Modeling land use conflicts and constraints for energy development Energy promoters are increasingly turning away from seatof-the-pants judgment in favor of formal, anatytic models
Kerry O’Banion Unicersity of California Licermore, Calif. 94550
Without a doubt, the extraction, transport, and utilization of energy resources have become three of the most controversial areas of environmental policy in general, and land use regulations in particular. On one hand, given the general consensus that our reliance on imported oil must be decreased, if not eliminated, the pressure to develop domestic alternatives can only be expected to increase in the near future. On the other hand, because energy development tends to be scaled to huge macroregional markets, its local environmental impacts can be overwhelming. This is especially a problem for extraction-related development, since its location is governed by the presence of the resource, and thus it can not be decentralized. Land-related impacts are key to this dilemma for two reasons. I ) Unlike air- or water-related impacts, land-
related impacts are not covered by federal law or policy, except indirectly. Traditionally, land use is the prerogative of the states, who in turn have largely delegated it to city and county governments. 2) Also unlike air- or water-related impacts, no widely recognized definitions of land-related impacts now exist. The nature and scope of impacts included under this rubric can vary markedly from one stl;dy to the next. Thus, because energy promoters (developers, utility companies, and public agencies) face a new, and to some extent unique, set of regulations in each locale, and because there is no national policy or even general methodology to serve as a reference point, land-related impacts tend to be hard to pin down in advance. As a consequence, the local significance of such impacts can go unrecognized by the promoter until local resistance emerges. Often, by then, once-simple changes in the project have become complex and expensive. Polarization into pro- and anti-project groups is the all-too-frequent result. Advantages of formal models In order to avoid delays, and in some instances permit denials that can result, energy promoters are increasingly turning away from seat-of-the-pants
1438
Environmental Science & Technology
judgment in favor of formal models to identify and resolve environmental problems in advance. Such models evaluate alternative sites for their intrinsic “suitability” for a project, based on location and natural and infrastructural conditions. While some of the factors unrelated to land, such as air contaminant levels, may be incorporated into such models, because their subject is project location and not design, the models tend to focus on land-related factors: the natural hazard probability, infrastructural adequacy, and ecological, hydrological, recreational/cultural, and agricultural value of a given site. Formal models promise a number of advantages: A model requires an explicit definition of what is and what is not a land use problem, and thus provides a framework for dialogue among decision-makers and -influencers. The reasoning underlying evaluations and decisions is also made explicit, and thus biases on the promoters’ part are harder to conceal. By the same token, explication of all factors helps ensure that none are inadvertently ignored; this is a real problem due to the multidimensional nature of environmental decisions. The model comprises documentation of how and why the eventual
0013-936X/80/0914-1438$01.00/0 @ 1980 American Chemical Society
power i n the area
decision was made, as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act ( N E P A ) and other environmental laws. Such documentation may also be important for the promoters’ own use since, given the lead times now imposed by the regulatory process, they may often find themselves being questioned on decisions made several years earlier. If a large number of sites and/or factors are involved in the decision, the analyst may want to use the computer to store and manipulate data; in this event, a formal model is a necessity. For all the above reasons, we were drawn to such techniques in our study for DOE of the potential land-related impacts of hydrothermal electric power in the Geysers region of northern California (1, 2 ) . It is one thing to design an elegant model, but quite another to put it to some practical use. The purpose of models is to simulate real-world conditions in order to analyze them. However, formal models were first developed for closed, man-made systems, such as industrial plants, which can be simulated quite precisely and comprehensively; but despite the aspirations of model designers, the dynamics of land use a r e not so tidy. Land use is a product of natural
systems and human behavior, and our knowledge of both is so crude and fragmentary that our predictive capability is extremely limited. As a result, the inevitable gaps in the objective empirical content of any land use model must be bridged by subjective, perceptual input from the client or analyst. This input cannot be generalized, unfortunately; in order to ensure both the validity and the credibility of his model, the analyst must custom fit it to each time and place. At some points, he may appropriately provide his own subjective input, while at other points it must come from the client-recipient. Most literature on environmental impact models falls into one of two categories: critiques of methodological options from a purely theoretical perspective or specific applications of one or another method, with cursory or no consideration of alternatives, and often with only a superficial knowledge of the method used. The twofold aim of this article is both to describe the methodological options for each component of a formal model, and also to explore the various factors that determine its usability, validity, and credibility in real-world problems. While examples are drawn from our own work on hydrothermal energy, the following discussion is germane not
only to other energy resources, but also to other facility types, such as hazardous waste dumps.
Case study: hydrothermal energy Hydrothermal resources are the result of molten rock (magma) which lies relatively close to the earth’s surface. The water contained in the permeable rock overlying the magma expands and moves upward as it is heated by the molten rock below. Above the permeable rock is a layer of impermeable rock confining the superheated water. If this layer contains cracks through which fluid can rise, the fluid emerges at the surface as either steam (vapor-dominated resource) or hot water (liquid-dominated resource). The Geysers region in northern California is believed to contain both types. The vapor-dominated portion is the only hydrothermal resource to be developed for energy in the U S . so far. While it is not yet known if the hypothesized liquid-dominated resource a t the Geysers is thermally and chemically suitable for power generation, at least the vapor-dominated resource will be developed to its full capacity (over 2000 MW,) in the very near future. In physical terms, hydrothermal energy development is comprised of Volume 14, Number 12,December 1980
1439
wellfields, turbine plants, and transmission lines. Because steam for generating electric power cannot be transported more than 1.6 km or so without a prohibitive temperature drop, plants can neither be consolidated nor moved far outside their individual fields. The areal extent of a field, in turn, depends on the capacity of the plant, the density of supply wells allowed by the reservoir, and the topography of the area. Of the gross land area involved-some 350-600 ha per 1 00- MW plant-only 7- 10% is disturbed: approximately 3’/2% for wellpads, 1% for the plant, 1’/2% for the main road, and 2% for secondary roads and steam lines. In most parts of the mountainous Geysers region, the land must be altered quite extensively to provide level pads of this size; in the upland areas cuts of over 3 m are occasionally necessary. Of the four counties in the Geysers region, Lake County contains almost half the proven, and most of the hypothesized but unproven, vapor-dominated resource. Lake is a rural county, mountainous and sparsely populated (26 500 people or 20/mi2). Its residents are older and have lower incomes than the state average, and more than 25% of the population are retired. The county economy is based on recreation, agriculture, and government payments; the focus of recreation is Clear Lake, and most of the population is concentrated around its shoreline. The southwest portion of the county, in which most of the resource is believed to be located, is a mountainous, largely forested area inhabited by about 20% of the population, who live in dispersed homes and a few resorts and retreats. Approximately in the center of the resource area are Cobb and Boggs Mountains; they, and the valley between them, are a secondary recreational area. Given its industrial character, it is no surprise that the intrusion of hydrothermal development into the bucolic, recreation-oriented landscape of Lake County is controversial. Because each new well requires a permit from the county, the hearings on those permits have become a stage for the ongoing debate between pro- and anti-development groups. While the debate a t each hearing may focus on the details of the case in question, this focus is superficial. The real agendum is a more holistic image of the style and quality of life in Lake County, and whether hydrothermal energy is compatible with that image. Unfortunately for us, this image, or some variation of it, existed only inside each resident’s head. The county had 1440
Environmental Science & Technology
no land use policy to speak of, save for an outdated general plan nobody took seriously; in fact, as we began our work, the state declared the plan inadequate and invalidated it. We were drawn to using a formal model because, as “outsiders,” we had to somehow define and normalize the county image in order to assess the implications of DOE’S promotion of hydrothermal energy.
Land suitability model Any new activity in a region encounters two types of potential landrelated impacts: constraints and conflicts. We define constraints as instances when a prospective use is incompatible with some feature of a site: erodible soil, unstable geology, etc. We include inadequate infrastructure (Le., roads, sewer, and water systems) in this category. Conflicts, on the other hand, arise when a site has value for more than one use, and those uses are incompatible. Our study is built on,the premise that, for any given use, land has an instrinsic suitability based on the presence and relative significance of conflicts and/or constraints. The more we are able to coincide each use with the lands most suitable for it, the lower the magnitude of its impacts, and hence the more optimal our use of resources. McHarg (3) began applying the idea of land suitability to planning over a decade ago; its use in agriculture, for example in the soil capability units developed by the U S . Soil Conservation Service, dates back to the 1940s. It is particularly germane, however, to the development of energy resources. Such development tends to be located in rural areas, either because the resource (e.g., coal, oil shale, biofuel) is there or, in the case of large power plants, to isolate it from concentrations of the population. As a result, unlike urbanized regions, where the natural features of the land are largely obliterated and infrastructure is in place and scaled to intensive use, in rural areas it is precisely those factors which predominate in land use disputes. Land sustains a range of functions, all vital to the quality of life: capturing and storing water, maintaining biotic diversity and agricultural productivity, providing space and ambience for recreation, and bearing man-made structures. While in intensively developed areas all but the last may be eliminated, in the typical rural area, as in the Geysers region, the land sustains the entire range of functions. Our first step in building a suitability model, then, was to define criteria to evaluate the intrinsic value of the land for each
of those functions. Space does not permit a detailed description of each criterion in Table I ; however, here are a few clarifying words. The hydrology function deals with the land-related impacts on surface and subsurface water. Soil erodibility is included under this function because, in the Geysers region, its importance is due mainly to the increase in stream sedimentation it causes, rather than to topsoil loss itself. The importance of soil permeability lies in the county’s dependence on groundwater for domestic and agricultural use, and the consequent need to protect recharge areas. The ecological function is based on preserving biotic diversity, as well as protecting endangered animals and plants. As a rule, the more diversity in the vegetation, the more conducive land is to a diversity of fauna. Thus, our criteria include both plant diversity within a formation and the extent of formation interspersion; our “proxy” criterion for interspersion is the distance to an ecotone. We considered various submodels devised to quantify the recreational value of a landscape, for example the Visual Management System developed by the U S . Forest Service, or the U S . Bureau of Land Management’s Visual Resource Management procedure. I n the end, however, we opted for a criterion not as comprehensive, but simpler and more objective: the viewsheds of major recreational features. I n the Geysers region, the most pervasive impact of hydrothermal development may be visual; the plumes of vapor and the cuts on mountainsides are visible for miles and impart an industrial ambience even to otherwise pristine landscapes. Since over 75% of Lake County’s agricultural income is from orchards and vineyards, soil capability was the relevant criterion for agricultural value; soil capability is itself a multifactor model devised by SCS. Most of the decelopment criteria are self-evident. Landslide and wildfire potential, however, are submodels; the first is a function of surface geology and slope, the second of slope, vegetation, and climate.
Identifying and scaling impacts Once functions and criteria were defined, our next step was to identify the potential conflicts and constraints relevant to hydrothermal energy. For example: Because the mountainous terrain in the region must be altered extensively for roads and pads, soil erodibility is a potential constraint; on the other hand, because only a miniscule percentage of the land surface is
TABLE 1
Evaluative criteria for the Geysers land suitability model Land functlon
Crlteria
Hydrology
Soil erodibility Soil permeability
Ecology
Plant diversity within formation Interspersion of formations Distance to surface water Areas of special biotic importance (ASBI) Critical habitat Key wildlife area Habitat of rarelendangeredspecies
Recreation
Significant viewsheds Recreational areas Scenic roads
Agriculture
Soil agricultural capability
Development
Landslide hazard Wildfire hazard Floodplain Infrastructure Road proximity Sewer system Water system
paved or covered, such development does not conflict with the recharge role of permeable soils. The identification of conflicts and constraints (c/c), like the specification of criteria, is for the most part a matter of objective expertise, or at worst, conservative judgment. The criteria are based largely on empirical data (e.g., plants grow more easily in Unit I than in Unit 11 soils). If empirical data are not obtainable, as may be the case for recreational/visual values, we think the analyst should confine his own judgment to “low-risk’’ determinations (e.g., a landscape has greater recreational value without a hydrothermal plant than with one) or else enlist the aid of the client. Now, almost all land is suitable to some extent for more than one use, and thus some potential for conflict always exists. By the same token, even the least constrained land has some potential for adverse impact. Obviously, the mere existence of a potential c / c is not by itself an adequate definition of unsuitability: if it were, almost nothing could be built. Thus, identification of c / c is only a first step toward land use policy. Next, the magnitude or significance of each c / c must be “measured” on some scale of desirability/undesirability; the scale, however, may be nonquantitative. The scaled values for each c / c must then be combined to determine the suitability of land for each use. Finally, the results for each
use must be synthesized into a comprehensive policy. Any of four types of scales can be used to measure c/c: categorical, ordinal, intercal, or ratio. In the first and simplest type, states or levels of a c / c are not quantitatively related, only categorized as suitable or unsuitable for a given use. On an ordinal scale, c / c are ranked in order of undesirability. For example, in our model, an area of special biotic importance (ASBI) is more unsuitable for development than a riparian area; a riparian area is more unsuitable than an ecotonal area, and so on. (A categorical scale is in fact an ordinal scale with only two values.) Only comparisons (>, =, C2 > C3 > CJ, a site posing only CI would always be designated as less suitable than a site posing C2, C3, and CJ. We think the results obtained by such logic would, in practice, be so often at variance with what the client perceives intuitively, the method could not maintain credibility for long. While ordinal values do provide more detailed information on indicidual c/c, they d o not provide much of an advantage over categorical values in evaluating composite suitability, because the operations (+, -, X, +) remain invalid. The only improvement one cah make in the procedures is to use ordinal values for one of the c / c and categorical values for the rest (conjunclioe ranking, lexicographic r a n k i n g ) . T h e ordinal-scaled c / c s’iould be the one for which discrimination beyond two values is most significant to the policy decision under consideration. With interval-scaled values, a client’s preferences can be modeled with far more confidence. For one thing, since interval values have relative magnitude, all the c / c can be normalized to a uniform scale of desirability/undesirability,say 0- l . This permits use of methods as the factor profile. In this method, the discrete c/c values for each prospective site are compared to those for the other sites, and any site that is dominated by one or more other sites is eliminated-a site dominates another when it is superior in every factor. Subjective pairwise comparisons are then made between the nondominated sites for the use in question. For example, “Is prime agricultural land more suitable than an ecotone located on very erodible soil‘?’’ This procedure is repeated for all pairs, yielding a rank ordering of sites. As may be evident from its description, the facto1 profile method was devised to select one site from a few alternatives. However, when a whole region is being evaluated for suitability, the number of pairwise comparisons required can become astronomical. Moreover, this sort of judgmental comparison begins to confound the mind when more than a couple of c / c are involved. To deal with a larger number of sites and/or factors, particularly if a computer is to be used to store and manipulate data, a more formalized procedure is required, based on some predetermined objective function. This brings us to a second major advantage of interval-scaled values: Arithmetic operations are valid. Thus, in what has become the most wide1442
Environmental Science & Technology
FIGURE 1
Matrix of potential conflicts and constraints for hydrothermal development
52 5& y4 / (3
e
-
y
-C
Low to moderate Severe
Erosion potentiala
0 0
Landslide hazard
0 0
Mostly stable Variable Unstable Moderate to high Extreme
Wildfire hazardb
0
Not in floodplain Floodplain
Flood hazard
0 0 0
0 0
Within 1 km of major road Road proximity Not within 1 km of major road Water service area Not in water service area
Water service
0 0
Sewer service area Not in sewer service area
Sewer service
0 0
1-11 and 111 adjacent to 1-11 Ill not adjacent to 1-11 IV-VIII
Soil agricultural capabilitya
Critical viewshedC Significant viewshedd Other public land Other nonpublic land
Recreational value
ASBl Riparian area Ecotonal area Other land
Ecological value
A-B C D
Soil hydrological capabilitya
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0
0 0 Potential constraints 0 Potential conflicts
aSubrnodel by U.S. So11Cons Sew bSubrnodel by Calif. Div. For. CFrorn Clear Lake shoreline dFrorn CobbBoggs Mountain recreation area or Scenic road
spread formal method to evaluate land suitabilility, each c/c can be weighted to denote its relative importance, and then the sum of weighted Lialues (SWV) can comprise an index of suitability for each site. Unfortunately, this formula is only deceptively simple; in order for its results to be entirely valid, a number of preconditions must be met. I ) The weight factors must be ratio-scaled. 2 ) A weight must represent only the importance of change in a c/c relative to changes in others, and must not be influenced by the calue of the c/c. 3) The client’s preference order for any two c / c must not be influenced by the value of any other c/c-as, for example, the relative importance of soil erodibility might be influenced by the value for slope. Fortunately, simple iterative routines
can be used to ensure the interval values and weights educed from the client are valid; unfortunately, they are tedious and require an inordinate amount of time. Our view toward S W V as a policymaking aid is mixed. On one hand, it is the only method of those described that explicitly considers the relative importance of c/c, and thus its results are likely to portray client preferences far more accurately than cruder methods. On the other hand, we are not sure this advantage compensates for the problems one encounters in its execution. 1) It is time-consuming; the required dialogues with the client(s) can take days. 2 ) SWV is based on theory that is conceptually abstruse and can be described only in mathematical terms and diagrams. I t is ex-
tremely hard to convey to a client with no exposure to the field and no patience or aptitude for symbolic logic, just how and why the results are obtained, 3) The questions used to elicit preferences are hypothetical and do not involve the alternatives under consideration explicitly. Thus, when the client responds, he/she has no idea of the consequences of those responses. This eliminates decision influences outside the model that may otherwise be incorporated into the client’s preference. Unfortunately, models are never perfect, and if legitimate factors are inadvertently excluded, the results will seem “counterintuitive.”
The case study as an example Now to our own case. As we began the Geysers study, we faced a number
of obstacles. The most recent election had resulted in a marked change in orientation, as well as composition, of the Lake County legislative board; the planning director had been fired, and almost the entire staff resigned or had been fired as well. The state had reviewed the old (1967) general plan and, finding it deficient on several counts, had invalidated it. Our baseline work was thus done in the virtual absence of either local expertise or upto-date land use policy. Moreover, when after a year a new director was hired, he had no time to spare us; his first priority was revision of the general plan, to avoid state imposition of a construction ban. W e do not mean to imply any unmet obligation-DOE is our client, not Lake County. On the contrary, we had adopted the county as
a “secondary” client because we required a source of local data, and also because we hoped to ensure the credibility of our study at the local level. Fortunately, the chairman of the planning commission was able to critique our model in its preliminary form. Once we had defined our suitability factors, and used them to identify potential c / c for hydrothermal development, our next step was to scale those c/c. Fortunately, despite the absence of a general plan, we did not have to work in an absolute policy void. A year or so earlier, a group of citizens had revised and updated the plan and had developed a set of land use “principles,” subsequently endorsed by the county. Those principles, plus a few other county policy documents, enabled us to scale c / c with at least some confidence. Without venturing beyond observation and deduction (into speculation), we prescribed ordinal scales for all c/c, as depicted in Figure 1. In fact, in the instances when we adopted submodels created by others, as noted i n the table, the ordinal scales came with the submodels. Only for ecological and recreational conflicts did we rely entirely on our own judgment. In the ecological category, we considered areas near streams more significant than ecotones because, while a n ecotone is important only to resident fauna, a water source is important to all fauna over a far larger area. Under recreation, we distinguished the Clear Lake viewshed from the others, based on both a huge discrepancy in visitordays and on their observable relative importance to the county economy. Our use of ordinal scales limited our amalgamation options to the conjunctive and lexicographic methods. However, even were we to overlook the dubious logic of the lexicographic method, we could not use it because it requires more client input than we were able to obtain, namely, a ranking of c/c in order of importance. W e were left, then, with the conjunctive ranking method as our best alternative. Again, this method permits ordinal values to be used for one factor, categorical values for the rest. Of the nine c / c we identified for hydrothermal development (Figure l ) , three are constraints and six are conflicts. We have preserved this semantic distinction because, in general, constraints tend to more amenable to mitigation then conflicts; hence, while most conflicts must be resolved by policy decisions (the “highest and best use”), constraints can often be adequately dealt with by performance Volume 14, Number 12, December 1980
1443
standards. As long as such standards are not so burdensome that they make future development uncompetitive with alternative investments, they have no impact on land use. Therefore, constraints that can be overcome, by standards that do not make development cost uncompetitive, are not relevant to land use policy. In the Geysers region, flood, landslide, and erosion potential all fall into this category, so we eliminated them from further analysis. Of the conflicts that remained, two are addressed in Lake County policy: Agriculture is expected to continue as a viable enterprise in the county, and uses incompatible with it are to be excluded from prime land; and hydrothermal development is now prohibited from “sensitive” ecological areas (not yet defined) and from within 500 ft of streams. Recreational/visual value is not addressed directly. However, since the entire resource area is within one or another secondary viewshed, those viewsheds are not relevant to any decision on relative suitability of land within the resource area, and so they were also eliminated. Since ecological value was the only factor with more than two values, it became the ordinal factor by default. Figure 2 shows the distribution of conflicts in the resource area, from which several conclusions are evident: 1) The suitability of land in the vapor-dominated area and in the southern half of the liquid-dominated area is quite variegated. However, about 50% is free of all c / c except for secondary viewsheds; another 25% is free of all c / c except for secondary viewsheds and ecotones. Given the locational flexibility of hydrothermal plants (up to 1.6 km from a given well), even in our high-growth scenario of 2400 MW, by 2000, land in the first category should be adequate to accommodate all plants required. Wellpads, roads, and pipelines may infringe on ecotones, and the last two even on riparian zones. However, compared to plants, the land disturbance caused by these features is relatively minor and dispersed, and human activity is infrequent. Moreover, their impact can be significantly reduced by slant drilling, which permits several wellheads to be grouped on a single pad. 2) On the other hand, no hydrothermal development can take place without adverse visual impacts. Almost the entire resource area is within the viewsheds of either the Cobb-Boggs Mountain recreation area or scenic roads. County policy does not now address the protection of either. It is clear, however, that some limitations 1444
Environmental Science & Technology
for the Cobb-Boggs Mountain area are favored by a significant portion of county residents, composed largely but not exclusively of those who live in the area, and thus any future development may be expected to be controversial in a t least this regard. 3) The entire northern half of the liquid-dominated area poses one or more serious land use conflicts. As well as being within the viewshed of Clear Lake, it includes the crucial marshlands along its shoreline and some of the best cropland in the county. From a local perspective, the benefits of hydrothermal development in this area may compare unfavorably with its costs.
Conclusion The federal role in promoting development of new energy resources, and hence in analyzing its environmental impacts, is almost certain to increase in the near future. The “facilitative’’ role of the Energy Mobilization Board may be only a harbinger of stronger measures to remove local environmental obstacles. However, as long as N E P A exists, the federal government must be able to justify its decisions on environmental grounds. Formal analytic models provide a means to do so that is both rational and explicit. While the capability of such models is unquestionably improved by input from those who must live with the impacts of development, we also expect that analysts may be forced to proceed without much of it; therefore, we do not regard the Geysers study to be unique. True, the average county government is not quite as plagued with crises as was Lake County. But at least two other obstacles we can think of are, to some extent, inherent in any federal study of regional impacts of energy development. 1) The consumers of the resources extracted and/or power generated live almost entirely outside the region, in metropolitan areas up to hundreds of miles distant; as such, they are isolated from the direct impacts of production. Moreover, any influence local residents are able to muster in the national arena is bound to be trivial compared to that of the huge army of consumers and the large energy developers. The local resident perceives the federal bureaucrat as motivated far more by consumers’ and developers’ interests than his own, and as a result may be defensive or even hostile. The fact that personal styles, values, and prejudices of the “locals” and the “feds” are often incompatible does not help matters. 2 ) Even if the above obstacles can be
overcome, rural local governments often may not be able to help in any significant way due to a lack of funds, a lack of interest in land use regulation, or both. There is simply not the same tradition of regulation in areas where land use is not intensive and the historical pace of land use change is slow. Unfortunately, this regulatory inertia tends to persist long after it has become obsolete. The relevance of this article, and of the case study described, is that even in the near-absence of local input, the analyst can often draw reasonable, if limited, conclusions without projecting his own values and biases into the model. In our opinion, retention of the model’s credibility more than compensates for the loss of detail.
References (1) Hall, C.; O’Banion, K., “Social and Economic Research Program for the Gey-
sers-Calistoga KGRA,” Lawrence Livermore Laboratorv“ ReDt. . UCRL-52763. March 1979. (2) O’Banion, K.; Hall, C., “Hydrothermal Energy and the Land Resource: Conflicts and Constraints in the Geysers-Calistoga KGRA.” Lawrence Livermore Laboratorv Rept. UCRL(in press). (3) McHarg, I., “Design with Nature,” Natural HisGry Press, 1969. (4) Hobbs, 3.F.; Voelker, A. H., “Analytical Multiobjective Decision-Making Techniques and Power Plant Siting: A Survey and Critique,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory Rept. ORNL-5288, February 1978.
Acknowledgment Work performed under the auspices of the U S . Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract number W-7405-ENG-48. Encoding and display of environmental data by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Calif.
Kerry O’Banion is an environmental analyst f o r the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, with previous experience in both federal and local (Oakland, C a l i f ) government. His specialty is land use policy, with an emphasis on the use of formal multiobjective techniques. His work at UC/ LLNL has involved a variety of new energy technologies: unconventional natural gas, LNG, and tertiary oil recovery, as well as hydrothermal energy. O’Banion is a graduate of the College of Natural Resources, University of CaliforniaBerkeley.
