What should we call the merged agency?

Critics of the proposed merger between AZGS and ADMMR point to the dropping of the word “mines” from the ADMMR name as a major sticking point. HB2584 sponsor Rep. Theresa Ulmer made the offer to ADMMR last week to change the name in the bill if they would make recommendations or offer suggestions. Since none have come forward, I’m asking the mining, mineral resources, and geologic community for your input. Rep. Ulmer confirmed to me this morning that she is open to making changes to address stakeholders concerns.

Should the name of the “Division of Mineral Resources” in the merged AZGS be changed, and if so, to what?

Should the name of the Arizona Geological Survey be changed to indicate the combined missions? If so, to what?

Of the 51 state geological surveys, 42 currently use “geological survey” or some slight variation for their names, including some big mining states like Idaho. Nine states have some variation of “mines,” “mining,” “mineral resources,” or similar in their names:

Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division (Missouri)

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources

Oregon Dept of Geology and Mineral Industries

Area de Recursos de Agua y Minerales (Puerto Rico)

Bureau of Economic Geology (Texas)

Vermont Dept of Mines, Minerals, and Energy

Division of Geology and Earth Resources (Washington)

If we change the name of the AZGS, is it necessary to have a legislatively mandated internal division that combines both current ADMMR divisions, the Museum of Mining and Mineral Resources and the Mining Information Center, or should we allow them to be managed as they are now, as separate functions?

Let me know - post a comment here for others to weigh in on, or email me directly at lee.allison@azgs.az.gov. I'll post the ideas (without attribution unless you want your name attached).