Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 55 Professional Expertise The scientific credibility and respect attributed to the USGS has resulted, in large part, from the traditional high quality of the scientific personnel. Many of the most famous and prestigious scientists in American geology have worked within the historical equivalents of the current MRSP. This traditional credibility and respect, based on the quality of the personnel, must be retained and strengthened. Therefore, the MRSP must make every effort to retain and to recruit âthe best and brightestâ personnel. As retirements or transfers occur, the managers within the MRSP and Subprograms must identify the areas of greatest scientific need and value, and hire the best personnel available. In identifying the highest priorities for new hiring, the managers within MRSP should pay special attention to strengthening and developing the newly emphasized components of Environmental Behavior of Mineral Deposits and Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines. However, opportunities must also be made to recruit first-class personnel in the traditional elements of Mineral- Resource Frontiers and Mineral-Deposit Studies, especially because downsizing and retirements have greatly decreased the number of experts in mineral resources within the USGS (Figure 1-1). During the scientific and organizational transitions that are now occurring within the USGS, it would be highly desirable for the MRSP to further strengthen and develop scientific and project relationships with appropriate personnel in the Water Resources and National Mapping Divisions, and in other programs in the Geologic Division, especially the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program. PLANNING AND PERFORMANCE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 4 The MRSP and its Plan should place greater emphasis on improving the mechanisms and procedures for comprehensive planning, setting priorities, and evaluating and enhancing performance, particularly through external reviews or advisory panels.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 56 The principle of calling on external guidance to assist in program design and development is well established. Many federal agencies have strengthened and built support for their programs through the use of advisory panels, such as those governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, National Research Council committees, and other less formal arrangements (Sidebar 3.2). The National Research Council panel is very concerned that MRSP clients, users, stakeholders, and partners of the MRSP have not been adequately consulted in the design, implementation, and scheduling of previous assessments and resource investigations and that close collaboration with these users has either not taken place or has commonly been unsatisfactory. Several alternative mechanisms can be envisioned to address the need for external guidance (Sidebar 3.2). General Recommendation 2 covers input at the project level. At the program level, the panel suggests that the MRSP consider establishing an external advisory panel. Suggested charges for the panel may include helping to establish priorities that would guide project selection; providing guidance regarding directions of the program; identifying linkages with other USGS programs and other federal and state programs; helping to establish performance measurement criteria and an external peer-review system; and helping to maintain awareness and interest on the issues and concerns in the broad community of users. Such an advisory panel could contain representation from federal and state agencies, industry, universities, consultants, and other users of MRSP research products. SIDEBAR 3.2 POSSIBLE MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE EXTERNAL GUIDANCE ⢠Project-level liaison and review committees (see General Recommendation 2) ⢠Program-level advisory panel established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ⢠Program-level advisory panel established by the National Research Council ⢠Exchange of employees with other federal agencies and with other USGS programs.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 57 In addition to this advisory panel, the MRSP should consider asking the National Research Council to periodically review program plans, such as has been the task of this panel. We note, for example, that the minerals information activities transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Mines to the USGS in January, 1996 were not included in the MRSP Plan or the charge to the panel. Given the importance of these features in meeting national needs for mineral resource information and in the core competence in the MRSP (General Recommendation 3), we suggest that the matter be externally reviewed. An on-going NRC review committee under the Water Science and Technology Board has been successful for the research programs of the Water Resources Division of the USGS. The committee has produced several reports in the last five years, and these reports have helped guide programs in the Water Resources Division. As noted in Chapter 2, the MRSP would benefit from better communication between its staff and staff of the federal land-management agencies. The MRSP should consider exchanging employees with other federal agencies (on personnel details through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act) to learn more about user needs and approaches, and to help follow through with uses of MRSP products. Similarly, exchanges of MRSP personnel with other units within the USGS, particularly the Water Resources Division and the geologic mapping, energy, and marine and coastal programs in the Geologic Division would foster cooperation and improve overall efficiency. Intra-agency transfers of staff could be used to build expertise in areas such as hydrology and microbiology and facilitate a multidisciplinary approach in the relatively new environmentally-oriented subprograms. Linked to the mechanisms discussed above is the question of setting and maintaining appropriate program balance. This question was part of the charge to the panel, but it proved difficult to address. Without more quantitative input regarding the future needs and priorities of users of the MRSP products, and without better knowledge of the relations between the MRSP and other USGS programs, we found it impossible to adequately evaluate the funding levels, scope, and program balance. The panel recognizes that this will require extensive discussions within the MRSP, within the USGS, and particularly with users. This evaluation could be a prime responsibility of an advisory panel.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 58 The level, balance, and scope of the research in the Plan have been developed during a time of disruption and transition in the USGS. Even if they were designed to provide an appropriate scientific basis for informed decision- making and to build a scientific foundation for the future at the time they were developed, the panel questions whether they are appropriate now. The level of funding for the MRSP and the balance of funding among its subprograms deserves thorough collaborative review by MRSP personnel, users, and collaborative agencies and organizations. In order to address these matters, the short-term client needs for mineral resource information and the core competence requirements of the Program to meet the long-term public needs should be carefully evaluated. This will require extensive discussions within the MRSP, with the USGS, and particularly with users. With this background it will be possible for the MRSP and users to develop funding levels, scope, and balance for the program that will address both current clients needs and long-term national needs for mineral resource information. Discussion of the level, balance, and scope of activities in the Plan could be a major oversight responsibility of the proposed MRSP advisory panel. The panel has commented generally, however, on the internal distribution of funding within the MRSP. Specifically, Recommendation C (Chapter 2), says that assessments can be conducted more efficiently while still meeting the needs of land management agencies, and that the cost-savings should be directed toward more fundamental investigations in other parts of the MRSP. Recommendation G suggests redirecting funds from Studies in Support of Remediation to fundamental investigations in the MRSP. Looking to the future, the panel agrees with the MRSP Plan's increasing emphasis on concerns about the impacts of mineral resource development on the environment. To this extent, the panel finds that fundamental studies (particularly in the Environmental Behavior of Mineral Deposits and the Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines components of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram) deserve more emphasis. Also related to the questions of funding levels, scope, and program balance, the MRSP should focus on providing data and information that are of national interest and avoid commitment to projects that are more properly the responsibilities of state and local governments. For example, the proposed study of aggregate resources
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 59 in the corridor along the Colorado Front Range might be viewed as a Colorado and Wyoming state issue unless the USGS establishes a compelling national justification for the project. There is a clear federal role when issues are generic in nature, affect a number of states, or where land is managed by the federal government. In such instances, it is important that fair and appropriate cost- sharing arrangements be developed. Funds can flow in either direction. Finally, the panel notes the recommendations of the 1995 National Research Council report on Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. With regard to funding, this report addresses the need for maintaining a world-class level of scientific and technical performance. While other federal agencies provide a small amount of support for research on mineral resources, the MRSP is the largest federal program in this area. In its review, the panel developed concerns that the amount of funding for the MRSP and the current performance of the program are not sufficient to achieve the desired world-class level of performance. As stated above, the panel finds that to establish the appropriate level of support for the program, extensive discussions within the MRSP, within the USGS, and with users are necessary.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 60
