"Burnt Lime"

While the carbon of this blog is organic combustible carbon, this post strays from that material to “burnt lime”, a manufactured calcium oxide made from burning limestone, which is mostly the carbonate mineral calcite with the formula CaCO3, which does contain carbon. 

Why “burnt lime”? Because I came across this very white stone (photo below) in my Lafayette College community garden plot which sits on former and adjacent to current farm land in Forks Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Geologically, the community farm is on the Epler Formation of the Lower Ordovician Beekmantown Group. The older Cambrian and younger Middle Ordovician formations enclosing the Epler are also limestone or dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2), originally deposited in a large carbonate shallow sea, similar to the Bahamas platform, on the passive margin of the paleo-North-American continent, Laurentia. Geographically, this is the “Great Valley”; economically, the Great Valley is the “cement belt” while the outcropping younger Upper Ordovician deep-ocean Martinsburg shale to the north is the “slate belt” (see also post from January 2016 on “Geology and Gerrymandering”).

Besides cement, local limestone was quarried for lime (CaO) as a soil amendment. In 1941, Benjamin L. Miller (Lehigh University Professor of Geology) wrote:
      “Limestones for lime- More limestone quarries in Lehigh County [note- Lehigh County is just west of Northampton County] have been opened to get stone for burning than for any other purpose. Most of them are small and are now filled with rubbish and the kilns nearby are in ruins. Almost every clump of trees in the fields conceals one of these abandoned quarries. Of course, many of the quarries were opened along the stream bluffs. Years ago it was the common practice for the farmers to quarry and burn the stone during seasons when there was little work to be done in the fields. The kilns were constructed of field stones, many of glacial origin, and wood was used for fuel. The burning was not very efficient and the limed fields now contain pieces of chalky-white, partially-burned stone that may have lain there for many decades. Students have been puzzled by these limestone fragments, so unlike the other limestones in appearance. The farmers felt that it was profitable to add lime to the soil every three to five years and by a definite program one-third to one-fifth of the farm would be limed each year. 
      “Although the great bulk of the lime produced was used for improving the soils, at all periods the lime needed to supply the local demand for mortar also came from these same kilns.“
[Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Fourth Series, Bulletin C39, Lehigh County Pennsylvania Geology and Geography (1941) (p. 369)]

Burnt lime found in community garden plot on old farmland.

"Black Tears" of the USS Arizona, Pearl Harbor

 On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attack on the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor, island of Oahu, Hawaii (plus Kaneohe Airbase, eastern shore, and the inland Wheeler Army Airfield near Schofield Barracks), resulted in the official entry of the United States into World War II. The event is annually commemorated in several US cities, most notably at the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor. In 2016, with survivors of the attack at least in their 90’s, the Pearl Harbor events on the 75th anniversary may have been the last major gathering of military personnel present during the devastating raid. As of September 2019, only three survivors were still alive; according to CNN, but only one of them attended 2019 ceremonies at the memorial. However, one of those three died in February 2020. [Update: the last USS Arizona survivor, Lou Conter, died on April 1, 2024; a June 2023 interview with Conter is here.] This year (2020), the National Park Service and the Navy has closed the ceremony to the public, including Pearl Harbor survivors, due to the coronavirus. 

Like the Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial in Washington, DC, the Arizona Memorial is enveloped in intense solemnity and a bubble of consensual and imposing silence, awe, and reverence, despite the surrounding boat traffic. “The wrecked Arizona” is “a crystallized moment in time, its death wounds visible and still bleeding oil, the intact hull holding most of the crew.”  The leaking oil is estimated at 2-9 quarts per day .   The major “oil release” points identified in the 1980’s are two hatches, but since then the estimate volume of oil leaked has increased as the number of identified and monitored leakage points has risen. Volume also varies with weather and tides. The oil has been called the ship’s blood or the “black tears of the Arizona”; legend says the leak will end when the last surviving Arizona crewmember dies.

Figure 1: Wreck of USS Arizona, showing oil sheen, before construction of the Memorial. Taken on Memorial Day, 1958, as USS Bennington sails by with crew in formation spelling out sunken battleship’s name. (Photo attribution in hyperlink.)

Figure 2: Oahu satellite image of the island of Oahu.  Pearl Harbor is the inlet on the south shore and southern end of NW-SE saddle valley between the remnant rims of two flanking, but collapsed, subaerial shield volcanoes. 

Figure 3: USS Arizona site in the 1950’s, with flag that was raised and lowered daily. 

Figure 4: USS Arizona Memorial today, straddling the remains of the sunken battleship. The ship’s bow is on the left, beyond an apparent gap due to explosion of forward munitions magazines. (National Park Service photo). The white-rimmed grassy pentagons are mooring quays, now labeled with the names of ships berthed there December 7, 1941. 

The Arizona Memorial, as we know it today, was dedicated in 1962. The Memorial building sits over, but does not touch, the battleship USS Arizona, sunk in the Pearl Harbor attack, and the resting place of 1,102 of the 1,177 crew members killed, about half of all the fatalities from the raid. In the 1950’s, before the current memorial, a flag was raised and lowered at the site daily; to this day, personnel of passing US military ships “man the rails”, salute and honor the Memorial and sacrifice of those killed in the 1941 attack. The Memorial itself is on the National Register of Historic Places”. The wreck (ship) is a National Historic Landmark and an active military cemetery.

In addition to crewmembers entombed during the attack, 44 survivors of the attack have been interred on the Arizona. The information about internment and the list of those buried there are at https://www.nps.gov/valr/learn/historyculture/ussarizonainterments.htm . There are links from some names to photos, articles or videos of the internments. In 2019, FC2c Lauren F. Bruner (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko0QBUqs1BE) was the final crewmember interred on the Arizona since the remaining survivors have chosen to be buried elsewhere. A re-enactment of such a burial is also at the end of NCIS episode “The Arizona”, Season 17, episode 20, April 2020. 

Figure 5: USS Arizona at christening, Brooklyn Navy Yard, June 1915. 

Figure 6: USS Arizona in December 1916, New York City. 

Figure 7: National Archive photo from 1931, after modernization, showing “new tripod masts, surmounted by three-tiered fire-control directors”. 

The USS Arizona (BB-39) is a Pennsylvania-class battleship (“super-dreadnought”, decommissioned now) launched in 1915. At the time, it was the largest battleship built. It was 608 feet long with four triple-gun turrets. Exterior armor thickness in 1941 ranged from 8-13.5 inches (20-34 cm), bulkheads 8-13 inches. Deck armor was 4-8 inches (10-20 cm). A modernization in 1931 replaced, among other things, the original masts with “new tripod masts, surmounted by three-tiered fire-control directors”. A detailed structural description and timeline of the Arizona, as originally built plus subsequent upgrades, can be found in the 2012 maritime history and archaeology Masters’ thesis by Valerie Rissel at East Carolina University.

Rissel also explains the significance of Arizona as one of the first oil-fueled battleships in 1915, rather than being a traditional coal-burning vessel. Using fuel oil extended the time between refueling since, for the same volume of fuel, oil produces more units of energy (i.e. BTUs or joules) and requires less maintenance crew, therefore, cheaper overall. However, this limited the ship’s utility in World War I since many strategic European ports did not stock oil. 

The Arizona used Bunker C (#6) fuel oil. As Nuroil describes it: “Number 6 fuel oil is a high-viscosity residual oil requiring preheating to 220–260 °F (104–127 °C). Residual means the material remaining after the more valuable cuts of crude oil have boiled off. The residue may contain various undesirable impurities including 2 percent water and one-half percent mineral soil.”

The Arizona was assigned to the Pacific fleet in 1921 and based out of Hawaii starting in 1940.  After a “night-firing exercise” with the Nevada and Oklahoma on December 4, the Arizona was moored in “Battleship Row” on the east side of Ford Island; on December 6, the repair ship Vestal arrived alongside, docked, and was tethered to the Arizona (Figure 8). On the same day, the battleship was refueled with a final supply of 1.2-1.5 million gallons of fuel oil (estimates vary). The oil was stored in 200 bunkers (tanks) on four decks. The Arizona also had on board aviation fuel plus powder for 14-inch guns. 

On Sunday, December 7, 1941, “Japanese aircraft appeared in the air over Pearl Harbor just before 8:00 am . . .The color detail was on deck in anticipation of raising the flag at the stern at 8:00. The Arizona came under attack almost immediately, and at about 8:10 received a hit by an 800-kilogram bomb just forward of turret two on the starboard side” and about 40 feet from the bow. “Within a few seconds, the forward powder magazines exploded, gutting the forward part of the ship. The foremast and forward superstructure collapsed forward into the void created by the explosion and turrets one and two, deprived of support, dropped more than 20 feet relative to their normal position. The explosion ignited furious fires in the forward part of the ship. The majority of the crewmembers were either killed by the explosion and fire or were trapped by the rapid sinking of the ship.” The fires burned for 2 1/2 days. Description of the attack (4 minute video) with actual footage and borrowed clips from the movie "Pearl Harbor": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Ttfri8H6Q

Figure 8: Pearl Harbor Ford Island map showing ship locations December 7, 1941 (http://www.delsjourney.com/uss_neosho/pearl_harbor/neosho_at_pearl_harbor.htm - scroll down page for figures on general attack trajectories and US ship movement that day).  Vestal was a repair ship that moored alongside the Arizona the day before (it is very visible in the Pearl Harbor attack sequence in 2019 movie Midway). The USS Neosho, three moorings SW of Arizona and the world’s largest oil tanker in 1939, offloaded cargo of aviation fuel to onshore tanks on December 6.

Figure 9: Photo of Ford Island from the south from a Japanese plane at the beginning of the attack on December 7, 1941. Battleships on far side (southeast side) of Ford Island from left are Nevada, Arizona with Vestal, Tennessee with West Virginia outboard (rising explosive splash from torpedo hit). Complete caption at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#/media/File:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor_Japanese_planes_view.jpg 

Figure 10: Arizona on fire after attack. 

Figure 11: Wreck of USS Arizona, three days after attack on Pearl Harbor. 

Figure 12: Salvage of the Arizona, 1943. 

The Arizona settled nearly upright. It is currently partially buried in about 25 feet (8 m) of harbor sediment (Rissel, p. 34) in ca. 38 feet (12 m) of water. The draft of the Arizona was just under 29 feet (Rissel), so the water/sediment line now is about at the ship’s original waterline. The overhead view of the Memorial and wreck (Figure 3) shows the visible bow is separated by a gap from the rest of the ship, the gap being the location of the collapsed and exploded forward magazines. The stern of the ship sits on soft clay while the bow is underlain by stiff clay with coral debris.  “The sunken vessel provides substrate for many encrusting filter-feeding organisms such as sponges, bryozoans, annelid worms, mollusks, and tunicates as well as filamentous diatoms, and green and red algae. These organisms (both live and dead) comprise over 99% of the cover of all vertical surface area (Henderson, 1986", cited in Daniel, 2006, below). 

It is estimated that 1/3 of the fuel on board the Arizona burned in the fires, 1/3 was released uncombusted into the harbor, and 1/3 (500,000-600,000 gallons, 11,900-14,300 barrels or ~2 million liters) remained on board. As mentioned earlier, the estimates of current leakage rate range from 2-9 quarts per day (1.9-8.5 liters): at a high average rate of 7 qts/day, I calculated about 50,000 gals (~1200 barrels; 190,000 liters) would have leaked, post attack, since 1941. Compared to the general range of estimated remaining oil, my calculated loss is relatively insignificant and doesn’t really diminish the estimated onboard load.

Figure 13: Oil leaking from the ship flows with changing currents: top photo- flowing northeast from barbette 3; bottom photo- oil plume/sheen heading southwest. 

The large amount of oil remaining on the Arizona, coupled with the corrosion of the wreck, has raised concerns about a sudden catastrophic release of oil.  The Arizona National Historic Landmark is cooperatively administered by the National Park Service and the Navy. An initial 1983-84 study (Lenihan, 1990, citation and link below; 1991 blog post by Lenihan describing diving on the Arizona) was the first undertaken to determine exactly what was still present and the condition of the ship. Most of the superstructure and armaments were removed during salvage through 1943, but the Lenihan study discovered that the No. 1 turret 14-inch guns were still in place, in addition to a number of live shells, which were removed. Although helmeted, tethered divers were used to salvage materials from inside the ship in the immediate aftermath of the attack, currently neither human divers nor remote robot investigations cannot, or do not, venture many places inside the ship due to both concern about wreck integrity and out of respect for the dead entombed there. Rissel’s Master’s thesis (2012, link below) summarizes the contrasting issues of environmental protection and resting-place respect.

“Many scientists have addressed the problems of metal corrosion but rarely with the variables encountered at Pearl Harbor: an immense steel object with water on both sides of the plates, existing in an environment rich in biological organisms and full of stray currents from many possible sources. The water was presumably aerobic on the hull's exterior but the oxygen content of water in the interior was unknown” (Lenihan, p. 9). The goals of that study were collecting data and describing the environmental conditions of the wreck site, and, probably the most important contribution, a description and drawings of the wreck below the water. 

Figure 14: Outboard profiles and plan view drawings of the Arizona initially done in 1984. (Library of Congress)

Building on this initial documentation, since 1998, investigations of the USS Arizona Preservation Project have focused on the structural integrity (metal degradation) of the Arizona and the contained oil. The onsite studies have value not just for understanding degradation of that ship but of how other liquid-fuel-bearing wrecks in US waters may also corrode. A list of several studies by year are included at the end of this post. These include those by scientists and engineers from the National Park Service’s (NPS) Submerged Resources Center; National Institute of Standards and Technology; University of Nebraska; the Rissel thesis; a study of the organic geochemistry of and microbes digesting the leaked oil (Graham, 2003). US Geological Survey studies include instrumentation installed to measure water currents around the wreck, and investigation of sediment type on which the wreck sits and resultant settling rate. Oil studies at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and by US Coast Guard cadets are ongoing.

From metal corrosion studies, estimates of time until hull collapse and possible catastrophic release of oil have ranged from 10-20 years (Foecke et al., 2010, citation below) to 150-200 years (Johnson et al., 2018). The National Park Service currently estimates 100-150 years. Organic geochemistry of oil from the Arizona indicates that some leaked oil is degraded suggesting it had leaked from its original storage bunker and pooled somewhere else in the ship before release to the harbor (Graham in Murphy, 2008, p. 371-372). 

In contrast, it is interesting to note that a study of the deterioration of coal from the Titanic (sank April 1912) showed it had little chemical alteration and, therefore, minimal environmental impact due to interaction with the seawater, compared to widespread environmental damage effects of oil spills. However, in limited surface and stream drainages, the weathering of coal, specifically of iron sulfides like pyrite in the coal, can produce damaging acid mine drainage.

A two-and-a-half minute underwater video tour of Arizona by National Geographic can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVV7AX-lfQ  .

*Selected articles and reports on USS Arizona metal corrosion, wreck environment, and contained oil, in chronological order:

1990: Lenihan, Daniel (editor), Submerged Cultural Resources Study: USS Arizona Memorial and Pearl Harbor National Historic Landmark: Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, National Park Service, Submerged Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 23 (First edition, 1989; second edition, 1990). Link to complete Table of Contents, with chapter links, at https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/usar/scrs/scrst.htm; links to scanned pdfs of original report https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1635/upload/USAR_017_D6A_-34619.pdf and https://ia800606.us.archive.org/4/items/submergedcultura01ussa/submergedcultura01ussa.pdf .

1991 Lenihan, Daniel: The Arizona revisited: Divers explore the legacy of Pearl Harbor. https://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/master.html?https://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/editors_pick/1991_11_pick.html

2003 Russell, M.A., and Murphy, L.E., Long-Term Management Strategies for the USS Arizona: A Submerged Cultural Resource in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: National Park Service, Submerged Resources Center and USS Arizona Memorial Legacy Resources Management Fund Project No. 03-170, 2003 Annual Report Technical Report 15, 21 pages. https://www.denix.osd.mil/cr/archives/archaeology/archaeology-underwater-archaeology-archives/2003-report/27_USS%20Arizona%20Memorial%20-%202003%20Annual%20Report%20(PDF),%20Report%20(Legacy%2003-170).PDF  The report summarizes the methods of various investigative projects and goals, most results of which are in subsequent publications listed below. 

2003 Graham, Amanda, The USS Arizona and Bunker C Fuel Oil: An Environmental Study, Master’s thesis, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). A 91-page report by Graham (the entire thesis?) is included in the 2008 report below, p. 295-386. 

2006 Daniel, R., Appendix A: USS Arizona Memorial resource overview. In: HaySmith, L., F. L. Klasner, S. H. Stephens, and G. H. Dicus. Pacific Island Network vital signs monitoring plan. Natural Resource Report NPS/PACN/NRR—2006/003 National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/575315 

2006 Russell, M.A., Conlin, D. L., Murphy, L.E., Johnson, D.L., Wilson, B.M., Carr, J.D., A minimum-impact method for measuring corrosion rate of steel-hulled shipwrecks in seawater: The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, v. 35, p. 310-318. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/188135446.pdf Nice photos of metal disk samples of Arizona hull; cross-section of ship and plan views of wreck.

2006 Johnson, D.L., Wilson, B.M., Carr, J.D., Russell, M.A., Murphy, L.E., Conlin, D. L., Corrosion of steel shipwreck in the marine environment: USS Arizona: Materials Selection and Design. Part I- October 2006, p. 40-44 (https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/chemfacpub/192/ ); Part II- November 2006, p. 54-57 (https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/chemfacpub/191/ ).

2008 Murphy, L.E., and Russell, M.A., Long-term management strategies for USS Arizona, a submerged cultural resource in Pearl Harbor: National Park Service Submerged Resources Center Technical Report Number 27, 513 pages. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/underwater-archaeology/PDF/UA_ManagementUSS Arizona.pdf

2009 McNamara, C.J., Lee, K.B., Russell, M.A., Murphy, L.E., Mitchell, R., Analysis of bacterial community composition in concretions formed on the USS Arizona, Pearl Harbor, HI: Journal of Cultural Heritage, v. 10, p. 232-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2008.07.010

2010 Foecke, T., Ma, L., Russell, M.A.., Conlin, D.L. Murphy, L.E., Investigating archaeological site formation processes on the battleship USS Arizona using finite element analysis: Journal of Archeological Science, v. 37, p. 1090-1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.12.009

2012: Rissel, Valerie, The Weeping Monument: A pre and post depositional site formation study of the USS Arizona: Master’s Thesis, East Carolina University, 127 pages. http://thescholarship.ecu.edu/bitstream/handle/10342/3841/Rissel_ecu_0600M_10669.pdf?sequence=1  or https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e7b1/dd8d6ca6ba7146d5ea61b9ecff9d05ed86a8.pdf 

2013: Carkin, B.A., and Kayen, R.E., Settlement of the USS Arizona, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5096, 154 pages. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5096/pdf/sir2013-5096_text.pdf

2018 Johnson, D.L., DeAngelis, R.J., Medlin, D.J., Johnson, J.E., Carr, J.D., and Conlin, D.L., The secant rate of corrosion: correlating observations of the USS Arizona submerged in Pearl Harbor: The Journal of The Mineral, Metals & Materials Society (TMS), vol. 70, p. 747-752. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323531809_The_Secant_Rate_of_Corrosion_Correlating_Observations_of_the_USS_Arizona_Submerged_in_Pearl_Harbor/link/5b5f3d160f7e9bc79a6f4712/download 

2018 US Coast Guard, Cadets study the Tears of the Arizona: The Maritime Executive, (9-21-2018); https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/cadets-study-the-tears-of-the-arizona 

Text of AAPG climate statement-May 2020

In the May 2020 AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) Explorer (monthly association news publication), the Association published a climate change position statement approved by its Executive Committee. There has been some discussion today on Twitter about this, based on an early May YouTube interview with current AAPG President, Michael Party (the interviewer did not identify the whole name and AAPG connection of the interviewee; just called him "Mike"). The entire statement seems not to be fully available online right now unless one is an AAPG member. Truthfully, this statement says it supports sustainability and environmental responsibility in energy production and usage, "reducing humanity's carbon footprint", without specifically endorsing conclusions of the IPCC or the Paris Agreement. The statement encourages members to read available climate change research themselves. Therefore, this statement is, to me, rather wishy-washy, trying to walk a fine line with a membership that has a wide range of political leanings and geological occupations (industry and academia). The Climate Statement is based on a survey sent to all members in all member categories last fall. Here is the whole statement:

"May 2020

In July 2019, when the current AAPG Executive Committee took office, they inherited one piece of outstanding business: review the AAPG Climate Statement that had been approved by the previous EC, but also tabled for approval by the incoming EC.
Over the last seven months, and long before the two black swan events that are wreaking havoc on our industry and our Association, the EC engaged many of the Association’s stakeholders, including the divisions, the Advisory Council, the Corporate Advisory Board and, by way of a survey, our members.
With their feedback and comments the EC decided that:

1. AAPG should have a statement on climate change.
2. That statement needs to reflect the Association’s mission and the values of our members – a considerable challenge given the highly political nature of the climate change debate.

Thus, the EC believes this statement, approved unanimously by the current EC, not only accomplishes those two objectives, but most closely reflects the considerable feedback we have received from our members and leadership over the past year.

---

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has a long history as a proactive organization focused on advancing the science of geology, especially as it relates to petroleum, natural gas, other subsurface fluids and mineral resources. AAPG continues to promote and encourage its members to employ their surface and subsurface geologic skills and knowledge to exploring for, finding and producing these materials in an efficient, economic and environmentally sustainable manner while minimizing their impact on the world’s climate. AAPG believes in the principles of conservation, efficiency and sustainability regarding the use of all energy resources. In support of these objectives, the Energy Mineral Division was created in 1977 as an international forum for energy sources other than conventional oil and gas, and the Division of Environmental Geosciences in 1992 to promote environmental stewardship within the industry and to support and encourage research into the effects of petroleum\energy minerals exploration and production on the environment.
Our members share the concerns of the public, non-governmental organizations and governments about environmental issues, including climate change and energy sustainability. As earth scientists our members have a unique perspective and understanding of climate change throughout the geologic history of Earth and how climate has varied through time. The current world population of 7.8 billion people puts an enormous strain on the Earth’s resources that requires, in addition to hydrocarbon resources, the economic development of alternative and renewable energy sources. The AAPG encourages its members, through their own research, to continue to develop their own understanding of climate science and policies that are outside the core competencies of the organization and to work on improving the human condition while reducing energy’s environmental impacts.
The AAPG accepts the immense challenges of the energy transition and will continue to support the important role that AAPG scientists play in improving the human condition, while minimizing environmental impacts of all forms of energy.

• We understand the growing need for energy and petrochemical feed stocks throughout the world, and the fact that renewable energy and emerging technologies will not meet these needs over the next several decades.
• We accept the immense challenges of both meeting the current and near-term energy demands as well as future energy needs and will continue to support the role AAPG members play in delivering responsible and sustainable energy to the world.
• We look to enhance the future by supporting AAPG members as they apply their surface and subsurface geological skills and their talents in areas such as carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), geothermal energy development and critical minerals extraction, and to use creativity and innovation in the responsible and sustainable development of hydrocarbons, with the goal of reducing humanity’s carbon footprint."

Geosciences Congressional Visits Day (Geo-CVD): Citizen scientists on Capitol Hill – UPDATE 2020

This post is an update to my Congressional Visits Day post of 2015. Much of the text is the same, but references to legislation specific to 2015 have been removed, links have been updated, and a few new insights have been added.

The US Capitol, January 20, 2017, the night before the first Women's March.

In almost every September since 2011, I have attended the annual Geosciences Congressional Visits Day (Geo-CVD; http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/cvd/; http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Science_Policy/gvd/GSA/Policy/CVD/home.aspx ) in Washington, DC. The purpose of Geo-CVD, begun in 2008, is to bring scientists to Capitol Hill to emphasize to members of the US Congress, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, the importance of federal science funding, specifically in the earth and space sciences. The US federal budget supports basic geoscience programs and research directly in the work of various federal departments and agencies (including but not limited to USGS, NASA, NOAA, NIST, DOE) and in research grant programs to academia (the National Science Foundation: NSF).

The participating geoscience societies include several member societies of the American Geoscience Institute (AGI) plus the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Societies will post announcements for Geo-CVD on their website, Twitter, or sometimes by e-mail. Geo-CVD is two days every September. An afternoon workshop is on Day One; on Day Two are the constituent scientist visits to offices of Representatives, Senators and staff of various committees. The workshop includes an overview of the legislative process including budget and appropriations, overview of science funding and specific legislation of interest to the geoscience community, the Message and “Ask” for the visits, and the opportunity to meet one’s constituent scientist team for the visits. Workshop speakers include professional society policy staff, and current and past Congressional Science Fellows who give their advice, from the legislative staff perspective, on a successful and productive constituent visit.

Some societies also offer a pre-CVD webinar for participants. Besides background on legislative processes and what to expect of the event, the webinar offers practical tips on what to bring for the visit. Business attire is strongly recommended, which means, obviously, jacket and tie for men, even though DC in September can still be steamy and warm. I smiled in agreement as I read Ryan Haupt's Geo-CVD blog post description of the sweaty humidity on our visits day in 2015: it was spot on. My Pennsylvania (PA) delegation was also sweated through that year, but suit jackets nicely hide the evidence. Women's business attire can be a suit with skirt or dress slacks, a dress, or blouse with skirt or trousers: channel the style of newswomen or commentators on Sunday morning news shows, debate wear of female presidential candidates, or, to echo Ryan's West Wing reference, fictional press secretary CJ Cregg. The perennial recommendation to wear comfortable shoes is no joke: "Did you know that the city planners, when they sat down to design Washington, D.C., their intention was to build a city that would intimidate and humble foreign heads of state?" said fictional President Andrew Shepherd in The American President. The size and spacing of the Capitol and flanking Senate and House office buildings is formidable, and, while meeting schedulers try avoid multiple crossings of Capitol Hill in their appointment flow, it sometimes can't be avoided. (Some women wear really comfortable footwear between buildings and change into stiffer stylish business shoes before entering.)

One “must-bring” is business cards. They are the currency of meetings, many times the first thing exchanged just after formal greetings. I have noticed that a few Congressional staff members line the cards up in front of him/her on the conference table to keep our names front and center during our conversation. I have kept all the cards of staff members met during all past Congressional Visits Days attended. While there is a lot of turnover among Hill staff (the average age is 26), sometimes one will see the same staff members year-to-year. For example, in 2015, the legislative aide we met in a western Pennsylvania representative's office, was, as I knew from my card collection, a former aide for PA Senator Patrick Toomey that spoke with our PA Geo-CVD delegation the previous two years. Pointing out our previous meetings was an icebreaker, and his familiarity with Geo-CVD was appreciated. In both 2013 and 2014, we met with Senator Casey's Legislative Chief of Staff: in 2014, he said something like "good to see you again, MaryAnn" without taking my card first. Whether he actually remembered me (probably not), or just checked his last year's notes and business cards right before the meeting, I was flattered and impressed.

Another recommended "leave-behind" is a one-page summary of one's own research or work, how it is impacted by federal science programs, how it may be important to one's Congressional district/state, what kind of expertise one may offer to the office, and your contact information. It should be understandable to non-scientists. For several years, I used the Pennsylvania state geologic map postcards from the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, gluing to the back a very brief typed synopsis of my contact information, area of specialization, and past research. (One year, a staff member said my previous year’s map card was on a bulletin board: even if my information was hidden, geology of Pennsylvania was front and center.)  In 2015, I printed out the one-page Pennsylvania Coal Distribution Map since most offices visited were in traditional PA coal mining areas and then printed my information on the backside; I had more space to list what agencies had funded or supported my graduate school, postdoc, and other research. Our Pennsylvania group also visited the office of a West Virginia Senator (one of our group was a West Virginia University alumnus and had done consulting work in WV) so for that office I put my information on the back of a WV coal distribution map. Dr. Matt Kohn of Boise State University describes in detail his development of a leave-behind for a non-CVD visit to his members of Congress in an August 2017 post of AGU's blog, The Bridge.

As mentioned above, the afternoon pre-visit workshop importantly outlines the unifying Message of the visits. Quoted below from our 2015 workshop material, this has been a perennial general ask:

“Strong and sustained federal investments in geoscience will:

   -Support resilient communities

   -Strengthen our global and economic competitiveness

   -Enhance national security

   -Sustain a highly skilled workforce

and from that "The Ask":

“Support strong federal investments in geoscience research and education”.

The “Ask” is the essential general component of a Congressional visit. I have unfortunately heard a few CVD participants claim they did not like or would not do the “Ask” because they think it is boring, not relevant, and would rather talk about issues, like climate change, or just offer themselves as information sources. I personally think this is missing the point of the visits: no matter what one’s issue of interest, most science-related legislation, to achieve desired goals, requires budgeted and appropriated funds for program implementation.

Each year in the pre-visit workshop, specific legislation of concern is also outlined. These are usually bills that have only passed one house or have not come out of committee and need a bit of advocacy to encourage action. CVD participants are also encouraged to research the Committees, caucuses and interests of the Senators and Representatives to be visited. This background knowledge allows one to be flexible and spontaneous depending on the flow of the conversation during a Congressional office visit. In a non-CVD visit in spring 2019 to a conservative Senator’s office, the level of enthusiasm of the staffer we met with seemed to be very low; she was taking few notes. The Senator was not on any science-related committees, but was on the Foreign Relations committee. The staffer’s interest, and notetaking, noticeably improved when I pointed out the national security role of nuclear test monitoring by DOE’s Los Alamos National Lab with NATO partners which were able to detect and locate 2017 North Korean subterranean bomb tests, within minutes of detonation.

Part of the reason for a decrease in geoscience funding during parts of the last several years was, as John Holdren, director of the Obama White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), said during a special lecture at the 2015 GSA annual meeting in Baltimore, “Appropriation bills to date reflect the apparent view of some in Congress that support for Earth observations and geosciences equates to support for” only “climate change policies.” Therefore, another objective of Geo-CVD is to emphasize the range of fields and job opportunities under the umbrella of geoscience, and how geoscientists contribute to communities. I have found flooding, earthquakes, and other hazards, and water issues in general are topics of interest to many constituencies.

For the visits, scientists are organized in teams representing one or two states, depending on how many from each state attend. For the eight Geo-CVD plus three other Congressional Visits events I have attended to this date, the number of other PA attendees has varied from zero to three, and the participants, besides me, have been different all but one time. The afternoon workshop allows team members to meet each other and their policy staff chaperone, get to know each other’s specialties, plan who will be the lead speaker in each office, and practice or discuss what each person might say or focus on. The teams are also given group “leave-behind” folders with information on the importance of geoscience. Besides our own research summaries, team members also sometimes add federal agency fact sheets or bookmarks (such as from USGS or NASA) and professional society information.

The role of the chaperones, which are policy staff of the participating professional geoscience societies, is both subtle and critical to success of the visits. I have previously been with staff members of AGU (American Geophysical Union), GSA (Geological Society of America), AGI, AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) and AMS. The chaperone also books the specific office visits. Frequently, the chaperone will accompany the teams on their appointments, although some years if there are more state teams than policy staff, teams may be unescorted if there are experienced CVD constituents. Chaperones help with directions to offices, keeping on schedule, and sometimes gentle guidance of the conversation to make sure nothing gets left out. In my first CVD in April 2001 (SET-CVD), I erroneously structured my delivery to lead up to the “Ask”, pointing out first how geoscience research is important to Pennsylvania. In these meetings, which may be no longer than 15 minutes, there are no time-signal lights, as in a conference presentation, and time can fly. I was the only scientist in this meeting with a staff member of then-Senator Santorum and my AGI policy staff chaperone. As I was feeling even myself getting a little bored with my own delivery and anxious on time, my chaperone stepped in and masterfully guided the discussion to the “Ask” and point of our visit. The structure of the visit, as emphasized each year in the Geo-CVD workshop, should put the purpose (Message and Ask) first and up front, like the opening of a newspaper article (who, what, when, where, why) and not like an introductory paragraph of an essay or many science articles where one sets the scene first, leading up to the thesis statement or “punch line”. And with a group of scientists visiting an office, the team lead must get the visit’s purpose/message/ask out first, efficiently mention their own research (impact on state/district and how the relevant federal funding is important), and quickly pass the conversation on to other team members so everyone gets to speak. However, each team member must take responsibility to keep their delivery short: in one recent House office visit, one of our 4-member team (no chaperone) rambled on for 25 minutes so that no one else had a chance to talk! It is also natural for the first meeting of the day to be less polished because the team is developing a rhythm and feel for time and content.

The Congressional office visits are usually with legislative staff members, rather than the elected official, although in a few of my past House office visits, the Representative has been present. The Legislative Correspondents or Aides may or may not be the staff member covering science or energy, but they are the information gatherers who are conduits and synthesizers of data on issues for the Representative/Senator. Some may just say thank you at the end of the meeting, but others may have specific questions on exactly how much funding or what specific action the team is requesting, especially during visits that take place in the late winter when the next fiscal year’s budget is being formulated.

An important purpose of any CVD is to offer oneself as an information resource to the Congressional office. Over the last 35 years, the number of scientists serving as Congressional office or committee staff has grown, with increasing numbers of Congressional Science Fellows, former Fellows who continue in legislative positions, and the occasional engineer/scientist who has segued into a legislative staff career. However, the number is still small, and having a state or district scientist as a direct resource, or who can refer the office to another scientist with the necessary expertise, is a valuable asset.

These face-to-face Capitol Hill visits should be the start of an ongoing dialogue on the importance of federal science support. Congressional staff is very busy, have many topics or issues to cover, and have visits with many other constituents and groups, so it is essential not to let the topic of the importance of science to the National interest fade. Any CVD visit should be followed up with a letter (e-mail is preferred over snail mail letters with their onerous physical security screening) thanking the office for the visit, iterating "the Ask", the offer to be a resource, and other points discussed.

While it is recommended that one continue contact with their Congressional offices, one does not have to do it each year in person during Geo-CVD or other science CVDs. Continued dialogue (or any outreach to members of Congress) can include written correspondence or in-state district visits. Such communication can mention appreciation for relevant sponsored legislation or voting positions, or a request for particular consideration of new science legislation or issues of concern. I have not been as frequent with that as I should, but a great resource for keeping up with science-related legislation, funding levels, and talking points are professional society public policy webpages (see the list at the bottom) or policy news alert services (such as https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Track-science-issues). Sometimes a society may also have letter templates for a specific issue that one can use as a base and then amend to make it more personal. (It is important in any letter to have the point right in the first paragraph; my own experience is that staff may not read past the first paragraph in figuring out how to reply.)

There are other non-medical/non-health-science Congressional Visits Days throughout the year. A general and large Science-Engineering-Technology CVD (SET-CVD) occurs every spring. Geoscience member organizations for that event usually include AGU and GSA, and one would contact one of those organizations if interested in participating. A few earth science societies, such as AGU, also sponsor their own CVDs for invited participants that focus on issues of specific interest to their members, in addition to federal support for science agencies and STEM education.

For other stories on Congressional Visits Day experiences:

http://thebridge.agu.org/2015/11/02/visiting-my-legislators-was-a-bit-like-the-west-wing/ (Geo-CVD, posted November 2015 by AGU)

https://geosociety.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/mingling-geoscience-with-public-policy-on-capitol-hill/ (Geo-CVD, posted October 2015 by GSA)
http://community.geosociety.org/blogs/kasey-white/2016/05/11/a-student-take-on-congressonal-visits ((Geo-CVD, posted 2015 by GSA)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO190006/pdf (SET-CVD, May 2013)

http://tsop.org/newsletters/1999_2002.pdf (My summary of 2001 SET-CVD on pages 187-189 of this 320-page pdf of the 1999-2002 newsletters of The Society for Organic Petrology (TSOP- an AGI member society, AAPG affiliated society))

Earth Science Policy websites:

American Geophysical Union- http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/

Geological Society of America-http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Science_Policy/GSA/Policy/Home.aspx

American Geoscience Institute- http://www.americangeosciences.org/policy-critical-issues

Congressional websites:

https://www.congress.gov (where one can look up the text and action on any House or Senate bill)

www.senate.gov (Senate homepage)

www.house.gov (House of Representatives homepage)

[Besides participation in various science CVDs, Maryann’s science policy or government experience includes GSA Geology and Public Policy Committee (1986-88; 2018-21), USGS postdoctoral fellowship (2006-08), and Foreign Service Officer, US Department of State (1973-76).]