Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Volcano Hazards Program (2000) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Programmatic and Institutional Issues
5 Programmatic and Institutional Issues
Pages 79-92
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 79... ...
This chapter considers three such themes that impact the full spectrum of VHP activities: human resources, integration and communication, and priority setting and accountability. Accomplishing the specific recommendations in earlier chapters will not be possible without simultaneously addressing three cross-cutting obstacles: inadequate staff who are inappropriately distributed, lack of coordination between the activities of the VHP and those of the rest of the voIcanological and broader natural hazards establishment, and insufficient oversight of what individual scientists do.
|
From page 80... ...
Overlap of new staff with existing staff is essential for orderly transition of duties and transfer of knowledge, not only of volcanology and associated hydrology, but also of procedures for communicating with users of information. This is especially critical in the case of VDAP, where knowledge of effective crisis management resides in the experience of a small group of scientists and technicians, many of whom may retire in the next 5-10 years.
|
From page 81... ...
Helens eruption along with the expansion of global communications made the public much more aware of eruptions worldwide and led to increased student enrollments and faculty hiring in volcanology at universities in the United States and abroad. This trend contributed to a dramatic relative increase of volcanologic knowledge outside the USGS.
|
From page 82... ...
Members of the VHP have highly variable records of involvement in these "extracumcular" activities, partly because of budget constraints and partly through apparent lack of motivation or managerial encouragement. The result is that some VHP scientists appear to have a relatively parochial or obsolete view of their field, making it more difficult for them to carry out their responsibilities effectively.
|
From page 83... ...
Senior VHP administrators explained that they felt strongly that their role was to provide scientific background necessary to help public officials make policy judgements associated with volcanic hazards, but not to get directly involved in the decisionmaking process itself. The committee understood and mostly concurred with the reasoning behind this separation of tasks between the VHP and the local government agencies.
|
From page 84... ...
An extramural grants program (perhaps modeled after the interagency National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) would take advantage of the talents of outside researchers in academic, government, and private institutions and focus their efforts on VHP goals.
|
From page 85... ...
In exchange, university faculty on sabbatical leave could bring the latest concepts to observatories, serve on VDAP deployments abroad, or participate in outreach activities. Federal Coordination A broader communication problem exists among all of the federal agencies involved with volcano hazards research.
|
From page 86... ...
Depending on his or her location and their inclination, an individual VHP scientist or technician might report to one of the four observatory scientists in charge, to the head of the Western Region in MenIo Park, to the local branch chief in Flagstaff, to the VHP coordinator in Reston, or to one of various administrators within the Water Resources Division. This confusing arrangement results in part from the Geologic Division's tradition of using rotational administrative assignments, rather than hiring or developing career administrators.
|
From page 87... ...
In the observatory environment, volcano monitoring, hazard assessment, and communication with civil authorities may be most important, but during periods of volcano unrest and newly evolving activity, volcano crisis response assumes special priority. For example, the 1983-2000 (and continuing)
|
From page 88... ...
For example, the VHP should produce a prioritized list, with completion dates, for all volcanoes of the Cascade Range for which comprehensive research projects and hazard assessments will be conducted. The ongoing collaborative research program at Mount Rainier volcano serves as a good example.
|
From page 89... ...
Whatever solution is implemented, it must meet the needs of the program, foster both applied and process-oriented research, and appropriately reward employees for published research, assessment and monitoring studies, and public outreach. Such a shift would have to recognize the existing divisional differences in personnel practices and provide a means for orderly transition for those individuals who would change their affiliations.
|
From page 90... ...
providing documentation and access requires substantial investment of funds and personnel; and (4) neither the scientific community nor research institutions recognize or reward the production of high-quality, welldocumented, publicly accessible data sets.
|
From page 91... ...
The committee recommends a structured program of prioritized resource allocation for bringing legacy data sets to high-quality, well-documented status. The personnel performance review and rewards system within the VHP should recognize the importance of high-quality, well-documented, publicly accessible data sets.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.