my point of view…

DOL Budget Proposes Cuts To USGS Minerals Information

Once again, red ink strikes at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Last year, the proposed budget targeted international minerals information programs and state minerals resource groups, but the functions were retained. This time, potential cuts are more precise and more aggregate-specific.
With a request of $904.0 million, USGS’s FY2003 budget is $46.7 million below the funding levels enacted in FY2002. A portion of those cuts impact both research and reporting functions in the aggregate industry.
Proposed cuts, according to the budget, include the following items:
• The termination of three projects on aggregate materials;
• The discontinuation of USGS funding for the Alaska minerals information project; and
• A reduction in the Minerals Information Team activity that will be targeted at international minerals information.
While many aggregate industry research needs may be met via the International Center for Aggregates Research or private programs, potential cuts in statistical information are even more problematic.
A USGS representative told me that the item on reductions in the Minerals Information Team activity was inaccurate: USGS is not specifically looking at cuts in international information. Domestic reporting capabilities may also be impacted. If the budget is approved, monthly and quarterly aggregate production statistics could be eliminated.
Aside from the obvious reduction in services, this budget raises several concerns.
The first issue is the lack of value being place on the functions of the Minerals Information Team. When this team’s functions were transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Mines to the USGS in 1996, they were transferred with a budget of $16 million. Since then, that budget has never been increased to reflect the impact of inflation, and it is now being targeted for significant decreases.
A second concern is the way in which the DOL juggles its increases and decreases. The proposed cuts account for a $3.55-million reduction in minerals information research and reporting. Yet, while the budget proposes elimination of funding for the Alaskan minerals information project, it also budgets a $1.0 million digital mapping project to take place where? Alaska.
Finally, the long-term implications of this budget concern me. For the first time, the USGS budget singles out aggregate programs for reductions. The significance of this is underscored by the way in which the international minerals reporting has been handled in the last two budgets. In FY2002, the budget deliberately proposed elimination of international minerals information. When this year’s budget was being written, the phrasing “international minerals information” (rather than “minerals information”) mistakenly found its way back into the budget. We certainly do not want aggregates to find their way into future budget cuts either intentionally or accidentally.
Voice your concerns about USGS funding cuts to the USGS director, Dr. Charles G. Groat. Write him at U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters, John W. Powell Federal Building, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, VA 20192 or email him at cgroat@usgs.gov.

May 2002 my point of view... DOL Budget Proposes Cuts To USGS Minerals Information				my point of view… DOL Budget Proposes Cuts To USGS Minerals Information Once again, red ink strikes at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Last year, the proposed budget targeted international minerals information programs and state minerals resource groups, but the functions were retained. This time, potential cuts are more precise and more aggregate-specific. With a request of $904.0 million, USGS’s FY2003 budget is $46.7 million below the funding levels enacted in FY2002. A portion of those cuts impact both research and reporting functions in the aggregate industry. Proposed cuts, according to the budget, include the following items: • The termination of three projects on aggregate materials; • The discontinuation of USGS funding for the Alaska minerals information project; and • A reduction in the Minerals Information Team activity that will be targeted at international minerals information. While many aggregate industry research needs may be met via the International Center for Aggregates Research or private programs, potential cuts in statistical information are even more problematic. A USGS representative told me that the item on reductions in the Minerals Information Team activity was inaccurate: USGS is not specifically looking at cuts in international information. Domestic reporting capabilities may also be impacted. If the budget is approved, monthly and quarterly aggregate production statistics could be eliminated. Aside from the obvious reduction in services, this budget raises several concerns. The first issue is the lack of value being place on the functions of the Minerals Information Team. When this team’s functions were transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Mines to the USGS in 1996, they were transferred with a budget of $16 million. Since then, that budget has never been increased to reflect the impact of inflation, and it is now being targeted for significant decreases. A second concern is the way in which the DOL juggles its increases and decreases. The proposed cuts account for a $3.55-million reduction in minerals information research and reporting. Yet, while the budget proposes elimination of funding for the Alaskan minerals information project, it also budgets a $1.0 million digital mapping project to take place where? Alaska. Finally, the long-term implications of this budget concern me. For the first time, the USGS budget singles out aggregate programs for reductions. The significance of this is underscored by the way in which the international minerals reporting has been handled in the last two budgets. In FY2002, the budget deliberately proposed elimination of international minerals information. When this year’s budget was being written, the phrasing “international minerals information” (rather than “minerals information”) mistakenly found its way back into the budget. We certainly do not want aggregates to find their way into future budget cuts either intentionally or accidentally. Voice your concerns about USGS funding cuts to the USGS director, Dr. Charles G. Groat. Write him at U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters, John W. Powell Federal Building, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, VA 20192 or email him at cgroat@usgs.gov.