TRANSFERRING 

EARTH SCIENCE INFORMATION 

TO DECISIONMAKERS 

Problems and Opportunities 

as Experienced by the 

U.S. Geological Survey 

NATIONAL 

POLICY 

Politics 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 813 

BASIC 

DATA 

Data 

Collection 

TRANSFERRING 

EARTH SCIENCE INFORMATION 

TO DECISIONMAKERS 

Problems and Opportunities 

as Experienced by the 

U.S. Geological Survey 

By Thomas F. Bates 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

1979 

CIRCULAR · 81!3 
United States Department of the Interior 

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretory 

Geological Survey 

H. William Menard, Director 

Library of Congress catalog-card No. 79-600138 

Free on application to Branch ol Distribution, U.S. Geologico/ Survey, 1200 South fads Street, Arlington, VA 22202 
FOREWORD 

In 1972, the Survey's ninth Director, V. E. McKelvey, 

expressed his concern that the U.s. Geological Survey was 

not communicating earth science information to the land 

resource planners and decisionmakers of the Nation as effectively and widely as possible. Director McKelvey perceived 

a need for the Survey to enlarge its traditional style and 

format of communication, and established in 1974 a testing 

ground within the Survey, the Land Information and Analysis 

(LIA) Office, where experimental programs could be carried 

out to develop new methods of information transfer. 

Several themes emerge from the experience of the diverse 

LIA programs that should be of particular interest to scientists and engineers concerned with effectively conveying 

earth science information to planners and decisionmakers. 

Among these are: 

• The earth scientist must be able to view a problem 

from the decisionmaker' s perspective to facilitate 

development of useful earth science information. 

• Consultation and follow- up contact is necessary 

until the use by planners and decisionmakers of a 

particular kind of earth science information becomes 

a regular accepted practice. 

The report that follows highlights these and other 

points, and is offered with the hope that the earth science 

community will build upon our experiences. 

--. -;/·7~/3 fi~; 

J. R. Balsley / 

Chief, LIA Office 

iii 

I 

Contents 

Page 

Foreword, by James Balsley---------------------------------------- iii 

Introduction------------------------------------------------------ 1 

Acknowledgments--------------------------------------------------- 3 

USGS activity in the land use planning area----------------------- 4 

Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) Program------------------ 6 

Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Program----------- 6 

Geography Program-------------------------------------------- 6 

Resource and Land Investigations (RALI) Program-------------- 7 

Earth Sciences Applications (ESA) Program-------------------- 7 

Users and their needs--------------------------------------------- 8 

LIA experience at the producer-user interface--------------------- 14 

Urban area study projects of the ESA Program----------------- 17 

RALI project for "Onshore Planning for Offshore 

Oil and Gas Development"----------------------------------- 22 

USGS-State Land Use and Land Cover Mapping Project----------- 23 

Pacific Northwest Land Resource Inventory 

Demonstration (PNLRID) Project-----~----------------------- 24 

Idaho phosphate environmental impact statement--------------- 26 

Conclusions------------------------------------------------------- 27 

References cited-------------------------------------------------- 29 

Dlustration 

Page 

Figure 1. Location of representative LIA information transfer 

projects, 1970-78------------------------------------ 9 

Tables · 

Page 

Table 1. "Driving forces" that encourage use of new products, 

tools, and techniques-------------------------------- 13 

2. State land use programs-------------------------------- 15 

3. Land Information and Analysis program characteristics-- 18 

v 

TRANSFERRING EARTH SCIENCE INFORMATION 

TO DECISIONMAKERS 

PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES AS EXPERIENCED 

BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

By Thomas F. Bates 

INTRODUCTION 

Owing to increasing energy, environmental, and land use pressures, 

earth scientists must augment their efforts to make earth science information (ESI) more readily available and useful to the citizens of the United 

States. Two major trends account for these pressures: (1) Increasing 

numbers of decisions are being made· in the counties and municipalities 

throughout the country relating directly to effective use of the Nation's 

land surface and subsurface. (2) Federal, State, and local regulations, 

as well as assistance programs for more effective and commonly multiple 

use of the land and its resources, either encourage or require local land 

use planners and decisionmakers to take earth science information into 

account. They can do so only if ESI is transferred effectively to them 

and the citizens they serve. 

The magnitude of the challenge to the earth science community will 

justify the attention of a large proportion of its members, whether employed 

as consultants, or by government, universities and colleges, or private 

industry. Indeed, the task is so great that it will require an appreciable 

increase in the size of this community over the years--first, to correct 

current deficiencies and, second, to provide continuing growth to meet 

increasing demands. 

The interest in applying earth science information more effectively 

to land use planning problems is not new: the Soil Conservation Society 

of America held its first meeting on land use in May 1948. Again, positions 

for engineering geologists were established in both the city and county 

of Los Angeles in 1959. Each year increased attention and time is given 

to the subject by earth science information producers and land use planners 

alike. 

1 
What is new is that the needs are assuming nationwide proportions 

and no longer relate only to people that have suffered, or that live 

in anticipation of, earth-related catastrophes, such as earthquakes, landslides, and floods. Population continues to increase, and "set-aside" 

legislation for parks, highways, wild and scenic areas, etc., inexorably 

reduces the average private-land acreage per U.S. citizen. As a result, 

new problems confront thousands of communities throughout the Nation. 

These include: Water supply and water quality, solid and liquid waste 

disposal, loss of prime agricultural land, pollution of air and water, 

recovery (or preservation for future recovery) of construction materials 

and other mineral and fuel resources in urbanizing areas, more use of 

the subsurface for transportation and utility corridors as well as parking garages and working quarters, and multiple land and water uses where 

conflicting purposes and societal pressures dictate shared responsibilities 

of various interest groups. 

Past and current activities in the information transfer area, such 

as those reported herein, show that an appreciation at local government 

levels of the potentialapplications of earth science informationdepends 

on a large number of variables which differ from place to place. Each 

town and county, council of governments, and river basin commission will 

need assistance from soil scientists, geologists, hydrologists, engineers, 

biologists and/ or other earth scientists to meet its own land use problems. 

However, in each instance one ingredient is essential to success, namely, 

the establishment and maintenance of close, mutually beneficial working 

relationships among the cooperating groups--the scientists, the land use 

·~planners and decisionmakers, and the citizens they serve. 

In an editorial (Woolfe, 197 8) on the lack of meaningful interaction 

between earth scientists and planners, Donald A. Woolfe, former Planning 

Director of the San Mateo County Planning Department in California, offered 

this advice to geologists: "it is imperative for you to develop a trusting, 

working relationship with someone who has the ability to sell your information to public officials. Join with other environmental professionals! 

Take a planner to lunch!" In this and other ways he was pointing out 

that the use of earth science information for planning and decisionmaking 

will not achieve its full potential until earth scientists and planners 

understand each other's needs, problems, pressures, and aspirations and 

can communicate these to each other in a common language. 

The number of geologists working as, or in close association with, 

planning officials, and the number of planners who have been geologists, 

is small. Although 'energy and environmental pressures are encouraging 

some universities to include a smattering of earth science courses in 

their planning curriculums, and although some State geological surveys 

have long been attempting to educate the citizenry in the importance 

of environmental geology, the earth science community as a whole has 

yet to realize that it has primary responsibility for ensuring adequate 

and proper use of earth science information by the public and its representatives. 

The earth scientist-citizen user community partnership must prevail 

throughout all phases of land use planning and decisionmaking. Key role 

2 
players within the various "power structures" of the area involved must 

first be identified; joint assessments of perceived and real needs and 

of the nature and format of the products to best help satisfy those 

needs must then be made; and preparation and transfer of the information 

in ways that will ensure its most effective application by the lay user 

to the problem should follow. Throughout the overlapping stages of need 

assessment, product preparation and packaging, and information transfer 

and use, there must be continual formal interaction and informal dialog 

between the producer and user communities if the needs of the latter 

are to be most effectively served. 

This paper reports on the experiences of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

scientists in interfacing with members of the land use planning and decisionmaking community on a wide variety of projects of the type administered 

by the Land Information and Analysis (LIA) Office of the USGS. It addresses 

the following questions: 

o Who are the new users of earth science information, and what 

characteristics and interests place them in a position to 

relate more closely to the earth science community? 

o What are the needs of these users for earth science information? 

o What specific forces generate pressure for increased application of earth science information to land use planning 

problems? 

o What are some of the difficulties faced by the earth science 

producer and the user communities in working together on 

these needs and problems? 

o Whatare some of the more successful methods, asdemonstrated 

on USGS projects~ of transferring earth science information 

to nontechnical users? 

Examples provided herein are drawn from a large number of LIA projects. 

They comprise a small but reasonably representative sample of the activities 

of five USGS programs, (1) which are interdisciplinary with respect to the 

four existing USGS divisions (Conservation, Geologic, Topographic, and 

Water Resources) and (2) which administer projects that relate to and 

involve the user community mentioned above. 

'ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The material for this paper was obtained in part from analysis of 

a number of program evaluation reports (referenced herein) but to a greater 

extent from interviews with a large number of people personally involved 

in earth science information exchange. The heads of the five LIA programs 

and numerous LIA project leaders and staff members who interface between 

the earth scientists and the land use planners and decisionmakers have 

been particularly helpful. The author is particularly grateful to Carol Hurr 

and Jennifer Shawe for careful, critical editing of the manuscript. 

3 
USGS ACTIVITY IN THE LAND USE PLANNING AREA 

The U.S. Geological Survey has lead agency responsibility for the 

welfare of the American people so far as it depends on the discovery, 

understanding, and effective use of data and information about the Earth 

and its physical resources. In the 100 years since ,it was founded in 

187 9, the USGS has met the earth science information needs of a wide 

variety of us·ers, including: -

o Hikers, fishermen, prospectors, landowners, surveyors, the 

military, and a host of others relying on its topographic 

maps. 

o Natural science and engineering professionals depending on 

geologic maps, water data, and resource assessments to advance 

their own interests or those of their organizations. 

o State Survey and academic personnel sharing the challenges 

of scientific discovery to advance the state of knowledge 

of the Earth and the universe about it. 

The great majority of these users have had sufficient motivation and 

self-interest to seek out earth science information, as provided by the 

USGS and other producers, and to learn how to use it for their own particular 

purposes. 

In the fifties and sixties, a new set of potential users began looking 

more closely at the products of the USGS. With the passage of the Clean 

Water Act of 1965, city managers, county commissioners, and members of 

sanitation district boards and river basin commissioners found they had 

to be more concerned with both water supplies and effluents in their 

own and neighboring jurisdictions. Maps and water data from the USGS, 

the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other sources 

suddenly became important to these new "customers" who discovered the 

need for earth science information. 

In this same period, moqnting postwar population growth and development 

pressures were increasing the attractiveness of land surrounding the 

Nation's population centers. It. soon became evident--painfully so, in 

some cases--that land removed from agricultural and forest usage was not 

always geologically suitable for residential and commercial development. 

Landslides, shoreline erosion, fault zones, shrink-swell clays, subsidence 

phenomena, and eutrophication became terms all too familiar to developers 

and homeowners. With mounting talk of land use planning, in the county 

courthouse as well as on Capitol Hill, agencies at all levels of government 

evaluated their own activities in anticipation of possible Federal land 

use legislation. Such legislation was, in fact, seriously considered by 

the Congress in the early seventies and debated as a national need or, 

alternatively, as a threat to local jurisdictional authority. Awareness 

spread to an ever larger group of responsible citizens that earth science 

information, heretofore considered important only in areas of geologic 

hazards, was also important for communities with less "catastrophic" but 

more pervasive and long-reaching land use problems. The realization grew 

4 
that the inventory, characterization, and classification of the land and 

the subsurface is elemental and essential to its effective use. Citizens, 

planners, and decisionmakers inthe cities, counties, States and regions, 

unwilling or unable (politically) to consider jurisdictionwide land use 

planning, reinstituted conservation district approaches and began to talk 

in terms of fragile, critical, and special interest areas. 

In 197 4 the OPEC oil price increases added to the growing list of 

reasons for making the American public more earth science conscious and 

for encouraging planners and decisionmakers in energy-producing regions 

to take harder looks at the land and its resources. 

The 1970's became a period of rapid transition to a new era for the 

producers of earth science information. The interacting impacts of energy, 

environment, and land use have led to the creation of a huge new set of 

potential users, who are, for the most part, not knowledgeable about 

the existence or usefulness of the products or even of the need to investigate 

that usefulness. One of the top priorities for the earth scientists is 

to educate the American citizen and his representatives in local, State, 

and Federal Government to the importance and applicability of earth science 

information to land resource planning and decisionmaking. 

In 1975, in recognition of this need and challenge, the Director of 

the U.S. Geological Survey set up the Land Information and Analysis (LIA) 

Office and charged it with providing national leadership in this area. 

LIA has worked toward the accomplishment of this mission by pursuing 

four major goals: 

1. To create in the citizens and their representatives a greater 

awareness and understanding of the usefulness--indeed, the 

critical importance--of earth science information in meeting 

many of their needs. 

2. To work with the divisions of the USGS in the preparation 

of technical earth science information in the formats and 

language most suitable for its effective use by intelligent 

laymen. 

3. To assist the public and its representatives in making use 

of the information by providing and sponsoring educational, 

advisory, and review services. 

4. To illustrate to the earth science community as a whole, by 

project examples and demonstrations, the difficulties, rewards, and challenges that earth scientists will face in 

furnishing such assistance. 

Five programs have been administered by LIA, all working toward the 

attainment of these goals. Each seeks to answer the question: How can 

earth scientists best help the American citizen use earth science information more effectively? 

5 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIA) PROGRAM 

The Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) Program constitutes an integrated USGS response to the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). Each environmental impact statement (EIS) for which 

the EIA Program is responsible is a compendium ofallavailable pertinent 

information (earth science, natural resource, socioeconomic, etc.), relative to an area of concern, set forth in a manner that clearly illustrates 

the most probable consequences of various actions upon the natural and 

human environment of that area. Each statement is prepared for a keenly 

interested, highly motivated segment of the user community concerned with 

the region involved. Formal public participation in the EIS process 

is provided for in NEPA and is further directed by guidelines to each 

EIS study team in the EIA Program. 

EARTH RESOURCES OBSERVATION SYSTEMS (EROS) PROGRAM 

The Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Program administered 

by the USGS on behalf of the Department of the Interior, develops techniques 

to obtain and analyze remotely sensed data and promotes the use of these 

techniques in fulfilling the resource and environmental inventory and 

management responsibilities of the Department. This objective is accomplished in cooperation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

and other Federal agencies. 

A large part of the EROS Program effort is carried out at the EROS 

Data Center (EDC) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. EDC maintains an extensive 

archive of satellite imagery and aerial and space photographs of the 

Earth, processes and distributes photographic and digital products, and 

provides extensive user training and technical assistance in the use 

of remotely sensed data. There is a high demand for all these services, 

particularly applications training, by representatives of foreign, Federal, 

State, regional, and local government agencies. 

GEOGRAPHY PROGRAM 

The Geography Program of LIA provides nationwide capability to assess 

the status and changing nature of land cover and land use. Through cooperative agreements with State agencies, regional and river basin commissions, and local government units, Geography personnel furnish data 

showing what is happening to the land~ the rate at which it is happening, 

and the implications for society. Current users include a Department of 

the Interior task force studying the Barrier Islands of the Atlantic 

and gulf coasts, theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (formerly the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation), 

the Bureau of Land Management, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 

Soil Conservation Service, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Ozarks 

Regional Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, the Pacific 

Regional Commission, San Mateo County in California, and many State and 

local agencies. The Geography Program, like EROS, faces supply and demand 

6 
problems: rapidly increasing user demand throughout the Nation far exceeds 

the capabilities of the scientists and staff to advance and transfer 

the rapidly changing technology. Projects administered by both EROS and 

Geography address a wide spectrum of users, the majority of which are 

affiliated with agencies of Federal and State governments, and regional 

commissions. On the whole, these people, though not necessarily specialists 

with respect to the products and type of training LIA programs offer, 

are working in natural resource areas and are attempting to improve their 

own capa~ilities and the projects of the agencies they represent. Their 

interest is measured, in part, by their willingness to meet some of 

the program costs, using mechanisms ranging from cost-sharing arrangements 

in Geography's USGS-State cooperative land use and land cover mapping 

program, to payments of fees for courses and workshops at the EROS Data 

Center. Growing demand demonstrates that the technical training and 

specific products offered by these two LIA programs are increasingly 

essential to land resource planning and decisionmaking. (For example, 

see Natural Resource and Environment Task Force, Intergovernmental Science, 

Engineering, and Technology Advisory Panel (ISETAP), June 1978.) 

RESOURCE AND LAND INVESTIGATIONS (RALI) PROGRAM 

The Resource and Land Investigations (RALI) Program was established 

in 197 2 by the Secretary of the Interior to provide the organizational 

framework to more effectively mobilize the Department's technological 

capacity and scientific competence for objective analysis of the alternatives in land use. With appropriate collaboration by other agencies 

of Government, RALI provides the knowledge base for efficient and safe 

land and resource development. In addition, the program evaluates the 

tradeoffs between resource development and environmental protection concerns. The program's clientele is primarily Federal, State, and local 

land use planners but includes others that require earth science, biological, and socioeconomic data, methods, and technologies not available from 

any single Departmental bureau. 

The ·RALI Program demonstrates exceptional capability to explore, 

assess, and communicate the role of earth and natural science to the 

growing community of land resource planners and decisionmakers. RALI 

factbooks compile, analyze, and synthesize the information this community 

needs in critical land use planning areas. Workshops transfer this information in a manner tailored to fit the needs of the planners and 

the citizens they serve. The user population addressed is large and 

diverse, uncertain of its needs, and largely uninformed as to what part 

earth science should play relative to socioeconomic, legal, political, and 

other aspects of land resource evaluation and decisionmaking. 

EARTH SCIENCES APPLICATIONS (ESA) PROGRAM 

The Earth Sciences Applications (ESA) Program directs and coordinates 

multidisciplinary USGS projects aimed at providing earth science information 

for land resource decisionmaking. The program's objectives are threefold: 

(1) to interpret, demonstrate, and encourage the use of earth science 

7 
information for land resource decisionmaking through specially designed 

projects and report products and through interaction with, and technical 

assistance to, users; (2) to stimulate, coordinate, and integrate multidisciplinary land resource studies in the USGS; and (3) to serve as 

the focal point within the USGS for multidisciplinary studies in support 

of the work of other Federal, State, and local agencies. 

To accomplish its objectives, theE SA Program has undertaken projects 

in selected urban-centered areas of theUnited States. These studies are 

conducted by personnel of the Geologic, Water Resources, and Topographic 

Divisions of the USGS and are supported by funds from the ESA Program. 

Results are diverse. Robinson and Spieker (197 8) gave examples of the 

importance and utility of earth science products for land use planning 

and decisionmaking in these urban centers. Detailed assessments of the 

use ·of earth science products by city, county, and regional planning 

agencies in the San Francisco Bay region have been made by Kockelman 

(197 5, 1976, 197 9). The ESA Program has also completed tunneling-feasibility 

studies for the central business districts of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, and Los Angeles, California. Also, as the focal point for multidisciplinary land-resource studies, ESA has been instrumental in developing 

guidelines and procedures to enable the USGS to carry out geologic-hazard 

warning responsibilities, as required by the Disaster Relief Act of 197 4. 

Figure 1 shows the locations of some of the information transfer 

projects, studies, and workshops administered by these five LIA programs 

in fiscal years 197 0-7 8. For the period 197 4-7 8, a conservative count 

of all map and book reports prepared under the aegis of these programs 

totals 57 5. The following partial list of topics from theLIA bibliography 

demonstrates the variety and scope of program efforts and concerns. 

Coal development 

Computerized information 

Construction conditions 

Earthquakes 

Energy resources 

Engineering geology 

Environmental impact statements 

_ En~i_r_onm_e_!l_!:~-~~~_!!forma tion systems_ 

Erosion 

Faults 

Flood prone areas 

Hazards 

Hydrology 

Land use planning 

Landslides 

Liquefaction 

Mineral resources 

Oil spill trajectory 

Outer Continental Shelf 

Overburden 

Runoff 

Slope 

Urban planning 

Vegetation 

Waste disposal 

Water quality 

Water supply 

USERS AND THEIR NEEDS 

The community addressed by LIA projects, studies, and workshops comprises a wide spectrum of users, ranging from members of Federal, State, 

and local government agencies to the citizens they serve; diversity is 

the rule rather than the exception. Furthermore~ the character and compo8 
\0 

~ 

\0 

o.o.__, 

Geography Program 

E=':;:;:;;:jLand use and land cover mapping completed by 

end of 1978 f"JScal year 

AlASKA 

EXPLANATION 

Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) Program 

I:2ZJ Regional EIS, USGS lead responsibility 

e Site-specific EIS, USGS lead responsibility 

Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Program 

X EROS Data Center training programs 

Pacific Northwest Land Resource Inventory 

Demonstration Project 

Resource and Land Investigations (RALI) Program 

A Mineral Resource and Onshore Facility Siting 

workshops 

Earth Sciences Applications (ESA) Program 

• Urban area and tunneling studies 

FIGURE I.-Location of representative LIA information transfer projects, 1970-78. 
sition of this user community is continuously changing. Particularly in 

the land use planning area, where important decisions are made at the 

local jurisdictional levels, changes in citizen participation and interest, 

in elected officials, and not infrequently in planning staff members not 

only increase liaison problems but constantly expose the earth science 

information to interpretation by new personnel who have not had the benefit 

of previous experience with the project. This changing "mix" requires 

that earth science information be furnished in language and format easily 

comprehended by the intelligent layman. This concept appears simple enough; 

its application has proved to be more difficult. Although no one area 

in the information transfer field has received as much attention as this, 

this issue deserves more. 

Commonly, the earth scientists producing and disseminating information 

have little to do with, or say about, how and by whom the information 

is used. Conversely, some key users, who may have a great deal to do 

with the overall success of an ESI effort, are predetermined and well 

known to the information producers. The USGS-LIA project examples discussed 

in the next section extend to both extremes; indeed, the extremes may 

be represented within a single project. A final environmental impact 

statement (FES), prepared by the Environmental Impact Analysis Program, 

is used by decisionmakers in the Nation's Capital as the basis for judgments 

required by NEPA. Strictly speaking, these decisionmakers [e.g., the 

Secretary of the Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)] 

are the users of the information provided in the statement. But there 

is also a diverse group, including citizens, private and nonprofit organizations, and governmental agencies, that reacts to and uses the draft 

environmental statement (DES), which is subject to critical comment. This 

group is "unselec ted," at least by E SI producers, although its participation is sought both formally through public hearings and informally 

through a variety of contacts made in the preparation for and production 

of the report. 

When information products are in considerable demand, the producer 

has the greatest opportunity to determine their market. For example, 

remotely sensed data available through the training courses at the EROS 

Data Center are of such significance to so many potential users that limits 

must be placed on the number to be accommodated. 

The problem of effectively identifying and involving key r~presentatives from large and diverse user communities has proved to be different 

for each of the LIA program efforts. Experience has shown that earth 

scientists are unlikely to have specific knowledge of the pol! tics, administrative goals and procedures, and the numerous hidden forces that affect 

the operations and interests of many of the user communities; for this 

reason, alliance with an intermediary type of organization, respected 

by both producer and user communities, is often advisable. 

In the first of the Urban Area Studies (San Francisco Bay Region 

Environment and Resources Planning Study, 1971), the high population density 

of the Bay area made identification of key representatives in the huge 

user community particularly difficult. The Association of Bay Area 

Governments, acting as intermediary, helped to alleviate the problem. 

10 
For the Connecticut Valley Urban Area Project, the Connecticut 

Geological Survey worked with the USGS to assure linkage with citizens, 

planners, and decisionmakers at the local government levels. 

Certain problems are potential to any use of intermediaries; numerous 

factors affect and determine an organization's capability to serve in 

this capacity. On a number of the Urban Area Study projects, the attempted 

use of regional groups as coordinating and communicating "mechanisms" 

to link producer and user communities was found to be ineffective. Failure 

can be attributed to such things as lack of strength (political, financial, 

authoritative, or otherwise), lack of apparent "rewards" from the project 

(in the sense of its improving the image of the coordinating entity, 

at least in the eyes of its own members), or lack of sufficient preliminary 

planning to assure adequate understanding and commitment on the part 

of the intermediary. 

Unfortunately, there is some feeling in the community of earth scientists that the use of intermediaries, or transfer agents, relieves the 

information producers of responsibility for interfacing directly with 

the users, or even for putting their information into lay language. It 

is also felt that requiring or encouraging potential planners to include 

e·arth science courses in their training absolves information producers 

of these same responsibilities. LIAexperience has indicated that although 

both the use of transfer agents and the education of planners in the 

earth sciences (as well as of earth scientists in the art, science, and 

politics of planning) are increasingly important components of the information transfer system, nothing replaces intensive producer-user interaction, 

and preparation and presentation of products in the simplest form possible. 

There are three types of needs that must be served by the earth 

scientists in relating to the new user community: 

1. The need to make potential users aware of the availability, 

importance~ and utility of earth science information. 

2. T~e need for the products themselves--the maps, reports, remotely sensed photographs and data~ etc. 

3. The need to assist the user in the effective application of 

the information to his problems by providing appropriate 

educational~ advisory, and review services. 

The same considerations that determine the ability of earth scientists to identify and involve appropriate user communities and their 

leaders also have an important bearing on correctly assessing user needs 

for earth science information. In some areas~ needs are equally obvious 

to producers and users alike~ and the manner in which the needs can 

best be met may be very clearly defined. The RALI workshops, EROS Da.ta 

Center training application courses~ and environmental impact statements 

are in this category. These LIA projects are initiated because of product 

demand, generated in the first two examples by the activities of the 

scientists involved and in the last by NEPA legislation. 

11 
More commonly, user needs are not so well defined, and, because 

of lack of mutual understanding of each other's problems, both ESI producers 

and users may have perceptions of need that require considerable modification as the result of continuing dialog and mutual education. The Urban 

Area Studies projects, among others, were set up as demonstrations intended 

to determine, at least in part, (1) the ability of the earth scientists 

to respond to apparent needs of the user communities, and (2) the response 

of these communities to earth science information production and transfer 

efforts. Although some of the projects have accomplished more than others, 

all have successfully shown that earth science information is needed for 

good land use planning and that those members of land use planning and 

decisionmaking communities who have been made aware of the availability 

and utility of this information recognize this need and commonly advocate 

additional work in this area. 

The amount of effort that can justifiably be devoted by the information producers to each of the three types of need varies in proportion 

to other factors over which the earth science producer community may 

have moderate, little, or no control. One such factor involves those 

"driving forces," or pressures, on the members of the user community 

which require or encourage them to devote time, effort, and other resources 

to the application of earth science information. Examples of various 

types of driving forces are given in table 1. 

Members of the user community are most receptive to the use of 

earth science information when they are influenced by driving forces, 

such as peer pressure or legislative mandate. ·Thus, the success of any 

earth science information transfer project, including the effectiveness 

of producer-user interaction, is 'directly related to the amount of user 

commitment to the project as determined by such pressures. So it was 

that effective participation and conuni tment from State agencies in Oregon, 

Washington, and Idaho, in the Pacific Northwest Land Resource Inventory 

DemonstrationProject, was secured as a result of thedirect involvement, 

interest, and support of the three State Governors in their roles as 

members of the Pacific Northwest Regional Commission. Elements of both 

"peer" and "system" driving-force pressures were in effect. In a RALI 

project involving workshops on Onshore Facility Siting~ the requirements 

imposed by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act on State and local planners, the participation of the 

Governors' offices in selecting· the attendees, and the absence of fees, 

encouraged sincere and purposeful commitment by the user to the achievement 

of workshop objectives. In the Urban Area Studies Program, maximum produceruser interaction and consequent benefits to the users have accrued in 

those areas where the earth science information provides direct and useful 

input to help meet user needs generated by those driving forces resulting 

from State or Federal legislation. For example, passage of the AlquistPriolo Seismic Safety Act in California has greatly increased the demand 

for fault maps and earthquake study reports produced as part of the San 

Francisco. Bay Region study. Similarly, sand and gravel maps produced 

in the Front Range Urban Corridor studies in Colorado and drainage area 

maps on the Connecticut Valley Urban Area Project are among the many 

products generated in anticipation of or in responsetoland use planning 

needs resulting from Federal or State legislation. 

12 
TABLE !.--"Driving forces" that encourage use of new products, 

tools, and techniques 

Force 

Survival pressure--

Peer or competition 

pressure. 

System pressure----

Significance 

Probably most effective of 

all is survival of office 

(project, staff, responsibility, etc.). Requires 

adoption of new techniques, 

products, etc. 

Fairly effective. If it is 

the thing to do, market 

economics will provide the 

stimulus. 

Often very effective. The 

need to impress people "up 

the line" in the system, or 

in other units of the system, 

is often important. Also, 

if the system requires or 

encourages the use of the 

products, the pressure is 

obvious. May be in anticipation of laws, rules, and 

regulations, or after the 

fact. 

Problems 

Bureaucratic systems may 

allow archaic operations 

to survive long after 

they should be modernized 

or eliminated. 

Again, in bureaucratic 

systems (local, State 

and Federal Government), 

an operation can survive 

without too much concern 

for this element. 

Pressure must usually come 

from a high level if it 

is to be effective. Lack 

of money to implement laws 

may be major stumbling 

block. 

"Reward" pressure-- Fairly to very effective if 

benefits are obvious: free 

products and services, Federal 

or State monies tied to performance re various laws 

Unfortunately, many of 

these vehicles are 

deficient in spelling out 

specific requirements for 

effective use of earth 

(HUD 7 01, EPA 208, Mine Recla- science information. 

mation, Coastal Zone Management, etc.) 

In this connection, there is an increasing amount of Federal legislation which includes sections that implicitly encourage or explicitly 

require the application of earth science information. Spicer, Braud, and 

Bordelon (1977) pointed out: 

"Today, well over 850 Federal programs make available grants, 

loans, guarantees, technical assistance, land, and equipment 

or authorize direct Federal action. Many relate in some 

13 
manner to land development and use. Over 130 of these programs have a direct impact on land use. 

" ••• four are relatively broad in perspective. They are Section 

208 of the FWPCA [Federal Water Pollution Control Act]; Section 404 of the FWPCA; Sections 305, 306, and 308 of the 

CZMA; and Section 7 01 of the Housing and Urban Development 

Act." 

To this list the Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1977 can be added as 

another example of legislation of particular significance to ESI producers and the land use planning and decisionmaking community. 

Table 2 indicates the extent to which individual States, influenced 

in part by both Federal pressures and financial inducements, had begun 

to encourage more explicit land use planning and decisionmaking at State 

and local government levels. 

Since 1976, when these data were published, legislation at the Federal, 

State, and local level has not only increased but shows a growing tendency 

to regulate land use, as well as simply provide guidelines. The laws 

represent decisionmakers' interpretations of the concerns of their constituents for continued growth in an environment conducive to improved 

quality of life. They constitute the principal driving force that is 

rapidly increasing the need for earth science information for land use 

planners and decisionmakers. 

LIA EXPERIENCE AT THE PRODUCER-USER INTERFACE 

The five LIA programs relate to the users and their needs in a 

variety of ways. Table3 indicates some of these variations from program 

to program with regard to a number of user-related parameters. Parameter 

3, "Current product demand," provides an example. In the Environmental 

Impact Analysis Program, for example, demand for the the environmental 

impact statement is generated by the law that requires it. The ultimate 

users of an EIS are the administrative officials who must decide which 

of several courses of action is to be taken for the region, facility, 

or site under consideration. The public, including all groups and institutions, plays a dual role: first, as user of the information, and, 

second, as a participant in the preparation of the final EIS by virtue 

of reacting (in writing or at public hearings) to the draft EIS. Both 

the administrative officials and the public are interested in and concerned 

with the product. A high proportion of these users have a reasonably 

sound background knowledge of at least some of the subject matter and 

issues covered by the report and are highly motivated to seek out and 

understand all available information pertinent to their·concerns. 

Demand forEROSand Geography products is equally strong and rapidly 

increasing, but for different reasons. Remotely sensed information proves 

more and more useful in activities that range from scientific research, 

through natural and human resource inventory, todetection and assessment 

of land use and land cover changes over time. The need for photographic 

14 
..... 

1..11 

TABLE 2.--State land use programs 

[From Council of State Governments, 1976b] 

TJIM of State Program Coastal Power 

State Compreltenllve Mandatory Zone Wetlands Plant Surface 

,ermlt Coordinated Local Managements Mlnlng 7 

lncremental2 Management 4 Siting 6 

Sy•m' Planning 3 

Alat.ma X X A 

Alaska X X X 

Arizona X X 

Arkansas X A,B 

California X X X X 

Colorado X X 

Connecticut X X X X 

Delaware X X X 

Florida X X X X X X A 

Georgia X X X A,B 

Hat¥aii X X X X X 

Idaho X X 

Illinois X X A,B 

Indiana X X A.B 

Iowa A,B 

Kansas A.B 

Kentucky X A,B 

Louisiana X X 

Maine X X X (LTD) X X X A 

Maryland X X X X A.B 

Massachusetts X X X 

Michigan X X 

Minnesota X X X X X 

Mississippi X X 

Missouri X X X 

Montana· X X X A.B 

Nebraska X X 

Nevada X X X 

New Hampshire · X X X 

New Jersey X X X 

New Mexico X X A 

See footnote at enji of table. (Table continued on next page) 

Designation Differential Statewide 

of Critical Assessment Floodplain Shorelancls Management 1 o Areas 8 Laws 9 Act,, 

X 

B 

A X 

A X 

c X 

X A X I 

B X 

A X 

X A,C 

X B X 

A 

B X 

A X 

A X 

B 

X B X 

X B X 

B 

c X X 

X B X X 

X 

A X 

X B X X 

B X 

X B 

B.C 

B X 

A ----- ---- __ L__ ------------ - ·-----
-

0\ 

TABLE 2.--State land use programs--Continued 

Type of State Program Coastal Power Designation Differential Statewide 

Comprehensive Mandatory Wetlands Surface Floodplain State Zone Plant of Critical Assessment Shorelands Coordinated Permit Local Management 4 Management 5 

Sltlng 6 Mining 7 

Areas 8 Laws 9 Management 1 0 

Act'' 

System 1 lncremental 2 

Plannlng 3 

New York X X X 

North Carolina X X 

North Dakota 

Ohio X 

Oklahoma 

Oregon X X X 

Pennsylvania X 

Rhode I stand X X 

South Carolina X 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas X 

Utah X 

Vermont X X 

Virginia X X 

Washington X X 

West Virginia . Wisconsin X X 

Wyoming X X 

' State has authority to reauire perm1ts tor certain types of development 

2 State-established mechanism to coordinate state land use-related problems 

3 State reauires local governments to establish a mechan1sm for land use planning I e.g .. zoning. comprehensive plan. planning commissiOn). . 

• State is participating en the federally funded coastal zone management program authonzed by the 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

~State has authority to plan or rev1ew local plans or the ability 10 control land use en the wetland'> 

'State has authority to determine the siting of power plants and related facilities 

'State has statutory authority to regulate surface m1nes. (AI State has adopted rules and regulations. 

(8) State has issued technical gu1delines 

1 State has established rules. or is in the process of establishing rules. regulations. and guidelines tor the 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X X X B X 

X B X 

X A A 

X A B 

X A X 

X A X B 

X A X B 

X B 

X A B 

A X A 

X A,B 

X B 

A B 

X X c X 

A,B B 

X A B X X 

A,B X 

X X X X 

X A A 

1dentif1cation and deSignation ol areas of critical state concern {e g .. environmentally trag1le areas. areas 

of h1s1Cmca1 Significance 

• State has adopted tax measure which is designed to g1ve property tax relief to owners of agricultural or 

open space lands. (A) Preferential Assessment Program-Assessment of eligible land 1s based upon a 

selecled formula. which is usually use-value (8) Deterred Taxation-Assessments ot eligible land is based 

upon a selected formula. wh1ch is usually use-value and provides tor a sanction. usually the payment of back 

taxes. if the land is converted to a non-eligible use. IC) Restrictive Agreements-Eligible land is assessed at 

1ts u!llt-value. a reauirement that the owner sign a contract. and a sanction. usually the payment of back 

taxes if the owner VIOlates the terms of the agreement 

' 0 State has legislation authonzing the regulation of floodplains 

' 'State has legislation authorizing the regulation of shorelands of significant bodies of water 

·SOURCE Prepared by the Council of State Governments. based on enlormallon collected bv the Counc11 of State Governments. Land Use Planrnng Reports 1974 and 1975. and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Office 

of Land Use and Water Plann1ng; and the Resource Land Investigations Program Data comp1led October t 975 
imagery, digital data, and applications training is admitted by an ever 

larger number of users, to the point where program supply falls far 

short of user demand, even though users are willing to share the costs. 

The product demand for the RALI and ESA studies is less clear cut. 

ESA concentrates onES! application, particularly to urban area problems. 

RALI is more problem-oriented (how do we manage this coastal zone?; how 

do we mitigate these impacts of coal production?, etc.) and, through the 

use of factbooks and workshops, assists the users in developing approaches 

to problem solution by applying all types of pertinent information, including the earth sciences. The user communities involved are large and 

diverse, and their knowledge about the applicability of ESI to problem 

solution ranges from good to poor. Consequently, product demand must 

often be created by a variety of educational efforts designed to make 

the user aware that earth science information will indeed help in the 

solution of some of his problems. Here, driving forces come into play. 

Because the entire Nation is in some way subject to land-resource-related 

impacts (sanitary landfills, water quality and quantity, mineral and fuel 

extraction and land reclamation, multiple land use, etc.), the potential 

user community for RALI- and ESA-type assistance is huge. However, product 

demand will grow only as this population is made aware of the value 

of the available information. 

Difficulties encountered at the producer-user interface within these 

five LIA program areas, and the approaches that have proved successful 

in removing them~ are numerous and varied. The following section describes 

the general nature of the problems and cites a few examples of approaches 

taken and lessons learned in the LIA experience. 

URBAN AREA STUDY PROJECTS OF THE ESA PROGRAM 

Of the programs administered byLIA, ESA's Urban Area Study projects 

have had the greatest problem with producer-user interface, largely because 

of the size and diversity of the communities they are trying to serve. 

ESA has recognized this problem and attempted to meet it by investigating 

various approaches to its solution. Indeed, according to the program 

design statement for the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources 

Planning Study (1971), the primary goal of the work was "to develop 

earth science concepts, products, and procedures which can significantly 

improve regional planning and development." 

The major producer-user interface problems encountered in all the 

Urban Area Study projects center around: 

o Identification of key representatives in the user community, 

who not only have the greatest interest in and the most to 

gain from interaction with the producers, but who also have 

influence among their peers. 

o Determination of the needs to be met, as perceived by the 

user~ and of the information available or that can be produced 

to assist in meeting them. 

17 
Type and 

diversity 

LIA of earth science 

12rogram information (ESI) 

EIA------- Broad range of ESI 

for specific 

regions. 

EROS------ Broad range of ESI, 

worldwide coverage. 

Geography-- Land use and land 

cover information, 

nationwide. 

RALI------- Broad range of 

earth science and 

other information 

related to planning techniques 

and methods. 

ESA-------- Very broad range of 

ESI for specific 

regions. 

TABLE 3.--Land Information and 

Products 

Environmental impact 

statements, environmental analyses, and 

reviews of similar 

products by other 

Federal agencies. 

Remotely sensed imagery 

and digital data, and 

training in its use. 

Maps, digital data, 

and training. 

Information transfer, 

using a variety of 

methods including 

factbooks, reports, 

workshops, and pilot 

studies. 

Maps, reports, and 

pilot projects, 

supplemented by 

educational 

assistance. 

Current 

product 

demand 

Strong. 

Demand for training exceeds 

capacity by 

factor of five. 

Increasingly 

strong. 

Strong, when 

users are made 

aware of product 

availability. 

Variable, depending on nature of 

product; 

increasingly 

strong, in 

general. 

Types of 

needs to be met 

Information for highlevel decisions as to 

alternate actions. 

Information and training for a broad range 

of land resource 

management actions. 

Information and training for a broad range 

of land resource 

management actions. 

Wide range, increasing 

steadily with need 

for land resource 

planning. 

Very wide range, increasing rapidly with 

legislation requiring 

use of ESI. 

o Establishment and maintenance of effective producer-user communication throughout the project. 

• o Provision for followup educational, advisory, and review 

services to assure that the user community can make optimal 

use of the products and information provided. 

These problems may be compounded by users who have little or no 

knowledge of the earth sciences, by scientists who tend to be overly 

optimistic as to the applicability of their products, by ineffectual 

intermediaries, and/or by budgets and plans unequal to the task at hand. 

In the Urban Area Study projects, all these factors existed in varying 

degree. 

18 
Analysis Program characteristics 

Relative size 

Types of of user 

users addressed community 

Administration Small. 

decisionmakers 

and concerned 

public. 

Government Large and 

agencies at growing 

various rapidly. 

levels. Preponderantly 

Federal, 

State, and 

international. 

Government Large and 

agencies at growing 

various rapidly. 

levels. Preponderantly 

State and 

regional. 

Diversity of 

of user 

community 

Wide but with 

regional 

focus. 

Wide and 

becoming 

more so. 

Relatively 

narrow but 

growing 

wider. 

Professional Currently small, Extremely 

planners and potentially wide. 

decisionmakers. large to very 

large depending 

upon topics 

covered. 

Citizens and Small, but Extremely 

their govern- potentially wide. 

mental repre- very large at 

sentatives. all levels 

throughout 

the Nation and 

in foreign 

(especially 

developing) 

countries. 

Knowledge of 

potential user 

about the 

applicability of Availability of 

Problems 

of meeting 

ESI to his needs user funds user needs 

Good to Necessary funds Primarily those of 

excellent. are provided. report format constraints and rapid 

response to changing 

policy. 

Good to Fairly good. Difficulty in 

excellent. servicing increasing 

number of users. 

Good to Fairly good. More emphasis needed 

excellent. on user training, 

particularly in 

digital applications. 

Good. Good. Limited manpower 

resources. 

Poor to Poor until Largely communifair. interest is cation and awarecreated. ness problems. 

When the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning 

Study was planned in 1969, USGS and Department of Housing and Urban Renewal 

(HUD) representatives were aware that, so far as land use studies of this 

magnitude were concerned, they were breaking new ground. Some problems 

were anticipated, many others were not. The need for working with an 

intermediary aware of the "politics" of the region was recognized early 

in the study, and the Association of Bay Area Governments was invited 

to participate. This liaison proved useful even though the association 

did not have as much of an influence over its member governments as the 

scientistshad expected and hoped. Due to initial lack of communication, 

and misperceptions on the part of user groups as to their own needs and 

how the USGS products might help meet them, early products were almost 

exclusively those which the scientists deemed valuable. As it turned out, 

19 
many of them were. But the project had been underway for several years 

before multidisciplinary user-producer task forces, assigned to specific 

subject-matter areas, discovered exactly which products would best meet 

user needs. This discovery was made only after key role players were 

identified, communi~ation channels were made effective, users achieved 

a better understanding of their needs for ESI and of the scientists' 

abilities to satisfy them, and scientists learned which products, set 

forth in which formats, scales, etc., were most useful. 

Nor did the project personnel of the San Francisco Bay Region Study 

( SFBRS) appreciate from the outset the full extent to which information 

transfer would be a problem. Plans had been made for product dissemination 

to a large number of potential users, for press releases, for distribution 

of publication lists, for prompt publication of results, and for the use 

of various types of panels, advisory groups, and task forces to bridge 

the "gaps" between producers and users. But assistance in how to use 

information must accompany its dissemination. This realization was driven 

home only after the project was midway toward completion, because it was 

at this point that the users were required to test the applicability of 

the products pertinent to land use decisions and public hearings but had 

yet to build up their own competence in interpreting and explaining the 

significance of ESI. Fortunately, some degree of resource flexibility 

enabled project administrators to respond to these needs. Scientists working 

on the project were supported in their efforts to explain their work 

to members of the user community; indeed, for some project members the 

priority attached to publication of results was modified to permit them 

to spend more time in advisory roles. A professional planner previously 

appointed to the project staff also spent much of his time working with 

the user community. Universities in the area were encouraged to use 

the products in appropriate courses. 

Evaluations of the project (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 197 5; Kockelman, 

197 5, 1976 , 197 9) bear out the importance of these educational and advisory 

efforts. Kockelman' s inventories (197 5, 1976) of the use of SFBRS products 

in 91 cities and 8 counties in the Bay area showed that: 

o All eight counties~ and three-fourths of the cities, had planning staffs who were· familiar with SFBRS products or had 

made use of them. 

o Planning applications most often indicated were geologic 

hazards studies, seismic safety and public safety plan 

elements, general reference, and the preparation and review 

of environmental impact reports and statements. 

o About 90 percent of some 87 SFBRS products were used at least 

once by cities and counties alike; 1 product was used at 

least 6 7 times for various 'city planning activities; and 

9 products were used over 30 times eaeh for various county 

planning activities. 

20 
o At least 45 USGS products, apart from those generated by SFRBS, 

were also used for various city planning ac ti vi ties, and 

85 others for county planning activities. 

The Colorado Front Range Urban Corridor Project, in contrast to its 

West coast counterpart, had essentially no flexibility with regard to 

resources available to foster activity in the information transfer area. 

However, as a result of the conscientious work of the project administrator 

and the individual project members in producing useful products, the project 

has had a strong, beneficial influence. It has helped to set the stage 

for important State legislation in the areas of mineral fuels and construction materials, to encourage the employment of geologists and use 

of geological consultants at local government levels, and to provide a 

host of reports and maps that effectively demonstrate the usefulness of 

earth science products in a rapidly urbanizing area. Despite such positive 

results, a recent user survey made for the USGS (Downing, 1978) revealed 

that of the 318 potential users interviewed (local government planners, 

consulting engineers andgeologists, architects, and university professors, 

two-thirds of whom were on the project mailing list) 49 did not know 

of the Urban Corridor Project, over half had not used the maps, and 

only 10 percent had made extensive use of them. It is evident that, 

if maximum benefits are to be derived from projects involving large expenditures for the preparation of earth science products for land use 

planning, funds must be allocated to assure that planners and decisionmakers 

know about ESI and are able to use it. 

Similar conclusions were reached in an evaluation of the USGS Greater 

Pittsburgh Regional Studies Program. The study, commissioned by the 

Appalachian Regional Commission (Wissel and others, 1976), details comparable difficulties in achieving effective information transfer to a 

high percentage of the potential users. The authors based their conclusions on "extensive personal interviews with elected officials from 

109 of the 417 municipalities (including the 6 county governments) in 

the area, and with 44 land use planners who deal with land use questions 

via either county and municipal planning departments or private consulting 

firms." Their findings were described with respect to "those critical 

links" in the communication process between (1) suppliers and translators; 

(2) translators and users; and (3) suppliers and users. Regarding category 

(1), the investigators pointed out that "most planners [translators] who 

are eventually charged with responsibilities on land use questions do 

not receive much emphasis on technical training in the geological sciences 

in their planning curricula." However, "three-fourths of the planners 

interviewed make requests of the USGS with some frequency, most of them 

finding the information they obtain to be very useful." In category (2), 

"great variation was discovered among elected officials [users] concerning 

perceptions of the seriousness of physical problems in making land use 

decisions, the technical! ty of information needed in making such decisions, 

and the value of information on land use." As for the category (3) link, 

"from the vantage of most elected officials, [it] is almost non-existent 

* * *·" 

Other LIA projects differed from the Urban Area Studies in a number 

of W!lYS that bear directly on the nature and extent of problems en21 
countered at the producer-user interface. These projects, though different 

each from the other, involved producers with similar perceptions of needs 

to be met, of products that might meet them, and of the means of information transfer. Specific "ultimate-users" of the information in question 

were more readily identified for these projects, and monetary and other 

resource commitments from the users were more easily obtained; thus, 

truly cooperative efforts between the earth science and user communities 

were more easily achieved. The following examples will serve to illustrate 

that cooperation, and to point out how producer-user interface problems 

here differed from those of the Urban Area Study projects. 

RALI PROJECT FOR "ONSHORE PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT" 

The Onshore Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas Development Project 

was initiated in 197 5 to assist coastal States, and representatives of 

their governmental units at all levels, to prepare for possible onshore 

impacts of offshore energy developments. This effort involved, first, the 

gathering of pertinent data, then, its analysis and assemblage in a form 

suitable for the intended audience, and, finally, the transfer of information, together with instruction in its use, to that audience. To 

further its goal, specifically to meet problems anticipated at the producer-user interface, RALI contracted with two "intermediary" organizations. The New England River Basin Commission (NERBC) was to gather the 

information and put it in a form suitable for effective transfer to 

planners and decisionmakers; the American Society of Planning Officials 

(ASPO) was to plan and run the information transfer workshops. The real 

possibility of recovering oil and gas off the coast of the New England 

States, and the potential for onshore support facilities, made the problem 

a practical one for NERBC. The Commission approached its task of identifying 

and involvingkey representativesby instituting a regional steering committee of Federal and State officials; by forming a project advisory 

group, consisting of people active in the fishing industry, environmental 

groups, port management, banking and commerce, labor, the regional energy 

industries, and heavy construction; and by establishing working arrangements 

with the Production Subcommittee of the American Petroleum Institute's 

Exploration Committee. ASPO worked with RALI project leaders, NERBC, 

and the Environmental Protection Agency to plan and prepare for 15 three-day 

workshops to be held over a 2-year period. A user survey was conducted 

to identify both the audience for whom the workshops should be designed, 

and the significant, issues as perceived by the respondents. The governors' 

offices in the coastal States in question helped designate workshop participants, at all levels of government within the region, who could profit 

most from the information. A multidisciplinary faculty was chosen, supported at each workshop by area specialists who "spoke the language" 

of the participants and who had already dealt with major facility siting 

and development problems. Workshop responsibilities were assigned by 

this faculty on the basis of information acquired from preregistration 

forms. Postworkshop evaluations, by both participants and faculty, were 

used as the basis for modification of ensuing sessions. 

The most significant differences between this RALI project and the 

Urban Area Study projects are the size and diversity of the user communities 

22 
involved, the duration of the projects, the number and variability of 

the products provided, and the degree of control established and maintained 

by the information producers in working with the user community. The 

SFBRS, largest of the Urban Area Study projects, covered 9 Bay area 

counties, comprising 91 cities and a total population (in 197 0) of over 

5 million. The responsibilities of thedecisionmakers in the area ranged 

from the granting of permits for homes or subdivisions to the managing 

of water qual! ty in San Francisco Bay. Over 100 maps and reports were 

produced in the 6 years of project . operation: some of these were used 

extensively throughout the region; others received limited local attention. 

The RALI effort was to transfer information to an audience consisting 

on the average of 7 5 planners and decisionmakers. In a total of 15 

workshops, approximately 1,000 persons from Federal, State, and local 

government, industry, and special interest groups attended. Each workshop was tailored to different regional issues. Clearly the two projects 

are comparable only in that problems of communication and cooperation 

between producers and users are similar. Even so, identification of key 

role players, definition of the needs to be met, preparation of products 

usable by the intelligent layman, and effective transfer of the information 

are equally critical to the success of both types of operation. 

USGS-STATE LAND USE AND LAND COVER MAPPING P.OJECT 

The Land Use and Land Cover Mapping Project, administered by the 

Geography Program, was authorized by the Congress in 197 5 to provide, within 

7 or 8 years, land use and land cover maps and associated data for the 

entire United States. Experience in this program at the producer-user 

interface differs from that of both the RALI and Urban Area Study programs. 

The user community addressed consists of the representatives of those 

State agencies assigned responsibility to work with USGS scientists in 

completing graphic coverage of their State and~ in some places, to enter 

the data into computers through the use of digitization processes. Responsibility for the transfer of the information to people at the regional 

and local government level within the State rests with the State agencies 

involved. 

Much of the planning for this program derived from previous experience 

of both Geography and EROS~ in association with NASA~ in evaluating potential 

applications of remotely sensed data obtained from Landsat (formerly ERTS) 

satellites and high altitude aircraft. In 1970 a large project had been 

undertaken by the three groups to study the application of such data 

to a variety of land use planning problems in a part of the Atlantic 

coastal region, called the Central Atlantic Region Ecological Test Site 

(CARETS). In the same year~ studies were begun on urban change detection 

to provide a basis for evaluating land use changes in eight urban areas. 

A land use classification system for use with remotely sensed data (Anderson, 

Hardy, and Roach, 197 2; Anderson and others, 1976) was set up and put 

to use in these and subsequent projects such as those initiated in the 

Ozark region in 197 2, and in Pittsburgh and Atlanta in 197 4. In addition, 

user seminars on this system were held in 197 3 in Boston~ Memphis, Denver, 

and San Francisco. 

23 
Prior to formalization of a new cooperative agreement with each State 

entering the program, Geography personnel and State agency user representatives hold briefing sessions and informal discussions to work out details. 

However, the need for continuous information and technology transfer was 

not anticipated at the beginning of the program, and the lack of sufficient resources for adequate briefings, seminars, and workshops during 

all phases of activity remains a problem. A major reason is the rapidly 

growing interest in and consequent use of new techniques for digitization 

and computer analysis of information initially provided on maps. The problem 

has compounded proportionally as greater numbers of users have access 

to land use and land cover maps and data but possess minimal knowledge 

as to its quality, significance, and applicability to their needs. 

A further complex! ty, which also argues for more formalized userproducer communication, is the rapidly changing technology in the field 

of land use and land cover mapping. A 7- to 8-year period will be 

required to achieve uniform national coverage; meanwhile, today' s techniques 

are rapidly changing andimproving. Production problems of various sorts 

result because States now coming into the program can avail themselves 

of methods and formats that were not available to those States where mapping 

had already been completed. 

Nevertheless, producer-user interface problems for this Geography 

project are not as numerous as those for the RALI and the Urban Area 

studies. Thekey users here are known and, though not necessarily expert 

in remote sensing and mapping techniques, have considerable technical 

knowledge of scientific methodologies applicable to the measurement of 

natural systems. They are also aware of the state of the art relative 

to their activities. Furthermore, each States' vested financialinterest 

in the program reinforce their desire to get as much out of it as possible. 

Thus, the major problem remains that of accumulating sufficient resources 

to provide adequate educational training in the use of this particular 

technology. 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST LAND RESOURCE INVENTORY DEMONSTRATION (PNLRID) PROJECT 

The Pacific Northwest Land Resource Inventory Demonstration Project 

was instituted for the purpose of determining the technical and economic 

feasibility of using Landsat data as an aid in the solution of regional 

land resource problems in the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. 

In working toward this objective, the three Federal sponsors--the EROS 

and Geography Programs of the USGS and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) --focused on the attainment of three subsidiary 

goals: 

1. Training of State personnel in the use of remotely sensed 

data. 

2. User estimation of the applicability of those data to solving 

his problems. 

24 
3. User evaluation of a statewide or regionwide, user-oriented 

remote sensing system. 

The Pacific Northwest Regional Commi~sion (PNRC), representing the 

three user States, played a key role in the initiation and implementation 

of this project. As with Geography's National Land Use and Land Cover 

Mapping Program, considerable planning was done prior to project inception. 

The respective roles of the Federal agencies and a Commission task force 

were defined; probable needs of potential State agency users for products 

and training were assessed; and a management plan was prepared. This 

plan put the task force--working under the direct aegis of the Commission 

members, i.e., the Governors of the three States--in a strong coordinating 

position to serve both as a buffer to assure that the Federal agencies 

did not get involved in problems and decisions in the purview of State 

and local governments (and vice versa) and as a bridge to effect useful 

transfer of information between producer and user groups. 

By way of initiating this project, each commissioner contacted his 

State and local government agencies, inviting them to hear project plans 

and to consider becoming involved in the effort. Approximately a dozen 

agencies responded and joined the project in the first several months; 

during the next 3 years, agency membership grew to over 45. While there 

was no formal effort on the part of the Pacific Northwest Regional Commission 

or its project task force to select user agencies, the Commission nonetheless 

established itself as an effective driving force for this project by 

its monetary commitment and the personal involvement of the commissioners. 

Furthermore, similar responsibilities were assumed by participating user 

agencies from the outset. Coupled with the understanding that initiation, 

justification, and partial support of specific demonstration projects, 

to be considered for eventual implementation, would also come from these 

agencies was the assurance that the program would be "user-driven." 

Program development was staged, first, to acquaint users with the 

nature of earth science products and their general applicabiity vis-a-vis 

land use problems; then, to interest the agencies in proposing specific 

remote sensing projects of potential significance to their programs, and, 

finally, for proposals considered worthy of continued study and support, 

to conduct technology training to enable various agency representatives 

to undertake and accomplish the research objectives. Throughout the 3-year 

project, Federal agency personnel at the EROS Data Center and NASA's 

Ames Research Center worked with some 125 representatives of the State 

and local government user agencies to familiarize them with the possibilities of using remote sensing in land resource management areas, such 

as forestry, natural resources, agriculture, water resources, fish and 

wildlife, and urban change. 

PNLRID problems and interactions at the producer-user interface both 

·resembled and differed from those of other LIA projects. For example, 

the goals and implementation mechanisms of the Pacific Northwest Study 

were supported by cooperative funding and the management strengths of 

the Regional Commission, an organization stronglylinked tothe political 

hierarchy of the three-State area. Such large-scale commitment was impossible for the Urban Area Study program. It afforded PNLRID a latitude 

25 
amounting to (1) agency backup support for the "trainees," without the 

need for new or additional authorization to assign employees to work 

in directions not formerly included among agency activities; and (2) a 

regional atmosphere and approach that encouraged participants to consider 

and relate specific agency problems to important interstate and intrastate 

activities. In addition, the control exercised by the Commission task 

force resulted in procedures for information transfer geared to the capabilities and interests of the users. These included: (1) care in selecting 

trainees; (2) use of a logical sequence of demonstrations and training 

steps, supplemented by personal guidance where necessary; (3) provision 

of a~ple opportunity for direct, continuous interaction between students 

and faculty; and (4) allowance, in project planning and implementation, 

for formal feedback and evaluation reports. 

On the other side of the coin, the PNLRID Project resembles the 

Urban Area Studies and Land Use and Land Cover programs in that one of 

the major problems not anticipated by project sponsors was the unexpectedly 

great amount of individual attention required to achieve information transfer because of the extreme variability in background experience of the 

trainees, and the wide diversity of research problems posed by the various 

agencies. 

IDAHO PHOSPHATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Of all the LIA projects, the environmental impact statements (EIS) 

administered by the EIA Program are probably the most highly structured 

with respect to producer-user community relationships. The primary purpose 

of an EIS is to assist decisionmakers at the national level in considering 

the probable impacts of a proposed development on the environment. These 

decisionmakers are also responsible for making available to the public 

"advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing 

the quality of the environment" (the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969, Sec. 102(f)). In addition, numerous Executive Orders, Office 

of Management and Budget circulars, Federal laws, and guidelines issued 

by the administering agencies specifically spell out the desirable or 

required participation of State and local agencies and the public in 

environmental impact matters. 

During preparation of the Idaho Phosphate EIS, contact between producer 

and user ranged from conversations in the task force office to formal 

public hearings. The task force leader kept interested parties abreast 

of EIS progress through press releases~ talks and meetings with local, 

regional, and statewide organizations, and radio and TV appearances. 

Following its completion in April 1976 (1 1/2 years after project initiation), four sets of hearings were held to allow public response to the 

draft EIS. In addition, 90 sets of written comments were received. All 

of this input was considered in preparing the final EIS. 

Idaho Phosphate resembles every other LIA effort in that the scientific 

information in an environmental impact statement must be set forth in 

form and language intelligible to the layman. Unlike the other LIA 

projects, however, the producers of an EIS have little need to identify 

26 
key representatives in the user community or to make potential users 

aware of the possible import of the EIS. Because EIS' s typically consider 

issues of regional significance, most of the users are well informed, 

at least with respect to their own particular areas of concern. 

In summary, these LIA projects exemplify the difficulties of effectively transferring information from producers to users. Experience has 

proved that no single approach to this interface suffices for every situation. Briefings, workshops, seminars, advisory committees, task forces, 

telephone calls, press releases, one-to-one user-producer conversations: 

all have their place. For whatever project, no matter what communication 

technique or combination of techniques is to be used, interaction between 

producer and user must be planned in advance and budgeted for as a continuous, 

essential part of the program that sometimes prevails long after formal 

termina tio_n of the project. 

Spangle and others (1976, p. 26) expressed the matter in a slightly 

different way, pointing out that: "Both the earth scientist and planner 

need to be aware that providing accurate and well interpreted ESI for 

use in the planning process is only a first step. To assure that ESI 

will influence actual decisions requires public understanding of the issues. * * *. The essential point, however, is the need to foster an institutional, 

legal, and political climate favorable to full and effective interplay 

between planners and earth scientists on the one hand and professionals 

and public decisionmakers on the· other." H. Milton Patton, Associate 

Director for Environmental Resources of the Council of State Governments 

(1976a, p. vii), put it more succinctly: "The largest problem, however, 

may be a lack of simple communication among users and producers." 

CONCLUSIONS 

The programs of the Land Information and Analysis Office of the 

U.S. Geological Survey have just begun to meet the challenge of providing earth science information to the Nation's planners and decisionmakers. 

Projects throughout the country have exposed many problems and provided 

some solutions. More importantly, they have illustrated the difficulties 

of communication between the producers and the users of earth science 

information. These projects indicate that the entire earth science community 

must overcome two major obstacles in attempting to move from isolated 

demonstrations to nationwide application of earth science information. 

First, areas throughout the Nation which have an urgent need for earth 

science information must be identified, and those needs must be continuously 

reassessed. Second, effective working relationships between the earth 

scientists and the ever-changing constituency of users in those areas 

of need must be established and pursued. 

To successfully negotiate the first obstacle--identifying the areas 

in the Nation where earth science information is urgently needed--LIA 

experience has shown that attention should be directed toward: 

27 
o Areas where the intensified use or abuse of the land requires 

immediate corrective actions (e.g., areas subject to the 

deleterious effects of waste disposal sites). 

o Areas characterized by rapid change and the accompanying conflicts of interest (e.g., urbanizing regions). 

o Areas where the characteristics of the land, the subsurface, 

the water, and the environment restrict land use (e.g., 

mountain slopes, flood plains, earthquake zones, shrink-swell 

clays, etc.). 

o Areas of particular geographic, political, environmental, or 

resource significance (e.g., river basins, wilderness areas, 

coal regions, coastal zones, alluvial valley floors, prime 

agricultural lands, etc.). 

o Areas which can be effectively evaluated by new and improved 

technology (e.g., methods of change detection and monitoring 

by remote sensing). 

Judicious use of criteria to define such critical areas throughout 

the Nation would reveal hundreds of high priority "hot spots" urgently 

in need of the application of earth science information to wise land 

resource decisionmaking. The citizens, planners, and decisionmakers in 

local, regional, and State areas who must bear the responsibility for 

cooling these "hot spots" should be the primary beneficiaries of massive 

efforts by American earth scientists to provide vital information and 

assistance in its use. 

To successfully overcome the second obstacle--the establishment and 

maintenance of a strong working relationship between producers and users--

LIA has found that two major efforts are requisite: 

o Establishing and maintaining a clear understanding of the 

current "real world" value of the scientific information. 

o Planning and budgeting for explicit activities (task forces, 

workshops, public relation programs, technique demonstrations~ etc.) which will result in strong producer-user 

relationships before, during, and after a project. Wherever 

possible, such planning should include the effective use 

of influential intermediaries to assist in establishing and 

maintaining the critical communication links between the 

earth science producers and the users. 

In conclusion, LIA experience suggests that, if earth science information is to be applied nationwide to the solution of land resource problems, 

the entire earth science community must mobilize to achieve what LIA 

has attempted to do with its projects: 

o Create nationwide awareness of earth science information needs 

and uses. 

28 
o Provide specialized, technical information in a form and language understandable to the intelligent citizen. 

o Engage in the educational, advisory, and review services necessary to assist the public and its representatives in 

making effective use of that information. 

In striving toward these objectives, many approaches . are needed; 

some will succeed better than others. However, all will require establishing intimate working relations by every possible means of communication 

and interaction between the two "communities" involved--the earth scientists and the land resource planners and decisionmakers throughout the 

Nation. To expand Donald Woolfe' s position, don't just "take a planner 

to lunch," share an office with him! 

REFERENCES CITED 

Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E., Roach, J. T., 1972, A land-use classification 

system for use with remote sensor data: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

6 71, 16 p. 

Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E., Roach, J. T., Witmer, R. E., 1976, A land 

use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor 

data: u.s. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, 28 p. 

Arthur D. Little, Inc., 197 5, An evaluation of the San Francisco Bay Region 

Environment and Resources Planning Study, Report to the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research: 114 p. 

Council of State Governments, 1976a, Natural resource data needs recommendations: Lexington, Ky.; Council of State Governments, RM-57 4, 

25 P• 

1976b, State growth management: Prepared under the direction of ----:. the Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, May 1976. 

Downing, T.E., 1978, Use of the Front Range Urban Corridor studies, Final 

project report to the U.S. Geological Survey, DOl 14-08-001-G-461: 

Boulder, Colo., University of Colorado, Institute of Behavorial Science, 

89 p. , 7 appendixes. 

Kockelman, W. J., 197 5, Use of USGS earth science products by city planning 

agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 75-276, 110 p. 

1976, Use of USGS earth-science products by county planning agencies ---:-in the San Francisco Bay region, California: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 76-547, 186 p. 

29 
197 9, Use of U.S. Geological Survey earth-related products by selected ---regional agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-221, 173 p. 

Natural Resource and Environment Task Force, Intergovernmental Science, 

Engineering and Technology Advisory Panel ( ISETAP), 197 8, State and 

local government perspectives on aLandsat information system: Washington, D.C., Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office 

of the President, 56 p., 5 appendixes. 

Robinson, G. D., and Spieker, A.M., eds., 1978, "Nature to be commanded ••• ," 

Earth science maps applied to land and water management: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 950, 95 p. 

San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study, 1971, 

Program design: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 

and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Research and 

Technology, 123 p. 

Spangle, William, and Associates, Leighton, F. Beach, and Associates, and 

Baxter, McDonald, and Company, 1976 , Earth-science information in landuse planning--Guidelines for earth scientists and planners: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 721, 28 p. 

Spicer, B. E., Braud, D. G., Bordelon, J. M., 1977, States' interest in 

land use: Soil Conservation Society of America, Special Publication 

No. 22, p. 405-411. 

Wissel, P., O'Connor, R., Cigler, B., 1976, The use of geological information in the Greater Pittsburgh area: Pennsylvania State University, 

Center for the Study of Environmental Policy, Appalachian Regional 

Commission Report ARC 7 4-19-256 4, 26 4 p. 

Woolfe, D. A., 1978, A planner's view: Geotimes, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 19 • 

..;;, U.S. Government Printing Office: 1979-281-359/103 

30