Table of contents welcome 1
Group 2---Technical Soil Services- Roles and Responsibilities
Download 0.65 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Group 3—Resource Soil Scientists/Supervision
Group 2---Technical Soil Services- Roles and ResponsibilitiesDefinition/Interpretation – What does Technical Soil Services Mean? CO-O2- Production and explanation of soil survey products CO-01- Application of Soil Survey in Agency Programs Both are technical Soil Services, only the funding is different. Note- PL89-560 –Assistance for community planning and resource development. Does this require us to seek funding for TSS for technical soil Services for the purposes stated in the law?
Current Roles and Responsibilities were discussed during other parts of the Meeting and are in the National Soils Handbook Part 655. Soil Scientists need to understand these responsibilities and their application. Additional Comments by the group: Flexibility to perform a variety of tasks Open soil conservationist positions to TSS 470 series especially in cases (areas) where most activities are TSS related. Range conservation, wetland determinations, engineering investigations, LESA, prime and important farmland determinations, education. Not all TSS must be provided by soil scientists- could establish “job approval” authority as one state has done. Combined responsibilities of TSS and SSPL Some TSS add to and edit NASIS soil data, or provide customized or specific types or formats of soil data. Apply research data to soil survey work and data. How many states have combined the responsibilities SSPL and TSS in last few years? Some states did and those that have combined the responsibilities felt it was a matter of limited, tighter budgets. How many states have Resource Soil Scientists that do not map? Four of the states in the group had RSS that had no mapping goals and they are all supervised by someone other than soil scientists. In Maine a void was left when soil survey projects were completed in the area and soil scientists moved. This created a recognized need for Resource Soil Scientists.
Critical things are getting done but some of the things that should be done can’t get worked on because of inadequate resources. Where RSS map soils and provide TSS, a balance must be struck. TSS and Soil Survey production are inversely related. If TSS goes up, SS acres go down or quality decreases, with equal resources. States need to identify all needs for TSS in workload analysis; we must look at the functions performed by Soil Conservationists, Engineers, etc. Soils are only a small part of some of the workload. Questioned states present in the group on the portion of workload of TSS that is performed for Agency (NRCS) Programs versus those for State. Local, public, or other federal agencies: For NRCS Programs For Others
Wide variations exist from state to state on the portions of TSS for NRSC vs. that for other agencies. It might be a good idea to poll all states to see if this is geographically related, especially since this may be a significant factor in deciding a funding formula for TSS. What is the scope of authority? The group discussed this issue extensively. There are obvious differences in how this is interpreted by different states. The following were some of the views expressed by different group members. On-site assistance to non-Conservation practices On-site assistance or other assistance to district cooperators Do not interfere with services provided by the private sector Do not review or evaluate mapping for specific non-agency purposes. Enter cooperative agreements with state/county agencies to provide onsite assistance technical investigations, or services Federal Agreements are reimbursed for mapping. Other kinds of services may not always be reimbursed? Individuals in the group listed some things they felt that should not be done: Those beyond our expertise A more detailed Soil Survey without a MOU or cooperative agreement We don’t really understand our authorities or they are inconsistently interpreted or applied from state to state. Does an agreement through a Conservation district or state/county agency, expand our authority to provide services? Should not provide service for another agencies regulatory program. What Is the Ideal Structure? State Conservationist and state management recognizes the importance of TSS. Resource Soil Science positions designed to assist field offices with workloads. Make a distinction between TSS activities and mapping and production activities. Fund some parts of TSS by cooperative agreement At least one person per NRCS administrative area to provide TSS Foster sharing of personnel for TSS across political boundaries. Adequate budget based on workload analysis, needs and performance. Put TSS in agreement for updating and maintenance projects. Group 3—Resource Soil Scientists/SupervisionSummary of Discussion The workgroup reviewed the main points from the Technical Soil Services Issue Paper developed at the 1997 State Soil Scientist meeting. The group discussed the issue of supervision of the soil scientists who are responsible for technical soil services. The 1997 Technical Soil Services issue paper recommended that the state soil scientist should supervise these soil scientists. The recently issued General Manual policy regarding this was reviewed. It was determined that the policy adequately covers this issue, but the policy is not being followed is many states. It was also noted during the discussion that policy states that project leaders are to be supervised by the MO Leader, unless the MO Leader delegates this responsibility to the states. Only in rare instances are the MO Leaders supervising the project leaders within a state other their own. Although the MO Leaders have not delegated this responsibility to the state, individuals within the state supervise the project leaders. The workgroup thought that the reference of MLRA Leaders as supervisors of project leaders should be removed from the policy in the General Manual for the following reasons: 1) the supervision of the project leaders can be adequately accomplished by the state soil scientist, 2) the MO Leader in most instances is too geographically remote from the project offices in other states to adequately accomplish supervision, and 3) project leaders and their staffs accomplish many other duties that are under the administrative responsibility of the state soil scientist and not the MO Leader. Most members of the committee agreed that the state soil scientist should be the supervisor of project leaders. The workgroup discussed the need to develop a process for capturing technical soil services accomplishments by a reporting system. It was noted that at the 1997 State Soil Scientist meeting, it was recommended that a QIT be established to further study this issue. The workgroup thought that is was appropriate to recommend that the 1997 recommendation be implemented. Directory: Internet -> FSE DOCUMENTS FSE DOCUMENTS -> Applications and limitations FSE DOCUMENTS -> Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard FSE DOCUMENTS -> Downloading gps gr-3 Surveys Summary of Procedure FSE DOCUMENTS -> All applications must be submitted by 12/01/2015 to be eligible FSE DOCUMENTS -> Indiana Conservation Programs for Copperbelly Water Snake Habitat FSE DOCUMENTS -> Administrator’s Corner FSE DOCUMENTS -> United States Department of Agriculture • Natural Resources Conservation Service FSE DOCUMENTS -> United States Department of Agriculture Soule River Hydroelectric Project FSE DOCUMENTS -> Ottawa national forest: checklist of the vascular flora of the mccormick wilderness Download 0.65 Mb. Share with your friends:
|