department of Energy and the petroleum industry Phase I: 1993-1994 Assessment, feasibility, and proposal of an NGDRS Phase II: 1995-1997 Development of standards and design of clearhouse AGI National Directory of Geoscience Data Repositories Phase III: 1998-2001: Implementation and Operation of an National Geoscience Data Repository System (NGDRS) Background investigations:

4. National Geoscience Data Repository System & Geotrek

5. National Research Council Geoscience Data and Collections: National Resources in Peril www.nap.edu 2002 Background investigations:

6. Committee Sponsorship American Association of Petroleum Geologists AAPG Foundation American Geological Institute Department of Energy–Fossil Energy Department of Energy–Yucca Mountain Geological Society of America National Science Foundation (EAR) Paleontological Society Petrotechnical Open Software Corporation Schlumberger, Ltd. Smithsonian Institution U.S. Geological Survey NRC, 2002:

7. Minimum Estimate of the Volume of Geoscience Data & Collections in the U.S. UNITSTOTAL # Core (ice)tubes 14,500 Core (rock/sediment)boxes 8,015,715 Cuttingsboxes 10,402,000 Fossilsspecimens 122,935,000 Geochemical analysespaper 1,750,000 Minerals/Rocksspecimens 828,000 Other well recordsvariety2,045,000 Scout ticketsvariety 21,960,350 Seismic (2- & 3-D)miles & miles 2 357,270,149 Thin sectionsslides 647,000 Velocity surveyspaper & digital 87,500 Washed residuesbags 180,000 Well logsvariety 6,021,700 NRC, 2002

8. Core space available in State Geological Surveys 20022006 Percentage available n = 34 n = 41 The Nature of the Challenge

9. Exposure to the elements Maine Geological Survey

10. The Nature of the Challenge Over-crowded facilities Indiana Geological Survey

11. The Nature of the Challenge Little or no curation Indiana Geological Survey

12. Geologic Materials Center, Eagle River, Alaska The Nature of the Challenge “Temporary” storage

13. National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program Act USGS administration in collaboration with AASG NCGMP-FAC oversight –Planning and implementation –Prioritization of allocation of funds Initially energy-related data and collections As funding allows: water and minerals data and collections, geologic hazards, and engineering geology NGGDPP Act: –Distributed system of national and state data archives for DoI agencies and state geological surveys –National Digital Catalog –Technical and financial assistance –Authorization of $30MM annually for each of 5 years

14. Working Group to the NCGMP Federal Advisory Committee to advise it concerning implementation of the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program Act of 2005 John Steinmetz, Chair, Indiana Geological Survey Edith Allison, U. S. Department of Energy Odin Christensen, Newmont Mining Beverly DeJarnett, Texas Bureau of Economic Geology William Harrison, III, Western Michigan University Christopher Keane, American Geological Institute Rich Lane, National Science Foundation Gary Lore, Minerals Management Service Peter Lyttle, U.S. Geological Survey Brenda Pierce, U.S. Geological Survey James Robertson, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Peter Scholle, New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources

15. National Energy Policy Act of 2005 National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program Act of 2005 Implementation Plan delivered to Congress October 10, 2006 http://energy.usgs.gov

16. National Digital Catalog Distributed and redundant “broker” of standards, not a “driver” Minimal metadata Interoperable Search & retrieve –Metadata of the system’s archives –Digital data

17. Technical and financial assistance Component shares –Federal Operation of National Digital Catalog Federal share of awards for Federal projects –State State share of awards for State projects Competitive, peer-reviewed proposals

18. Physical Infrastructure Awards Construction of physical facilities Equipment to prepare, store, retrieve, and examine collections and data Operations One-time, non-recurring Need to demonstrate maintenance will continue

19. Digital Infrastructure Awards Conversion of paper records to digital formats Updating of digital materials and formats Staffing for computer programming and database construction

20. Outreach and Applications Awards Raise public awareness, interpretation, application, and use Training sessions and workshops Minimize duplication and maximize interpretation

21. Special Needs Awards “Data rescues,” i.e., imminent danger of loss by deteriorating surroundings or discard Likely more prevalent at outset of the Program

22. Proposal provisions Matching 1 : 1 / Federal : State match Public or private Congressional clarification needed on valuation of collections & data Maintenance of existing funds “In addition to” funds already applied Measurable performance measures

23. Comprehensive Proposal & Business Plan Purpose and justification Prioritization of needs Strategy to accomplish proposed goals Demonstration of long-term commitment to achieve the goals Incorporation of partnerships to the extent possible A plan for outreach Demonstration of accessibility

24. Eligibility Any Interior agency Any State geological survey Partnerships of both, with or without private partners Performance measures met and reported

25. Next steps Office of Science & Technology Policy is surveying the status of federal research collections State geological surveys to embark on a similar assessment NSF planning to conduct a survey of museums & institutions with NSF collections U.S. Geological Survey requesting budget line for data preservation Association of American State Geologists seeking Congressional appropriation