Mineral Resources and Society: A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan (1996)

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 47 Objectives and performance measures should be developed to implement and achieve the vision and the mission. The objectives also should address operational matters such as limited budgets, user needs, and program priorities. The Plan could be improved by building a stronger connection between the national needs addressed by the overall program and the specific questions addressed by each of subprograms. A clearer articulation of the vision, mission, and objectives of the overall program may lead to a clearer explanation of the key questions addressed by the each of the subprograms. Clearer statements of vision, mission, and objectives must be developed for the MRSP through in-depth consultation and discussion between MRSP users and MRSP staff. Only through such interactions with users will the MRSP develop a service culture to complement its scientific culture. CULTURE, CLIENTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 2 To fulfill its mission, the MRSP and its Plan should shift away from an organizational culture dominated by self-direction and independent research toward one that also embraces projects developed through collaboration with users. The culture of an organization is defined by many factors. These include the extent to which the staff understand and project the organization's vision, mission, and objectives; the way the organization communicates with its clients and users and how it responds to their needs; the way in which it organizes and manages its operations in order to meet its objectives; and the attitudes, values, and motivation of individuals and management. The culture of an organization should not be static; it must change as its external environment changes. The external environment within which the MRSP operates has changed more rapidly and extensively than the program itself. This requires that the MRSP reexamine how it operates, why, and for whom. The MRSP and its forerunners have a distinguished record of 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 48 conducting and reporting excellent science. This record is enviable and valuable, and the panel endorses this effort fully, anticipating that it will continue to be enhanced. Having said this, however, the panel suggests that in response to external changes the MRSP should now view itself not only as a science organization but also as a service organization with direct responsibilities to meet the immediate needs and expectations of its users. The science component nonetheless remains vital for long-term needs (see General Recommendation 3). The clients and users of MRSP products are many. First and foremost are the public and elected and appointed officials who represent them. Other clients, users, and interested parties include federal land-management agencies, the mining and quarrying industries, environmental organizations, state geological surveys, state regulatory agencies, local governments, universities, other federal agencies (particularly the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers), and other groups within the USGS (particularly in the Water Resources Division and in the geologic mapping, energy, and marine and coastal programs). Although the MRSP Plan has identified federal land-management agencies as primary users, the panel has doubts that the MRSP staff has an adequate understanding of the needs of these clients or how MRSP information is being used. Furthermore, as a result of interviews with land-management agencies, the panel concluded that these agencies do not fully appreciate the potential value and usefulness of resource assessments, and they are not convinced of the continuing need for resource assessments. The MRSP staff has not taken full advantage of opportunities to improve its program through partnerships. Data and expertise that currently reside in industry (particularly regarding assessments), state geological surveys, and academia, if incorporated into the MRSP and checked for quality by the USGS, could greatly enhance the efficiency and thoroughness of the program. Participation with academia through various mechanisms could also be used to ensure that key researchers have an opportunity to contribute to the program. Greater outreach to all potential users will help the program break out of its pattern of isolation. Many individuals interviewed by the panel expressed concerns about the timeliness of MRSP reports. In some instances reports were released well after a time at which they would have been of optimal 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 49 value to the user. Furthermore, many users of MRSP work are not scientific experts and need information and analysis in a format that is more compatible for their use than has been the practice. The panel recognizes the dilemma that the MRSP has in meeting the needs of users and at the same time maintaining the high quality of their traditional scientific products (i.e., professional papers and fully reviewed maps and circulars), but service to users must be a prime objective of the MRSP. The panel repeatedly heard opinions from users that the MRSP should devote more attention and effort to geological mapping and related basic geoscience data acquisition. The panel noted that there is minimal reference in the MRSP Plan to the integration of geologic mapping in the assessment or mitigation subprograms. Further, the panel finds it inappropriate that, on the basis of briefings received from USGS personnel, there is little apparent integration of planning priorities between projects in the Geologic Division's National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and mapping in connection with MRSP assessment activities. The panel is aware of the possibility that this lack of correlation may be more apparent than real and may reflect limitations of the evidence placed before the panel. Nevertheless, this topic is conspicuous by its absence in the MRSP Plan. The MRSP may be able to leverage its geological mapping activities through closer coordination with state geological surveys. The federal-state partnership established under the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program provides a convenient mechanism for achieving this goal. The concerns expressed above (developed from individuals interviewed by the panel) reinforce the panel's perception that the MRSP is too strongly internally focused. The panel suggests that the MRSP must now modify this traditional approach by changing its operational culture to work more closely with clients and users. Some specific recommendations follow: • The MRSP staff should actively involve users in planning projects to help determine the appropriate work products, analytical techniques, map scale, level of detail, and other parameters. The MRSP could benefit greatly from much more external input (from industry, other federal government scientists, land managers, policy makers, state government, academia, environmental organizations, and 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 50 the general public) at all stages of its work, especially in planning and review. Obviously, different users should be approached for different projects. For example, land managers and affected parties will have more interests in assessments, whereas academia may have more to contribute to long-term research projects. External input is needed on proposals and plans, for specific projects, work in progress, and review of reports and maps prior to publication. This external input can be solicited at minimal cost to the MRSP. For example, the USGS Water Resources Division has established liaison committees for the projects within its National Water Quality Assessment Program, as well as a review committee for its research activities. These committees have been successful in guiding projects, and communicating preliminary results to a wide range of users. The panel recommends that similar committees be considered for MRSP activities. Such committees could also promote an understanding of how MRSP information is being used or might be used by a variety of clients. In addition to external input at the project level, General Recommendation 4 covers external input at the program level through the creation of a program-level advisory panel. • The MRSP should seek partnerships with interested parties, in particular state agencies, industry, and academia, in the collection of data and the conduct of projects. In some instances, cost-sharing mechanisms should be pursued to increase the overall efficiency of data collection, assessments, and research. The panel recommends that the MRSP vigorously seek appropriate cost-sharing mineral-research projects with industry and international organizations where such projects are consistent with the goals and objectives of the MRSP and involve a clear connection to a public good. For example, the Geological Survey of Canada maintains a program whereby research consistent with the mission of the organization can be co-funded and co-delivered with industrial partners on a cost-shared basis. International activities should be strengthened through cooperative agreements with foreign governments, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the United Nations. 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 51 • The MRSP should develop an external grants program to assist its basic research function. Such grants would help to ensure that the overall program continues with a high level of quality, would allow flexibility for rapid redirection of programs as needed, and would provide an opportunity to coordinate with ongoing research at universities. Other USGS programs and other mission agencies, such as NASA, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Institutes of Health, have or are developing extramural research programs that complement their intramural research programs. The appropriate balance between intramural and extramural research programs for the MRSP should be addressed by the external advisory panel proposed in General Recommendation 4. The advisory panel could also help identify grand challenges in the area of resource and environmental research and guide research directions for the subprogram and the extramural funding program. • The MRSP should be responsive to the needs of users to have reports completed in a timely fashion. Better understanding of user needs, through continuing dialog, will help to establish realistic timelines. A balance must be kept between timely products, such as open-file reports that are needed for immediate project requirements, and fully reviewed, high-quality maps, professional papers, and bulletins that are the hallmark of USGS products. Recognizing that the MRSP should incorporate costs of publications into its budget, the panel urges that the MRSP maintain this balance and seek efficiencies through the use of new technologies, including electronic products such as CD-ROMs. • The panel concludes that the 1987 review of the USGS mineral resources program conducted by the Committee Advisory to the U.S. Geological Survey (National Research Council, 1987) contains findings and recommendations that remain valid today (Sidebar 3.1). In particular, given the fundamental importance of geologic mapping in the assessment and mitigation subprograms, the panel concludes that this activity should be more strongly reflected in the MRSP plan. 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 52 SIDEBAR 3.1 EXCERPTS FROM THE 1987 REVIEW OF THE USGS MINERALS PROGRAM Lack of Focus—Extreme Individualism: Many Survey professionals apparently believe that their principal function in the Survey is to pursue their own individual or topical programs, some of which can extend for many years. Some individualism is obviously desirable, provided the projects mesh with the Survey's major goals. But when allowed to operate too freely, individualism results in lack of program concentration and project completion, and leads to major complications in establishing and achieving deadlines. Teamwork-attitude and mission-orientation could be improved by: ... having all projects and programs undergo outside peer review at least every two years. (p. 8) Communication and Motivation: Closely related to [the preceding] item ... is the necessity to communicate accurately the Survey's needs and changes in its programs to the professional staff. In the review of the Office of Mineral Resources, the Subcommittee found a wide diversity of opinion as to the responsibility of the Office, ranging from “pure research and no economically-related responsibilities,” to responsive and exclusively “public service” (p. 8). Insufficient Time Devoted to Field Mapping: The “limited field season” approach to mapping and other field-related activities is wasteful of time and effort. Most Survey workers devote less than three months of a year to actual field work, including those who are involved in mapping and examining ore deposits as a major activity. The quality of these programs would be greatly enhanced by more original mapping. It is unfortunate that many of the competent “mappers” are spending a disproportionate amount of time on office and laboratory activities (p. 9).