able and each person had adequate time to actively 

 participate in the discussion. 



The Steering Committee concept proved to be 

 an important aspect of the characterization and 

 assured establishment of priorities necessary to 

 cover all areas of potential interest to resource 

 managers and other user groups. The Steering Com- 

 mittee concept has been continued in the other 

 characterization studies. 



USER NEEDS SURVEY 



The Chenier Plain characterization was in- 

 tended to serve primarily as a resource manage- 

 ment tool. Thus, in order to develop a characteri- 

 zation methodology which would achieve this ob- 

 jective, it was necessary to first identify the nature 

 and relative magnitude of the various types of on- 

 going resource management efforts and other re- 

 lated activities occurring within the study area. The 

 data required to enable managers to make sensible 

 decisions for resource utilization were identified 

 for various regulatory organizations. Also, it was 

 necessary to ascertain the level of detail and pre- 

 ferred formats for data presentation which were 

 most directly applicable and interpretable within 

 the context of these management activities. 



A preliminary list of users to be contacted was 

 compiled and circulated to Steering Committee 

 members and other contacts for review. The addi- 

 tions and modifications to the list which were sug- 

 gested were then incorporated into the survey plan. 

 Further additions to the list were made based on 

 the recommendations of several respondents to a 

 questionnaire. The potential users were then classi- 

 fied into two groups: those to be interviewed per- 

 sonally and those to be contacted only by ques- 

 tionnaires and telephone followup, as necessary. 

 Those organizational representatives selected for 

 interviewing were thought to be more immediately 

 involved in policy formulation, decisionmaking, 

 and research activities within the Chenier Plan. 



A questionnaire was used to determine user 

 needs. The questionnaire was designed as a check- 

 list of all resources and possible areas of interest. 

 The draft questionnaire was circulated to members 

 of the Steering Committee for comments and 

 proposed revisions before it was distributed to the 

 users that had been identified. Less than half of the 

 questionnaires were returned by the date re- 

 quested. Three out of over 90 recipients reported 

 that they elected not to respond. A telephone fol- 

 lowup was employed to maximize the information 



yield. When a 90 percent return was achieved, a 

 final analysis was perfomied on the responses. 



The returns were grouped into categories ac- 

 cording to the management responsibilities of the 

 users, as indicated by responses. Those categories 

 are identified below: 



1. Project and permit review on a case-by- 

 case basis. 



2. Environmental planning for water re- 

 lated projects (including coastal engi- 

 neering, flood control, water allocation, 

 etc.). 



3. Resource management for fish and wild- 

 life habitat maintenance. 



4. Coordination of coastal zone activities. 



5. Design and enforcement of environ- 

 mental legislation. 



6. General land use planning. 



7. Research and experimentation. 



8. Environmental health and agricultural 

 interests. 



Clearly, the management responsibilities of the 

 various groups overlapped into a second or even 

 third category. This categorization was designed to 

 identify the respective groups by what appeared to 

 be their major management focus. One objective of 

 this categorization was to ascertain if the data 

 utilized and the data preferred were significantly 

 different according to the responsibilities of the 

 various user groups. In some cases, therefore, 

 responses were included in two categories. 



Data needs showed equal weighting by users in 

 regards to their reliance on floral, faunal, and 

 physical area features. There was no difference 

 demonstrated among the management groups 

 except that the water-related management groups 

 expressed preferential dependence on physi- 

 cal data. Answers to questions on environmental 

 data needs may be ranked into data categories. The 

 most important categories (over 70 percent in- 

 terest) to users are shown in Table 1. 



The user needs survey is not being used in 

 other characterization studies because it did not 

 prove to be cost-effective and the required Office 

 of Management and Budget clearance causes 

 untimely delays. It appears that steering committee 

 members and FWS personnel provide the most 

 economical and effective means for acquiring 

 necessary information on user needs. 



11 



