• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Project description
 Results and discussion
 Conclusions
 Acknowledgments
 References
 Appendix 1: Survey instrument for...
 Appendix 2. Survey of common requests...
 Appendix 3. Questions most commonly...






Group Title: Technical paper / Florida Sea Grant College ; no. 41
Title: Enhanced public coastal information through a statewide databank network in Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075992/00001
 Material Information
Title: Enhanced public coastal information through a statewide databank network in Florida feasibility and pilot study
Series Title: Technical paper Florida Sea Grant College
Physical Description: 53 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Reddy, David P
Seaman, William
Florida Sea Grant College
Publisher: Florida Sea Grant College Program, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1985
 Subjects
Subject: Coasts -- Information services -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Marine resources -- Information services -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 41.
Statement of Responsibility: by David P. Reddy and William Seaman, Jr.
General Note: Grant NA85AA=D-SG059.
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00075992
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 13841435

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    List of Tables
        List of Tables
    Executive summary
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Introduction
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Project description
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Results and discussion
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Conclusions
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Acknowledgments
        Page 40
        Page 41
    References
        Page 41
    Appendix 1: Survey instrument for determining coastal information system interest
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Appendix 2. Survey of common requests to marine extension agents for information.
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Appendix 3. Questions most commonly asked of organizations responding to survey of coastal information requests
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
Full Text
/a/
Technical PaperNo. 41


I.F.,"., r.- .)f ; F i
ENHANCED PUBLIC COASTAL INFORMATION
THROUGH A STATEWIDE
DATABANK NETWORK IN FLORIDA:
FEASIBILITY AND PILOT STUDY



by
David P. Reddy
and
William Seaman, Jr.


S
onR


FLORIDA SEA GRANT COLLEGE


0













ENHANCED PUBLIC COASTAL INFORMATION
THROUGH A STATEWIDE
DATABANK NETWORK IN FLORIDA:
FEASIBILITY AND PILOT STUDY

This Florida Sea Grant Technical Paper is based
on a final project report
submitted to the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation in
completion of their project No. CM-113,
with funds provided from NOAA under the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

By
David P. Reddy and William Seaman, Jr.


Florida Sea Grant College Program
University of Florida
Building 803
Gainesville, Florida 32611


Project No. R/CZM-1
Grant No. NA85AA-D-SGO59


Technical Papers are duplicated in limited quantities for specialized
audiences requiring rapid access of information. They are published with
limited editing and without formal review by the Florida Sea Grant College
Program. Content is the sole responsibility of the author. This paper was
developed by the Florida Sea Grant College Program with support from NOAA
Office of Sea Grant, U.S. Department of Commerce, grant number NA85AA-D-SGO59.
It was published by the Sea Grant Extension Program which functions as a com-
ponent of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service, John T. Woeste, Dean, in
conducting Cooperative Extension work in Agriculture, Home Economics, and
Marine Sciences, State of Florida, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Boards of
County Commissioners, cooperating. Printed and distributed in furtherance of
the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 14, 1914. The Florida Sea Grant Col-
lege is an Equal Employment-Affirmative Action employer authorized to provide
research, educational information and other services only to individuals and
institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, or national
origin.

TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 41
December 1985








CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . .. .... 1

Introduction. . . ........ . .. 3

Florida Coastal Situation. . . . . 3

Project Description . . . . .. . 4

Methods . . . . . . . 4

Computer Systems . . . . .. . 5
Databases. . . . . . . 5
Information Needs. . . . . . 6

Results and Discussion. . . . . . 7

Review of Aquatic Information Systems.. . . 7
National Level . . . . 8
Databases in Other States. . . . . 8
Efforts in Florida . . . . ... 9

Boundaries for a Florida System. . . .... 10
Survey of Marine Organizations . . . 10
Survey of Extension Agents . . . 14
Potential Involvement of Survey Respondents. . .. 14

Evaluation of Possible System Components . . . 19
Computer Systems . . . . .. .- 21
Bibliographic Software.Systems .. . . 22
Microcomputer Multi-user/Communications Programs . 25

Results of Pilot Study . . . . .. .. 26
Advantages of Microcomputer Systems. . . 27
Microcomputer Pilot System . . . . 27
Mainframe Pilot System . . . . 28

Recommended System for Maintaining and Augmenting a Working
Databank and Bulletin Board. . . . 30
System Components and Costs. .. .. ... 30

Options for Implementation . . . . 37
Start-up Tasks . . .. . 37
System Operation .. . . .... 39

Conclusions . . . . . . . 39

Acknowledgments . . . . .. . . 40

References. . . . . . . . 41





iii









Appendices. ............................ 42

1. Survey instrument for determining coastal information system
interest .. ... .. ... . . . 43

2. Survey of common requests to marine extension agents for
information. . . . ........... 47

3. Questions most commonly asked of organizations responding to
survey of coastal information requests . . . 49








FIGURES

1. Levels of inquiry by two audience types seeking Florida coast-
al information from organizations . . . 13

2. Distribution of requests for coastal information made to two
categories of source organizations, according to subject
matter. . . . . . . 17

3. Growth experienced by one marine databank: the Aquatic Weed
Program at the University of Florida. . . . 20

4. Mainframe system architecture: an infofetch controlled CIS
databank. . . . .. . . 29


TABLES

1. Level and nature of activity of Florida-related technical
coastal organizations in responding to requests for inform-
ation . . . . . . . 11

2. Popularity of various categories of coastal and marine
information as directed to coast-related organizations in
Florida . . . . . . . 15

3. Categories of coastal subject matter addressed in information
requests made to marine extension agents in Florida . 16

4. Organizations contacted but not providing information to
coastal information survey. . ... . 18

5. Approximate costs to establish and operate a Coastal Informa-
tion System in its first two years. . . . 32

6. Approximate costs to operate a Coastal Information System in
its third year. .... .. . . .. .. .. 34

7. Approximate costs to operate a Coastal Information System in
its fourth year . . . . .. .. 35

8. Approximate costs to operate a Coastal Information System in
its fifth year. . . . . . 36

9. Tasks for a Coastal Information System manager in first year
of operation. . . . . . . 38








Enhanced Public Coastal Information Through a
Statewide Databank Network in Florida:
Feasibility and Pilot Study

Final Project Report
By
D.P. Reddy and M. Seaman, Jr.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rapid coastal population growth and urbanization in Florida requires
current and extensive information for a variety of public and private inter-
ests. Individual organizations charged with developing or providing such
information face a widening gap between the awareness of their increasing
audiences and the effectiveness of their efforts, due in part to a shortage of
personnel and communications resources. Pooling information resources through
state-of-the-art computer technology is one approach to beginning to reduce
this gap.

This project demonstrated that it is feasible to organize a remote-access
statewide information service for a variety of users to contact to determine
what information is available for a coastal subject and where it may be ob-
tained. Two types of computer-based systems for facilitating the exchange and
promoting the awareness of information regarding Florida coastal issues and
resources were developed, tested and evaluated. Although both systems are
feasible technically, for several reasons a microcomputer system was found
preferable to a mainframe computer system to implement a coastal information
network. Options for operating both kinds of systems are reviewed in this
report, including fiscal and technical requirements. With growth of a Coastal
Information System, use of a mainframe computer could become feasible after
several years.

The recommended network could be accessed directly through a remote com-
puter terminal or microcomputer and modem or through a written or verbal re-
quest to system operators. The computer caller would be able to search a bib-
liography on marine topics drawn from published sources as well as govern-
mental, academic and private institution's less widely accessible resources.
Specialized bibliographies, a bulletin board of coming marine events and a
message center for caller use could also be accessed. The system envisioned
is a clearing house, not a library. Callers would receive a bibliography of
references for a given subject and information and assistance on how to obtain
the works.

Potential applications of such a network and interests in Florida are
numerous. Examples include; increasing public awareness of the sea through
schools or the media, understanding coastal development, planning, and build-
ing guidelines of local and state governments, or managing coastal environ-
mental quality and productivity of aquatic habitats for long-term food and
game fishery harvests.

Major categories of information needs in Florida were determined through
a statewide survey of key coastal-related organizations representing govern-
mental, academic, and non-profit sectors. Particularly important topics in-
clude quality of estuarine fisheries and habitat, shoreline stability and
erosion, natural history of marine organisms, and quality and variety of sea-








foods. Individual respondents to the survey reported up to 6000 requests for
information annually, per organization.

Available computer hardware, software, and communications systems were
evaluated and utilized or adapted to the degree possible for this demonstra-
tion. No existing aquatic information system nationally or in Florida could
be directly adopted as a Coastal Information System. Many existing natural
resource-oriented systems are too technical or limited in accessibility.
However, one of the great strengths of the system recommended is its ability
to electronically download references directly from another computer without
the need of retyping. This capability will allow the rapid assembly of an
extensive marine bibliography, drawing resources currently scattered in marine
institutions across the state into a central repository. Far from replacing
individual institution's specialized bibliographies the network would allow
them access to the holdings of similar institutions around the state, enhanc-
ing communication and helping to avoid duplication of effort. It would also
provide public access to this information at minimal cost to the individual
agencies.

A microcomputer system based upon a network of Zenith 150 personal compu-
ters operated by Florida Sea Grant and its Extension Program was tested, using
a pilot databank of nearly 1000 references to marine publications and other
information materials. Among other topics, searches of the database in the
area of fisheries, artificial reefs, and coastal erosion were conducted. The
bibliographic software used, Reference Manager, allows searches by keyword,
source, author, editor or a string of characters in the reference and supports
searches by multiple terms. The Multi-Link communications package utilized
enables simultaneous access from more than one terminal.

A mainframe computer system was developed only partially, due to funding
limitations, but all components and an organizational scheme for its operation
were identified. A Cyber computer, operated by a non-profit organization, was
selected as the most effective hardware, and software from a Federal agency
was found to be the most useful database management program.

It is recommended that planning be undertaken to organize a computer-bas-
ed statewide system. Operation of a Coastal Information System could be ini-
tiated by a single organization or a consortium, with lead responsibility
falling to either a private organization or a public agency or university.
Start-up and initial operating costs would be $68,000 in the first year if the
system were created in a new office situation. The cost to add it to an
existing program would be less. Options for funding the system include a leg-
islative appropriation directly to it, or shared subscriptions by a number of
marine-focused State, Federal, regional, and private entities. Half of the 33
agencies, laboratories and academic marine programs surveyed during this study
(all of those that responded to the survey) expressed interest in the concept
of a coastal information network as described by this project.

Computer-based information management for aquatic subjects is in its
early stages of development in Florida, and is characterized by independent
and uncoordinated efforts. To enhance the cost-effectiveness of a coastal
information system in Florida (1) existing mechanisms, such as the State's
FIRNCOM system for local access to educational information, should be tested
before new efforts are initiated, and (2) State agencies should consider
establishing a mandatory reporting system for grant and contract-supported
projects so that a central repository of information useful to broad audiences
would be available.











INTRODUCTION
Florida is nationally recognized as being in the forefront of America's
"growth states," as evidenced by the gain of four new Congressional seats
after the 1980 census. Three-fourths of the State's new population settles on
the coast, due to the economic and aesthetic attractiveness of Florida's sea
and marine resources. Along with the prosperity brought by coastal develop-
ment has emerged a significant need for information in a variety of audiences
whose well-being is influenced by marine resources.

To address ways in which these audiences might exchange information -- as
well as simply become aware of it -- the project described in this report was
undertaken. A mope extensive discussion of the rationale for it, and the
needs addressed by it, is presented in the proposal submitted to the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) (Seaman et al. 1984).

Florida Coastal Situation

By the year 2000 Florida's current population of slightly over 10,000,000
will increase to almost 15,000,000, with the major settlement happening in
just half of the State's coastal counties. A combination of (1) commercial
and recreational uses dependent upon a stable and renewable natural resource
base, (2) residential and tourist housing and amenities, and (3) certain heavy
industries, all in coastal and nearshore settings, has established Florida
prominently in the nation's marine economy. For example, approximately one-
half million motorboats are registered in the state, its commercial fisheries
are sixth most valuable in the U.S., and tourists consider "beaches" as their
prime motivation to visit Florida.

To accommodate coastal utilization and development, a variety of regula-
tions and guidelines have been issued by several State and Federal agencies
plus the coastal counties and cities. Meanwhile, universities and laborator-
ies conduct research in many marine areas, the public often is organized to
advocate various interests such as conservation, recreation, etc., and private
and business interests also are involved in such efforts. Profiles of many of
these numerous organizations are provided by Leahy (1984). In this framework,
examples of very diverse information needs include:

.understanding coastal development restrictions of State and local
government (e.g., homeowners, builders, planners)
.enhancing marine business profitability (e.g., small businesses)
.developing new service industries for marine trades (e.g. chambers of
commerce)
.managing coastal environmental quality and productivity of aquatic
habitats (e.g., fishermen, agencies)
.increasing public awareness of the sea (e.g., the media, schools)
.promoting the public capacity to make informed decisions (e.g., legisla-
tors).

While many coastal interests develop or transmit information, their ef-
forts normally do not reach mass audiences nor are they equally distributed
throughout the state. This pertains both to technical/scientific and to lay
levels. "Information and Education" offices in governmental agencies typical-










ly are small and yet are charged with broad responsibilities that exceed a
focus on coastal resource issues. Media coverage of such issues may be local-
ized and spotty, a pattern also typical of primary and secondary education.

In short, there is a "gap" in general public awareness of coastal facts,
issues, and the important role of nearshore resources in Florida. Secondly
more technical interests also seek to obtain or transfer information. A tell-
ing statistic is that only one person in three was able to correctly identify
the term "mangrove" in a public survey recently conducted in Southwest Flor-
ida (Florida Dept. Natural Resources 1984). This is despite the occurrence of
about a half million acres of mangrove forest in Florida (including the survey
area) and their vital role in maintaining various important coastal fish and
shellfish species (Lewis, in press).

Because of the perception from a number of quarters that the collective
ability of various formal and informal information sources to keep pace with
public needs was being outpaced by Florida's rapid coastal population growth
(both residential and tourist), this project was initiated to explore very
specific ways to pool resources using state-of-the-art electronic communica-
tions and data processing technology.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The goal of the project was to determine the feasibility of using a
computer-based information retrieval system to assist persons and organiza-
tions in Florida to identify and locate coastal resources information.

It was envisioned that such a system could facilitate and multiply the
efforts of independent but coordinated interests in serving larger audiences
to keep pace with accelerated needs for marine information. Potential benefi-
ciaries include lay and semi-technical interests (e.g., general public, media)
and technical interests (e.g., legislative staffs, agency planners, educators,
scientists).

As explained in the following section, the approach of this project was
to survey and evaluate existing computer systems and bibliographic programs
that might be used or modified. Major sources of Florida coastal information
were surveyed for potential interest, and selected references were electroni-
cally transferred for pilot testing and demonstration.

The specific objective was to develop two working pilot databases of
coastal references that could be accessed directly through a computer or
terminal, and provide recommendations for options for implementing such a
system.

METHODS

The project was conducted in January-October 1985 with financial support
from FDER and matching support from Florida Sea Grant (FSG) that included
utilization of its Zenith microcomputers on and off-campus. The milestones
presented in the original proposal were fulfilled, with quarterly reports sub-
mitted at the end of March and June.










ly are small and yet are charged with broad responsibilities that exceed a
focus on coastal resource issues. Media coverage of such issues may be local-
ized and spotty, a pattern also typical of primary and secondary education.

In short, there is a "gap" in general public awareness of coastal facts,
issues, and the important role of nearshore resources in Florida. Secondly
more technical interests also seek to obtain or transfer information. A tell-
ing statistic is that only one person in three was able to correctly identify
the term "mangrove" in a public survey recently conducted in Southwest Flor-
ida (Florida Dept. Natural Resources 1984). This is despite the occurrence of
about a half million acres of mangrove forest in Florida (including the survey
area) and their vital role in maintaining various important coastal fish and
shellfish species (Lewis, in press).

Because of the perception from a number of quarters that the collective
ability of various formal and informal information sources to keep pace with
public needs was being outpaced by Florida's rapid coastal population growth
(both residential and tourist), this project was initiated to explore very
specific ways to pool resources using state-of-the-art electronic communica-
tions and data processing technology.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The goal of the project was to determine the feasibility of using a
computer-based information retrieval system to assist persons and organiza-
tions in Florida to identify and locate coastal resources information.

It was envisioned that such a system could facilitate and multiply the
efforts of independent but coordinated interests in serving larger audiences
to keep pace with accelerated needs for marine information. Potential benefi-
ciaries include lay and semi-technical interests (e.g., general public, media)
and technical interests (e.g., legislative staffs, agency planners, educators,
scientists).

As explained in the following section, the approach of this project was
to survey and evaluate existing computer systems and bibliographic programs
that might be used or modified. Major sources of Florida coastal information
were surveyed for potential interest, and selected references were electroni-
cally transferred for pilot testing and demonstration.

The specific objective was to develop two working pilot databases of
coastal references that could be accessed directly through a computer or
terminal, and provide recommendations for options for implementing such a
system.

METHODS

The project was conducted in January-October 1985 with financial support
from FDER and matching support from Florida Sea Grant (FSG) that included
utilization of its Zenith microcomputers on and off-campus. The milestones
presented in the original proposal were fulfilled, with quarterly reports sub-
mitted at the end of March and June.








5

In preparing a feasibility report for a computer-based information sys-
tem, a prototype was constructed using the best available software and the
database described below. This prototype was demonstrated September 19, 1985
at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Florida Marine Information
Network, Inc., and on October 8 to a small group of executives at FDER, and
also was tested by a number of persons active in marine affairs around the
state (see Acknowledgments). Factors discussed include technical feasibility
of the system, costs, availability and transfer of data from other sources,
and potential interest and cooperation among related marine organizations.

Computer Systems

Two separate-systems were evaluated concurrently, i.e. a microcomputer
and a mainframe computer, to provide a greater range of options for considera-
tion in meeting the needs that motivated this study. In addition to initial
consultation with FDER, periodic contact with representatives of the Board of
Directors of the Florida Marine Information Network, Inc. (MARINE) was main-
tained. Experts at other agencies, in business, and at the University of
Florida also were consulted (see Acknowledgments). This was in lieu of con-
vening an advisory committee originally conceived before the project started.

Microcomputer software initially was run on Zenith 150 personal computers
(with 10 megabyte hard drive). Other brands of computers subsequently were
used to access the system. Remote access included communication by agents of
the Florida Sea Grant Extension Program, which previously had equipped its
staff with Zenith model 100 microcomputer equipment compatible with that in
the FSG central office. This was to assess the potential for establishing a
network of access points. The different software packages evaluated during
this study are described below, under Results.

Mainframe computer options were assessed in cooperation with Florida
Agricultural Services and Technologies (FAST), after evaluating other options
as described in the Results section.

Database

The basic database for this project consisted of citations to (1) over
800 publications and other information materials produced by the Florida Sea
Grant College Program, which is a statewide effort of the State University
System of Florida and hosted by the University of Florida (UF); (2) 125 FDER
contract reports held by its Office of Coastal Management; and (3) 27 model
ordinances from the UF Center for Governmental Responsibility (CGR), included
at the request of FDER.

By organizing this information in formats that could be searched accord-
ing to standard bibliographic notation (e.g., author, source, title, and/or
keyword), it was intended that persons at remote locations could have access
to -- and actually prepare their own -- individually tailored lists of cita-
tions. The intent was to afford wide access by many diverse audiences.

Citations of FSG information were assembled from previously established
databases, primarily the National Sea Grant Depository at the Pell Library of
the University of Rhode Island, which holds all publications (e.g., books,










newsletters, technical reports) of all Sea Grant programs nationally. This
database was electronically searched and the citations of all FSG publications
were transferred using the SGNET communications system operated by the Nation-
al Sea Grant Office.

In fact, the information/communication system most immediately relevant
to this project was the National Sea Grant SGNET system, through which (1) the
references held by the National Sea Grant Depository and (2) the projects and
investigators funded by Sea Grant may be identified. These two databases con-
sist of tens of thousands of items, reflecting nearly 20 years' effort nation-
wide (conducted under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Commerce Nation-
al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] primarily through university
programs in partnership with state and local agencies and industries).
Through SGNET the entire file of citations for all Florida Sea Grant publica-
tions provided to the Depository since 1972 was transferred electronically.
It should be noted, however, that neither the Depository reference collection
nor the Sea Grant project/investigator file are established as a widely acces-
sible information source to serve general audiences.

Secondly, information about masters theses and doctoral dissertations
prepared under the auspices of FSG was drawn from a file newly established on
DEC-mate (Digital Electronic Corporation) word processing equipment at FSG.
Descriptions of FSG research, education, and extension projects which over the
years have been submitted to the National Sea Grant Office also were trans-
ferred via SGNET. The FDER coastal report citations were transcribed on the
DEC-mate and electronically transferred to the Zenith. The CGR ordinance file
was transferred on disk to the Zenith.

Bibliographic and reference systems operating nationally and in Florida
for other aquatic and natural resource subjects also were identified in the
course of this study, with the intention of (1) securing operations guide-
lines, and (2) identifying potential databases of use to Florida coastal
audiences.

Information Needs

Two complementary surveys of requests for coastal information were con-
ducted, to establish possible subject matter emphases for a potential coastal
information system (CIS).

Due to the MARINE interface with several Florida coastal/marine organiza-
tions and its potential involvement with actual implementation of a coastal
information service, a statewide survey of interest was conducted under the
auspices of that organization. The survey of 33 organizations was designed to
determine the level of inquiry concerning coastal issues directed to the key
marine-related Federal and State agencies, private laboratories, and academic
departments in Florida. In addition to assessing the possible need for a cen-
tralized coastal information system, the survey also sought the interest of
organizations in participation in it. (See Appendix 1.)

A second survey was conducted in-house to determine the major categories
of information requested of FSG Extension Program agents located in coastal
counties in Florida. (See Appendix 2.)










RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The principal conclusion of this study is that it is possible to estab-
lish for Florida a computer-based information/bibliographic system dealing
with coastal subjects that is accessible to statewide audiences. The follow-
ing discussion first gives a national and state perspective for such a system,
then reviews the hardware and software evaluated in this project, and provides
recommendations for how such a system might be implemented.

Review of Aquatic Information Systems

An early phase of this project was directed to finding hardware and
software that might be directly used in, or at least adapted to, the coastal
needs described above. This effort put us in touch with other related activ-
ities, with results pertinent to both this project and possible follow-up.

In short, we did not locate an information or library management system
that could be directly instituted by a potential operator of a coastal infor-
mation program in Florida. Each of the aquatic information systems discussed
below was investigated to some degree to determine the feasibility of placing
the CIS databank on it or of adapting the systems used to the construction of
the databank. Not surprisingly, each of these systems has a unique mandate
and specific data requirements that preclude its direct utilization by the CIS
effort.

For example the focus of most governmental systems is defined by law or
agency rule. Thus, each system was set up to meet the requirements of certain
audiences, usually limited to more technical aspects.

Furthermore, some databanks do not allow direct public access, while the
national systems which do, such as ERIC on Dialog, contain thousands of refer-
ences irrelevant to a Florida Coastal Information System. Also, they require
that each user establish and pay for the use of an account. This is unaccept-
able for a system desiring to make Florida marine information available to the
largest possible audience.

While no system on which to place the CIS databank was found, our invest-
igation of existing systems did provide guidelines for developing the system
ourselves. Information on data formatting and retrieval requirements, commun-
ications systems, systems to aid user access, and problems encountered by sys-
tem operators was extremely helpful in the formation of a working system in a
relatively brief time (see Acknowledgments).

Interaction with existing aquatic information systems also made it ap-
parent that typical systems do not designate public and semi-technical au-
diences as primary users; their focus is usually on a specific, limited tech-
nical interest. Meanwhile, the aim of the Coastal Information System is to
provide a central clearinghouse on information about the Florida coast, not to
duplicate their efforts. The ability to transfer data from these systems has
been well established by this project. Thus a primary focus of the CIS data-
bank should be to draw brief citations of relevant data (e.g., bibliographic
references) from these scattered and tightly focused databases into a central
repository where it will be available to the more general audiences usually
overlooked by existing aquatic information systems.










National Level

The principal aquatic information systems that are national in scope and
accessible to at least some external audiences include:

.Fish and Wildlife Reference Service, maintained by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, which provides citations on Federal
aid-sponsored research and associated programs, published or
unpublished

.National Environmental Data Referral Service (NEDRES), main-
tained by NOAA, which is a computer-searchable catalog and index
of descriptions of available environmental data and organiza-
tions

.National Marine Pollution Information System (NMPIS), one of
several oceanographic databases maintained by the National
Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) and probably the largest re-
pository on marine science information in the U. S., which
maintains files on Federal activities in marine pollution; NODC
is also currently developing a database of citations to Federal
"gray literature" marine pollution documents (i.e., internal
reports, mimeographed papers, etc.)

.ERIC, a database of citations to general educational material,
including marine education, which is maintained on the Dialog
national on-line database

.Aquatic Science and Fisheries Abstracts, which maintains a
national database of abstracted citations

.AQUACULTURE, a database of citations, maintained on Dialog

.International Association of Marine Science Libraries and Infor-
mation Centers (IAMSLIC) does not provide a central database but
does provide indirect access to the bibliographic listings of
its over 100 personal and institutional members in 17 countries

In each case, the systems do not constitute a broad base of coastal in-
formation. However, each offers a potential database to include in a CIS, and
guidance should a CIS be implemented.

Databases in Other States

Organizations with a statewide mission also maintain databases of marine
information and education materials. In the Southeast these include:

.Marine Education Materials System (MEMS), maintained by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the Virginia Sea Grant
Marine Education Program, which provides a bibliographic data-
base of marine education materials as well as the materials
themselves










.Coastal Information Management System, maintained for in-house
use by the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, which con-
tains bibliographic files of Sea Grant publications and projects
in the MississippiAlabama area

.Marine Data Base, being developed by the Sea Grant Marine Exten-
sion Program, Clemson University, the South Carolina Parks, Re-
creation and Tourism Department, and the National Weather Ser-
vice to contain citations to Sea Grant publications and timely
marine information

.Gunter Library, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, provides a bib-
liographic database of marine scientific research publications.

Among the state and national systems reviewed, perhaps MEMS and ERIC have
the widest potential audience, due to their designation of teachers as princi-
pal users. To our knowledge these systems do not exchange or share databases,
so that potential users -- typically working through their employing organiza-
tion -- contact each one separately to initiate a "search."

Efforts in Florida

A number of aquatic-related databases have been or are being developed
within the state of Florida, including:

.Aquatic Weed Information and Retrieval Center, at the University
of Florida Center for Aquatic Weeds, which provides citations to
scientific publications in its area

.Florida Water Resources Bibliography, maintained by the Water
Quality Monitoring and Quality Assurance Section of the FDER
Bureau of Water Quality Management, on a computer information
system and designed to be a "central repository" of all informa-
tion on water quality in the State of Florida, as mandated by
the Legislature

.Coastal Engineering Information Management System, Index Sub-
system (CEIMS), being developed by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, will include an extensive bibliography on coastal
sandy beaches

.Division of Storm Water and Nonpoint Source Pollution of the
FDER is developing a database in their area which will include
many coastal references

.Tampa Bay Management Data Base and Information System, main-
tained by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, will provide
citations germane to the Tampa Bay ecological system.

While each of the above databases provides some information on the coast-
al zone of Florida, none are attempting to provide information on all aspects
of the coastal zone, nor to make that information readily available to inter-










ested parties in Florida. Rather, these systems are oriented to more tech-
nical concerns and are more subject-specific, thus limiting their widespread
use by a broader range of Florida interests. We note also that computer-based
information management for aquatic subjects is in its early stages of develop-
ment in Florida, and perhaps characteristically the efforts are independent
and uncoordinated.

(This review of databases has not addressed communication systems, most
notable of which may be FIRN, which readers familiar with Florida may feel is
relevant. This is discussed in a later section of the report.)

Boundaries for a Florida System

The mandates of the three primary organizations involved with this pro-
ject provide initial guidance regarding areas of coverage as well as limits to
a possible statewide coastal information system: (1) As funding agency the
FDER Office of Coastal Management reflects a public policy and regulatory
viewpoint that encompasses the need to educate citizens, coastal residents,
and local authorities in specific details of coastal planning elements (e.g.,
zoning, legal issues, habitat quality, etc.) as well as broad aspects of
coastal land and water system dynamics (e.g., carrying capacity). (2) As a
public, non-profit educational entity MARINE is concerned with the dissemina-
tion of information to a broad array of citizens, interests, and public and
private audiences who must make decisions concerning the welfare of coastal
resources over long-tern periods. (3) Florida Sea Grant, meanwhile, in con-
ducting the project affords the experience of a statewide information delivery
system operated from the perspective of a university public service program
charged with enhancing marine productivity through research and development.

Survey of Marine Organizations

To sharpen the focus of the vision of these three organizations for a
statewide, objective source of diverse coastal information to meet the needs
of public and private, lay-level and technical interests, on a "user-friendly"
basis, the survey of key organizations provided an indication of potential
demand and interest statewide. As described in Appendix 1 relevant organiza-
tions were asked (Item 1) to complete and return a brief survey sheet (Item 2)
regarding the nature and amount of inquiry they received in the field of
coastal subjects and issues, and their effort and interest related to response
and information transfer.

Of 16 respondents, three were Florida governmental agencies with respon-
sibilities in aquatic resource management, three were university programs, two
were private laboratories, and one was a conservation organization, all head-
quartered in Florida. The other seven included five regional (with offices in
Florida) and one national unit of Federal agencies with missions including but
not limited to Florida coastal resource systems, and one private foundation
with worldwide activities. All 16 respondents expressed an interest in the
concept of a coastal information databank as described by this project. Res-
ponses to survey questions are summarized in Table 1.
















Table 1. Level and nature of activity of Fl
to requests for information.
Requests for info
Organization Technical
St. Johns Water Mgt. Oist. 2-4

NW Florida Water Hgt. iOst. 4

Florida Dept. Natural 150
Resources, Bur. Marine
Research

Univ. Florida, Whitney 1-2
Marine Research Lab

Florida Sea Grant College Few
Director's Office

Univ. Miail, Rosenstiel 15-20
School Marine a
Atmos. Sci.

Harbor Branch Found. >50

Mote Marine Lab 40-60

Internat. Oceanog. Found., --
Sea Secrets Dept.

Environ. Protection Agency. 3
Environ. Research Lab.
(Gulf Breeze)

Nat. Marine Fish. Serv., 20-30b
SE Fisheries Ctr.

Nat. Marine Fish. Serv. Few
Regional Office

Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Mgt. Council

Army Corps of Eng., Some
Jacksonville Dist.

National Marine Pollution 2-5
Program Office, Nat.
Oceanic A Atmos. Main.

Florida Defenders of Envt. 1

bIn bibliography
Florida only
dIncludes reporters
Organizing Coastal Sandy Beaches Database
In progress is a 5000-reference database of marine


lorida-related technical coastal organizations in responding

nation (Monthly) Nature of. Information Holdings
Electronically Approx.
Lay-level Transferable No. References
2-5 Yes 500

2 No 20-100

75 No 500


200-500


>50

100-120


Some
bibliographic


20-30b


Hundreds

1100


650 books,
25 Journals


>500

2500-3000
).


,50


200


Limited


Many


300d


5000e


pollution gray literature










Demand for Information

The number of "requests for information about the coastal zone" received
by each respondent monthly ranged from one to 150 for "technical" inquiries,
and zero to 500 from the "lay public."

For all organizations that supplied estimates, it appears that twice as
many lay-level requests (i.e., 8160) as technical requests (i.e., 4080) are
received annually. To account for a small number of additional responses that
defined the level more qualitatively (using terms such as "some,") and to pro-
vide a graphic comparison of patterns of response, broad categories of inquiry
level are depicted in Figure 1. The majority of organizations indicated an
inquiry level of a "few" (i.e., 1-8 requests) per month for both technical and
lay inquiries. This includes smaller organizations dealing with only sections
of the state or not necessarily being devoted primarily to coastal issues.

Yet five organizations indicated at least 15 and as many as 100 or more
of each of the two kinds of inquiry per month. Thus for the organizations
with a higher profile, a broader geographic and subject matter purview, and a
significant or complete focus on Florida and its coast there appears to be a
rate of at least 1000 or more requests for coastal information per year for
individual organizations. Combined, just for organizations that responded to
the survey, a significant information transfer process exists. (It is note-
worthy that local county-level or municipal interest is not reflected in the
survey. This includes local extension agents, who are a well-used information
source. Nor does this reflect inquiries to FDER, which obviously has suffici-
ent demand for information to actively support this study.)

Nature of Information Requested

The kinds of information requested of the organizations listed in Table
1, although diverse as would be expected in a state as large and complex as
Florida, can be described in terms of broad categories. In response to the
survey (Appendix 1, Item 2), respondents listed several "of the most commonly
asked (serious) coastal resource-related questions -- or categories of ques-
tions -- directed to you by your various clients, whether... public-at-large
or more specialized..." The total of 81 entries listed by responding organi-
zations were classified according to 11 broad subject matter categories as
listed in Table 2. The subject raised with the largest number of organiza-
tions was Coastal Habitat and Quality, addressed to two-thirds (i.e. 9) of
them. This subject also was most popular in terms of questions listed as most
common, in that 17 entries (21%) listed by respondents fell in this area.
(Note that in this analysis we are dealing only with the most commonly asked
questions, not all questions ever received by the organizations but not re-
ported in the survey.)

Examples of Coastal Habitat and Quality inquiries include questions such
as the effects of pollution in nearshore waters, seaweed biology, freshwater
requirements of estuaries, and general ecology. The subject with the second
highest level of inquiry, 14 requests (17% of the total), was Shore Dynamics,
Circulation, and Erosion, addressing beaches, erosion, coastal hydraulics,
tides, sea level change, and oceanographic processes. For this subject eight
of the 14 responding organizations reported inquiries.

















'c Technical Ri quests

I \ Lay-level Requests


Number

of

Organizations

Reporting Each

Level of

Inquiry


None (0) Few (1-8) Some (15-30) Many (50)

Number of Requests for Information, Per Month


Figure 1. Levels of inquiry by two audience types seeking Florida coastal
information from organizations.












Table 2. Popularity of various categories of coastal and marine information
as directed to 14 coast-related organizations in Florida.



Subject Matter No. Organizations Percentage of Requests
Receiving Requests for a Given Subject


Economics and Business 3 5

Recreation 1 1

Seafood Quality and Harvest 5 9

Fishery Biology and Management 7 15

Aquaculture and Natural Products 4 5

Shore Dynamics Circulation and

Erosion 8 17

Marine Structures and Engineering 5 9

Policy, Regulation and Legal

Issues 2 2

Coastal Habitat Quality 9 21

Natural History and Identification

of organisms 8 12

Educational Materials and Speakers 3 4










The overall emphasis of inquiries was on the so-called living marine re-
sources of Florida's coast and sea, with 15% of the reported information re-
quests dealing with the category of Fishery Biology and Management, and an-
other 12% requesting assistance with identification of organisms or informa-
tion about their life history. An additional nine percent of all inquiries
dealt with aspects of Seafood Quality and Harvest, sometimes asking for exam-
ple, if a product was good to eat or where to obtain high quality seafood.

Only a small number of inquiries dealt with recreation, or sought infor-
mation about different aspects of regulation. A few requests dealt with get-
ting started in marine businesses, such as fishing or aquaculture. A complete
list of questions and categories of questions, according to the subject areas
described above and. listed in Table 2, is in Appendix 3.

Survey of Extension Agents

A second source of information about the most popular coastal subjects
was the network of 11 marine extension agents employed by the Florida Sea
Grant Extension Program. For this survey, however, levels of inquiry were not
determined. Just the most-asked questions were enumerated. Thus the same
question sent to organizations was sent to the 11 agents located in different
coastal cities around the Florida coast, with results of the survey (Appendix
3) listed in Table 3.

The survey of agents also indicated a tendency for coastal information
requests to focus on living marine resources. In this case seafood was most
commonly addressed; issues related to marine organisms including life history
and identification also were common. The second most prevalent subject was
Shore Dynamics, reflecting concerns for beach erosion, dune stabilization,
etc.

In contrast with the organizations surveyed, the extension agents receiv-
ed significantly more inquiries regarding recreation, a logical result due to
their local knowledge (Figure 2). This finding also held true for policy, or
"how to get things done" locally. Agencies and other organizations, mean-
while, tended to receive more inquiries on shore dynamics and coastal environ-
mental quality.

Potential Involvement of Survey Respondents

Finally, the efforts of organizations to conduct or improve the informa-
tion transfer process, and the potential or actual involvement of others in it
must be addressed. With regard to the latter point, slightly more than half
(51%) of the organizations contacted did not respond to the survey. Among the
non-respondents the principal category was university departments (Table 4),
as might be predicted considering that they typically d6'not operate primarily
as an information source to audiences immediately beyond their subject spe-
cialties. Among the other non-respondents, however, it is apparent that some
level of inquiry for coastal information would exist, such as in the legisla-
tive committees and certain agencies whose counterparts in other geographic
areas did respond to the survey (Table 1). In other words, statewide in
Florida there is a greater demand for information services than the already
considerable level determined by the survey, so that the estimate of 12,240
requests per year is extremely low, as discussed above.













Table 3. Categories of coastal subject matter addressed in information re-
quests made to marine extension agents in Florida.





Subject Matter Percentage of Requests

According to Subject




Economics and Business 7

Recreation 10

Seafood Quality and Harvest 17

Fishery Biology and Management 10

Fishing Gear 2

Aquaculture and Natural Products 10

Shore Dynamics, Circulation and

Erosion 13

Marine Structures and Engineering 4

Policy, Regulation and Legal Issues 8

Coastal Habitat Quality 7

Natural History and Identification

of Organisms 12

Educational Materials and Speakers 0














S-, .14 Governmental and Privote organization
F771 11 Marine Extension Agents


ECON. RECR. SEAFOOD FISH AQ. SHORE ENGR. POLICY HABITAT NAT.
& BIOL. & DYNAM. QUAL. HIST.
BUS. & NAT.
MGT. PROD.


Distribution of requests for coastal information made to two cate-
gories of source organizations, according to subject matter.


Figure 2.













Table 4. Organizations contacted but not providing information to coastal
information survey.


Florida Legislature, House Natural Resources Committee Staff

Florida Legislature, Senate Natural Resources Committee Staff

Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Executive Director

Suwannee Water Management District

South Florida Water Management District

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

University of South Florida, Department of Marine Science

Florida State University, Department of Oceanography

Florida State University, Marine Biology Laboratory

Florida Atlantic University, Department of Ocean Engineering

University of Florida, Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department

University of Florida, Department of Fisheries & Aquaculture

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Florida Audubon Society

Florida Environmental Service Center










The high interest level of survey respondents requires follow-up analysis
to indicate the potential for future involvement and cooperation in any at-
tempt to operate a CIS. For example, on-site visits and extensive interviews
by a CIS manager would refine the major categories of information needs.
Eight organizations indicated that their databases could be transferred elec-
tronically (e.g., if a centralized information system were being compiled);
eight do not have that capability. Those organizations with electronically
transferred citations hold on the order of 7000 or more references that might
be included in a database; in addition there are specialized bibliographies
that might apply also.

There are many more agencies and organizations with a coastal mandate in
Florida and the databank should continue to grow steadily over its first five
years, but at a much slower rate than in its initial year. A large databank
will encounter many duplications between the holdings of Florida-focused agen-
cies.

One of the most significant areas of growth for the CIS databank could
easily be in the importation of specialized bibliographies, which could either
be merged into the generalized databank or kept as specialized companion data-
bases on the same computer. Agencies such as Sea Grant, FDER, and NMFS fre-
quently sponsor the production of extensive bibliographies in specialized
technical fields. These works are invariably produced on a word processor or
computer. Future grants from agencies participating in the CIS databank could
require the electronic transfer of appropriate citations to the databank as
part of the grant.

In summary, given the above findings and assuming a continuing-stream of
citations of new publications from participating agencies, the CIS databank
will probably need personnel and systems to store 5,000 or more citations per
year over its first five years and sufficient capacity to add 2,000 or more of
those citations to its databank(s). A growth rate in this rough area would
result in a databank holding of about 15,000 citations in five years. (See
Figure 3 for an example of the growth of one specialized marine databank, The
Aquatic Weed Program.)

Accurate estimates of numbers of users of a CIS databank are impossible.
Use will depend on cost to the user, system capabilities, degree of exposure
of the system to the general and marine publics, public response, and other
imponderables. However, agencies which responded to the MARINE survey report-
ed up to 6,000 requests for information per year. A successful state-wide
databank should certainly generate that many requests, and probably many more.
A minimal capability for the first five years should therefore be planned to
handle 6,000 or more annual requests for information (either directly using
the system through computer or terminal and modem, or written and verbal re-
quests) per year. (See Figure 3 for an idea of the percentile growth experi-
enced by the Aquatic Weed Program. The audience of the CIS databank is many
times larger.

Evaluation of Possible Coastal System Components

Based on the above estimates of involvement of other organizations and
projections of levels of inquiry from lay and technical interests, appropriate
hardware and software were evaluated to meet the needs of a Florida Coastal














Aquatic Ued Progrm Update Bibliographles Requested


TOO


00 -


300 -


O I'- n I -
SEPT DEC MAR JUNE SEPT DEC MAY OCT MAY DEC
1980 1980 1981 1981 1981 1981 1982 1982 1983 1933


The atlc med Praogra
ITe oestt e Ptrogr o o s teIIms as tlofastim et*aCage syistm %Och
II stam by Weral tosmnd aqutic plant aIn etIcsste researcnrs -rid-
wide. Progr u1ets contrtlibt research artcles. reports a % MIS and. I,
rotra,. receive Prned Its of r tatitms I articles s"M btoks. acrdlng to
thtr wclftt r research tterests. Cltttlito lst$ (bbillegraprre are re-
questi prdI ue r calbletr accrdtrg to Plat spoi es subject cateiwg
IOad IA ustctego es ald keyerd s of the Ittrature. Ia this 1r. restart
r teep traci of uirtede rost r I titr MspecIatil. tis service is
Ie flid re of care by t t Alqutic t e Prora.
Te gria abMwe Is the aOgi r of tl*tedeils who recet reglar me-
ates t tMher atic plant biblegrpio>es. (Several kumre w research-
ersa year receIe ea*-tme "*retesnective searches but do set request roe-
ltr IIpates.) The greI f Ibe low ts M le ao er of articles atd reports o-
tledI t (e database M citations and categrylkeylord i ist art retritn
able from tie pregram'l cOm r-u.sed system. Most of thes artiCles aIn re*
parts ihav be o contrtlketd by users o the system ad are on file in twhe re-
gr ItlbrTry.
Idntllfying. lIcati ag" raequestla ri research Ortk tram Authol ides
tg. filitg a entering iaftmatilte tInto coa nouter system. as .eI as
keeping track of tho thousands a library ltems am pieces of mil sent and
received every year by tie Aquatic Wed Proran. is arw doa by iar"n rom a.
tatleem Culver. Leslie Lairy. Aleswerte Patterss and Victor lamey.

Aquatic Weed Program
Articles in Database


21 .-
20



is
Is-





IS

%2




8
t


a


1?900 1901 192 1983 1964 198s

Figure 3. Growth experienced by one aquatic databank: the Aquatic Weed
Program at the University of Florida.


A
-U-


-a

-u






A/




1?










Information System. To proceed cost-effectively, the intent of this project
was, to the degree possible, to build upon existing systems to establish a
pilot system for coastal information management. To do this we first evaluat-
ed available computer resources. Although the review of current aquatic in-
formation systems did not identify a package already in use and which could be
directly adopted in Florida with no modification, satisfactory software pack-
ages generally useful for bibliographic information management were located,
as was expected, and were utilized on the mainframe and microcomputer systems
as described in the following paragraphs.

Computer Systems

There are advantages to both types of hardware systems employed in this
project: Mainframe computers provide virtually unlimited data storage and an
established communications system in a multi-user environment. Microcomputers
provide flexibility of use, a tremendous number of custom-tailored software
applications, and low maintenance cost. Also access to an operator-controlled
network can be governed directly by project personnel.

Mainframe Systems

A number of mainframe computer systems were considered for the pilot
mainframe test. Each is discussed individually below. However, early in the
investigation it became apparent that the desire to allow users to access the
Coastal Information System databank directly would be the major constraint in
choosing a host for the test. Most mainframe systems control access through
account numbers and passwords. Once the account number and password have been
given, the user is "logged in" and is free to use available programs in the
way he/she sees fit. This is unacceptable for the CIS. Its operator cannot
be expected to pay for personal computer time, therefore we needed a system
which could guarantee that users would be channeled into and out of the CIS
databank without the opportunity to stray. The system finally chosen, The
Florida Agricultural Services and Technologies (FAST) Cyber computer, has that
capability and this is one of its prime recommendations.

a. Individual Mainframe Computer Systems

1. The Northeast Regional Data Center Computer (NERDC)

Advantages
--Supports a variety of database management programs.
--Professional support staff.
--Good access via terminal or modem.
--Virtually unlimited memory storage.

Disadvantages
--Charges for maintenance of files and user access.
--Access limited to those with an account.
--Difficulty in limiting users to only the files and programs
desired.











2. The IFAS* VAX Minicomputer

Advantages
--Generous memory storage.
--No cost to maintain our files or for authorized users to access
them.

Disadvantages
--Access is difficult during the working day due to a continuing
shortage of access ports to the computer.
--Access is limited to associates of IFAS who have established an
account.
--The database manager on the computer is new and professional
support staff have had little time to master it.

3. The Florida Agricultural Services and Technologies Computer

The Cyber computer operated by the Florida Agricultural Services and
Technologies was chosen for development of the mainframe test pilot data base.

Advantages
--Generous memory storage.
--Ability to custom tailor access for those we allow into the
system assuring no user abuse of our account.
--Good access via terminal or modem.

Disadvantages
--Charges for maintenance of files and user access.
--New facility with uncertain professional support depth.

Microcomputers

As noted previously, the Zenith 150PC (IBM-PC compatible) microcomputer
was taken as the given host system for the databank since this machine was
available to the project investigators from Sea Grant. Other microcomputers
(e.g., Osborne, Zenith Z100, IBM AT, IBM PC, Apple II-E) were used as termin-
als to test access to the pilot database.

The "PC compatible" microcomputer has become the defacto standard for the
industry. Use of this standard assures accessibility by the maximum number of
potential users and also assures us of the ability to update the system as
needed, since a PC compatible version is put out for virtually every new
microcomputer software application.

Bibliographic Software Systems

Mainframe Software

Software systems available on a number of sites in the Florida system of


*IFAS = Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.











data centers were investigated. As mentioned above, the major constraint on
choosing a mainframe computer for the CIS databank pilot test revolved around
the ability to control patron entry and use and abuse of the system. There-
fore, when a system (the Cyber computer) which fulfilled this requirement had
been chosen, investigation of software systems was necessarily limited to
those available for that system.

Mainframe database management programs are large and usually very gener-
alized in nature in order to handle the maximum number of different applica-
tions. Thus extensive work is necessary to customize a database for any par-
ticular application. Naturally, customizations have been carried out for each
of the existing mainframe bibliographic database systems and our first effort
was to see if we could obtain such a customized system. These systems and
their customizations are extremely expensive. We were successful in finding a
system developed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers on the BASIS database manage-
ment program (see below), which seemed to be well suited to adaptation to our
requirements, and the Corps showed interest in providing us with their pro-
gramming (see Acknowledgments). However, we were unable to locate a host
computer facility which had BASIS available in the state of Florida. Its high
cost ($50,000+) precluded purchase and we were forced to continue our search,
any attempt to place the CIS databank on a mainframe computer should include
further investigation of this possibility.

Three Cyber database management programs were investigated for use with
the CIS databank: IPF2, BASIS, and INFOFETCH. They are discussed below.

IPF2 -- Extensive test development was carried out with IPF2, during the
pilot project. Record formats and data retrieval configurations were defined
and small test files of citations were prepared and entered into the system.
However, IPF2 was found to be too numerically oriented to lend itself to a
database made up of text citations. Data entry systems were found to be too
restrictive for loading of large electronic transfers of citations and rigid
formats entailed excessive waste of space in storage of citations.

BASIS -- BASIS is a text-oriented database management program, currently
being used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, for the
creation of The Coastal Engineering Information Management System (CEIMS).
Literature on the system and expert CDC consultants suggest that this would be
the best selection for developing the databank on the Cyber computer. How-
ever, as noted above, a search for a host computer system in Florida which had
BASIS available was unsuccessful and the high cost of obtaining the system
made its use impossible.

INFOFETCH -- INFOFETCH also is a numerically oriented database management
program, but it was found-to be somewhat more flexible than IPF2 for the load-
ing of large electronic transfer of citations and it also allows the use of
custom-written routines in file handling. After investigation, INFOFETCH was
chosen for the development of the mainframe pilot test database. Although the
system was incomplete, it was developed sufficiently to illustrate the feasi-
bility of constructing an INFOFETCH based CIS databank. It is discussed
further below in the section, Mainframe Pilot System.











Microcomputer Software

Two major types of microcomputer software systems were evaluated: gener-
al purpose database programs and bibliographic database management programs.

General purpose database management programs were the first sophisticated
database management programs available on microcomputers. Some, such as dBase
II, have gained wide acceptance among computer users. General purpose data-
base management programs considered included: dBase II and III, Dataflex, and
Rbase 4,000. Each was found-to be capable of supporting a bibliographic data-
base. However, many of these systems' functions, such as number manipula-
tions, are of little use in our applications and some of the most valuable
functions supported by reference management programs (unlimited record length,
variable length fields, single indexes to multiple fields such as authors and
keywords within the same record) are unsupported on most of these systems.

Reference management programs are specifically designed to handle biblio-
graphies and similar materials. Most are capable of the direct electronic
capture of materials from other computer databases and have capabilities for
sophisticated search routines while being relatively simple to use, an impor-
tant consideration for a system designed for direct user access. More than 20
reference management programs were investigated. Some, such as the Profes-
sional Bibliographic System and Biosuperfile were rejected due to lack of a
sufficient number of indexes (each has one index into which you have to retype
anything you want to search by, such as author, keyword, source, date, etc.)
and/or an inability to search the entire database for a word or phrase ("text
searching" a cumbersome, but important option). Some had no indexe-and only
allowed text searches, which would make them slow with the large database an-
ticipated for the CIS databank, (but see the discussion of Sci-Mate below).
The investigation quickly narrowed to consideration of three reference manage-
ment3programs4which seemed to come closest to meeting our requirements. Sci-
Mate Ref-11 and Reference Manager .

Sci-Mate was one of the first of the relatively sophisticated bibliogra-
phic database managers. It utilizes a text search to retrieve desired cita-
tions, usually a slow and cumbersome technique with larger numbers of cita-
tions. However, through a propriety system, Sci-Mate has managed to maintain
an acceptable speed (they claim, and seem to deliver, a search rate of appro-
ximately 5,000 brief [300 character] records per minute on a hard disk.) Sci-
Mate also has a program for on-line search and retrieval of a number of the
national bibliographic databases such as Dialog, BRS, and Medline.





Developed by Personal Bibliographic Software, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
2Developed by Biosciences Information Service, Philadelphia, PA.
3Developed by the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA.
4Developed by DG Systems, Hartford, CT.
5Developed by Research Information Systems, Inc., La Jolla, CA.











Although Sci-Mate met most of our requirements, closer investigation led
to the discovery of a number of problems with using it to construct a Coastal
Information System databank. The most serious of these is that currently Sci-
Mate cannot be used by more than one person at a time, except in a CP/M oper-
ating system. A system restricted to a single user at a time would have a
very limited growth potential. (Although it is possible to configure a "PC
compatible" for CP/M operation, it is cumbersome and limits the capabilities
of the machine.) System designers have promised an update which will solve
this and other problems, but they have fallen considerably behind their own
schedule.

Ref-11 and Reference Manager have very similar capabilities. Both use
index searches for speed, can upload text files of references, are menu dri-
ven, allow full screen editing of references, allow wild card searches (e.g.,
a request for author Wil* would find Wilson, Williams, Willis, etc.), maintain
variable length records for efficient storage space use, allow custom tailor-
ing of bibliographic output, and function in a multi-user environment. How-
ever, there are some significant differences between the two as well. Refer-
ence Manager allows entry of up to 27 authors or editors and 36 keywords, and
does not limit length on other fields, such as title and abstract. Ref-11
allows eight authors, four editors, and eight keywords, and places length
limitations on the other reference fields. Reference Manager also maintains
four searchable indexes (author, editor, keyword, and source) and allows text
searching of title and abstract fields as well as searching by date of publi-
cation. Ref-11 maintains two searchable indexes (author and keyword), does
allow searching by date of publication, but allows text searching of only the
title field. Ref-11's limitations might be borne, if a better system-were not
available. Reference Manager is available however, and it was chosen to man-
age the CIS databank. It is discussed further below in the section, Results
of Pilot Studies.

Microcomputer Multi-user/Comunications Programs

Microcomputers, such as the Zenith 150, are not designed to handle more
than one user at a time, usually the person sitting at the keyboard (IBM AT
compatible computers are designed to allow multiple users, but only if they
have terminals or microcomputers specifically prepared for the job). For the
CIS databank, it is necessary that two or more users, operating on a wide
variety of terminals, be able to access the computer at the same time, first
to allow for increasing use of the databank, should it be successful, and
secondly to allow the databank manager to work on the computer while users are
calling in, an essential requirement for databank maintenance and for fulfill-
ing written or verbal requests for information. A caller-controlled 24-hour
databank also necessitates a program to usher the user into the system, allow
him to do his work, then bring him back out and prepare for the next caller,
all without losing the caller in the system or letting the caller abuse or
damage it. A number of communications programs were examined which dealt with
all or parts of these necessities. They are discussed below.

Programs which allow multiple users or multiple tasks on the computer
generally do so through reserving a portion of the machine's random access
memory (RAM) for each user or potential user. Although programs such as











VENIX1 and Topview2 were in late stages of development, only two programs
which actually performed this function were available wen the pilot study was
carried out: Concurrent PC-DOS and Multilink Advanced Closer examination
of C/PCDOS proved that it required specification of the characteristics of the
calling terminal before a connection could be made (difficult for an all-com-
ers databank) and its current release would not handle Reference Manager, the
bibliographic database manager chosen for the databank. Multilink Advanced
was found to handle multiple users well, and it did not interfere with the
functioning of Reference Manager. It was purchased for the databank.

Multilink Advanced also provides a bulletin board and programming for
bringing users into and out of the system while guarding against losing the
caller or letting him abuse the system. This system was utilized for the
databank. However, it proved somewhat cumbersome and simple minded. (For
example, users must sign on to the bulletin board again after retrieving their
references.) It can be improved, but there are a number of other systems
which perform this same function, some of which :an be utilized in Mutilink's
multiuser environment (RBBS-PC and Intelliterm ). While Multilink's system
has been adequate, further investigation of these systems to develop the best
possible communications handling for the fully operational databank is advis-
ed.

Results of Pilot Study

This section compares the results of the microcomputer-based and main-
frame-based pilot tests. We conclude that a microcomputer system is prefer-
able and will adequately meet projected needs over the short-term of the next
five years, as explained in the next section.

Working pilot databases were developed on both the microcomputer and the
mainframe. In each case the goal was to find an acceptable programming pack-
age which could be adapted to our needs. This goal was achieved for the
microcomputer system, and a pilot databank which works well was constructed.
The goal was partially achieved for the mainframe computer system. A computer
system configuration (the Cyber computer and an INFOFETCH-based bibliographic
database designed specifically for the CIS databank) which, with a good deal
more work, could become a fully acceptable host for the databank was develop-
ed. A system configuration which could be adapted to our needs (the Cyber
computer using the bibliographic system developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for use with the BASIS database management program) was also identi-
fied and problems of access and implementation were defined.



1 Developed by Microsoft Corp.
2 Developed by IBM, Inc.
Developed by Digital Research, Inc., Monterey, CA.
4 Developed by The Software Link, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
Developed by Capital PC Software Exchange, Silver Spring, MD.
6 Developed by Microcorp, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.











Advantages of Microcomputer Systems

Implementation and integration of the mainframe pilot databank proved
inferior to that of the microcomputer primarily because there is a difference
in design philosophy between microcomputer and mainframe programs. Our main
problem with the microcomputer bibliographic database management program was
choosing between a number of quality products crafted for precisely this ap-
plication. However, on the mainframe it was necessary to build our own bib-
liographic database management program using the generalized capabilities of
an all purpose database manager, since we were unable to secure access to an
acceptable prepackaged system. Not surprisingly our efforts fell short of
those of the competing microcomputer bibliographic database management pro-
gram, whose author had spent years in its development.

A mainframe computer database should not be ruled out as the eventual
home of the CIS databank. Existing aquatic information systems and our pilot
development on the Cyber computer amply prove its feasibility and in time the
database may grow too large and/or have too many users for efficient operation
in a microcomputer environment. However, the development or purchase of such
a system will require far more time and money than it was possible for the
present study to provide; the excellent performance of the microcomputer pilot
test configuration suggests that, at least for the foreseeable future the
costly but powerful mainframe environment is not required.

Microcomputer Pilot System

This section provides a brief general overview of the pilot system.
Following a similar overview of the mainframe system, detailed technical
specifications are listed.

Callers entering the microcomputer pilot system are met by a welcome mes-
sage, asked to sign on giving their name, organization/address, and areas of
interest for system records and user interaction. They are then presented
with a series of menus of system options. These include (1) a bulletin board
system on which they can leave and pick up messages, (2) system utilities for
uploading and downloading files, (3) extensive help files to guide them in the
use of the system, and (4) the "window" through which they enter the CIS
databank. These files are all contained on the bulletin board system of the
Multilink Advanced software.

When users are ready, they enter the databank through the window system
which allows them into the disk operating system of the computer. Access is
limited and controlled through "batch" files which bring the user to the
start-up menu of Reference Manager, the database manager. There they are
guided by menus in the retrieval and examination of references. The program
they are using is a special edition of Reference Manager, created for the CIS
databank, which limits callers to examination of references and certain utili-
ties (creation of a bibliography, creation of a journal format for reference
output, viewing of keywords, authors, editors, and journals in the system, and











viewing of database statistics). References may be retrieved through search-
ing for keywords, authors, editors, journals, date of publication, or words or
phrases in the title or abstract. Searches may be narrowed through the use of
multiple search terms and combination of terms. Boolean "or", "and" and "not"
are supported and truncation (e.g., fish* is the same as fishes, fishery,
fisheries, etc.) is allowed. The "full" version of Reference Manager allows
the addition of new references, editing and the creation of new databases,
etc. (See the section on Microcomputer Software above and Appendix 4 for
further discussion of both Reference Manager and Multilink Advanced.)

After callers have searched the databank, they once more are ushered
through batch files to the bulletin board, where they must sign on again (an
annoying feature which will require custom programming to correct). They can
then download the references they chose, enter messages, etc., and exit from
the system.

Mainframe Pilot System

The mainframe pilot system is similar to the micro system in its layout
(Figure 4). In both systems callers are introduced to the system, offered
short tutorials in how to use the various components and given the opportunity
to view listings of terms to search by. Only when they have been prepared do
they enter the actual databank.

On entering the Cyber mainframe pilot system, callers are greeted by a
welcome message and brought to a menu which allows them to select from the
functions of the system. Each function chosen is governed by a further menu
which allows users to perform the desired functions) and then return to the
main menu to make further choices or exit the system. Choices, however, are
currently more limited than on the microcomputer system. Users can view
bulletins, help files, and listings of keywords, authors and journals, or
enter the databank. There is no message system for entering or receiving
personal messages and no capability for special formatting of reports.

When they are ready, callers enter the databank through a menu which
allows them to search by author, keyword, source, or a word or phrase "string"
in any field of the reference. Source and "string" searches are not fully
implemented as of now, but keyword and author searches work well. Boolean
"or", "and", and "not" are supported and truncation is allowed. When fully
implemented, capabilities would also include searches by multiple terms and
combinations of terms.

As discussed above in the section, Mainframe Software, development of the
system was carried far enough to show its feasibility, but left incomplete due
to lack of funds for extensive custom programming. Expenditures for computer
use alone on the system partially developed were $1,284 and estimated consul-
tant and site support (which were not charged) came to $925. To bring the
system to completion would have cost approximately $5-7,000.

The extensive work already completed on the Mainframe System, along with
its documentation, has been copied to microcomputer disks where it can be
preserved for its possible future use in the CIS databank.






Figure 4. An Infofetch-Controlled, CIS Databank. (Completed portions of the system are enclosed
in solid boxes, incomplete portions in dashed boxes.)


1 Print SpeciaTly i
I Formatted Reports i
I I


s Post BulTetins i
Sor Mail
1 S


I Title/String" Menu ;
f -if -i -


1 Search Keywords
i & Authors
I


SSearch Keywords I
i & Source I
I I


* Author searches have been developed to the same degree as keyword searches and are similar in format.










Recommended System for Maintaining and Augmenting a Working
Databank and Bulletin Board

This section outlines the technical specifications of the system believed
to be the most practicable, given the results of the pilot tests and our
analysis of anticipated system requirements over its first five years of ex-
istence. Options for actual implementation of the recommended system are des-
cribed in the next major section, Options for Implementation. Technical
instructions to operate the system are in Appendix 4, available on request
from Florida Sea Grant College.

The system described is based on the pilot microcomputer system deve-
loped, tested and demonstrated during the project. It envisions the CIS data-
bank as a largely autonomous unit which would contact sources of citations
directly and be contacted directly by those desiring information. User con-
tacts are expected to be in two major forms: direct access of the computer
database by callers with microcomputers or terminals and modems, and verbal or
written requests for databank searches. Verbal or written requests for
searches will probably far outnumber direct user searches at the outset of the
system. However, users' ability to get citations immediately and to conduct
the search interactively until they have what they need will quickly increase
use of direct access. Direct access is the most efficient way of getting the
information to users since it requires no personnel time. The recommended
"800" toll-free telephone line will clear the last impediment to distant user
access by making the call free. (As suggested later, in Options for Implemen-
tation, the possibility of providing toll-free access through the Florida
Information Resource Network FIRN should be explored at the outset of perma-
nent funding of the CIS databank. This would save the databank thousands of
dollars in "800" charges per year. FIRN does limit access in some ways how-
ever, and its use must be carefully considered.)

System Components and Costs

Below are listed the components required to maintain and supplement a
working databank and bulletin board in a microcomputer environment. Require-
ments to handle the expected level of growth for the first five years are des-
cribed for each component. The discussion of this recommended system is based
upon the assumption that it would be situated in a stand-alone office. An
existing agency/organization home for the databank could result in some econo-
mies.

System operating costs (Tables 5, 6, 7, 8) assume a minimum of five years
of vigorous growth for the system to approach a state of maturity in which all
major agency contributions to the databank will have been made and growth will
be substantially limited to adding new works relevant to marine information.
For the first year of operation, and start-up, a budget of $68,100 is project-
ed (Table 5).

1) Personnel -- The CIS databank will require the full-time work of one
person (a manager) capable of maintaining and augmenting the system. While
excellent all-around skills with microcomputer systems will be necessary, the
ability to communicate and work with the different marine organizations and
the general public will be just as important in this job. Secretarial assis-
tance (at least 1/2 time and preferably full time in a stand-alone office)
will be necessary for reformatting citations, channeling requests for reprints










to the proper agencies, telephone calls, etc. In addition, technical assis-
tance in custom programming of communication systems, and program interfaces
for incoming callers will be necessary in the first year in order to insure
the best possible system configuration.

2) Fringe Benefits -- Fringe benefits of 20% will be required for the
manager and secretary.

3) Expendable Supplies -- Two "green" computer monitors will be necessary
for the CIS databank. A full complement of software for the normal day-to-day
needs of the manager and secretary (Multilink requires the PC DOS operating
system, communications software, etc.) and a good word processing program
(WordStar, with its non-document capabilities, has proven to be an excellent
tool for reformatting citations to the specifications required by Reference
Manager) will also be necessary. Postage, printing, and office supplies will
be required.

4) Travel -- Travel costs are expected to be approximately $4,000 during
the first year of the system's existence and can be expected to remain at a
comparable level during the initial five years of vigorous growth of the sys-
tem. This level is required due to the need for the manager to visit key
organizations around the state to assist their participation in a CIS.

5) Copy machine rental -- a copy machine will be essential for forwarding
requests for reprints to appropriate agencies.

6) Telephone -- Two dedicated computer telephone lines are recommended
for user access to the system: an "800" line, for free calling within Flori-
da, and a second line for local calls. A voice line will also be necessary
for verbal requests and the day-to-day operations of the databank.

7) Office Equipment -- Desks, chairs, filing cabinets and etc. (Again,
this budget is based on opening a brand new office.)

8) Computer Equipment -- (a) Purchase of two computers is recommended,
one an IBM AT compatible, with 20 megabyte hard drive, to house the CIS data-
bank, the other an IBM XT compatible, with 10 megabyte hard drive, for secre-
tarial use and to act as an emergency back-up for the databank, (b) Modems --
A Hayes 1200 Smartmodem or its true compatible is the minimum acceptable modem
for system operation. It is required for the proper operation of the Multi-
link Advanced multiuser system. Eventual upgrading to 2400 baud capability is
desirable, but as of now few users have equipment which would be able to take
advantage of this capability. Two modems are recommended for the initial sys-
tem, allowing two simultaneous callers, one on the recommended "800" telephone
line, the other on a regular line. (c) Printer -- A good quality dot matrix
printer capable of at least 120 character per second printing (to keep up with
the modem communication rate) will be necessary to handle printed output from
the system. (d) Software -- Reference Manager 3.2 in both a full (for the
operator to maintain and augment the system) and a limited (for callers)
format will be necessary for citation handling. Multilink Advanced 3.1 or
above will be necessary to allow multiple users to access the databank and for
bringing users into and back out of the system.

9) Overhead -- Office space, electricity, housekeeping, etc.


Costs for years two through five are listed in Tables 5-8.











Table 5. Approximate costs to establish and
System in its first two years.


operate a Coastal Information


Component Year One Year Twob


1) Salaries:
Manager (@ current $11 per hr.) $22,880
Full time secretary @5.35 per hr. 11,168
Programming consultant (Yr. 1 only) 1,000
Subtotal: salaries

2) Fringe benefits: (20% Ngr. & Sec)

3) Expendable Supplies
2 Zenith "green" monitors @84 ea 168
WordStar software 250
PC DOS Operating System 50
Postage, office supplies, printing, 1,500
Subtotal: supplies

4) Travel

5) Copy machine rental

6) Telephone
Touchtone Line 1st yr instal-
lation charges & purchase plus 2
jacks for computer. Installation:
2@ 51. Purchase of 1 phone 75. 177
Monthly charge 2@ 20.70 497
Long distance charges 500

1 Florida "800" Line Installation: 105

Per Mo. flat fee
38 X 5 mos. operation Yr. 1 190
38 X 12 mos. operation Yr. 2

E.G. @45 hrs. avg. per mo.*
(25 day, 10 eve., 10 nt.) =
602.85 X 5 mos 3,014


602.85 X 12 mos = 7,234 + 5%
assumed price increase
Subtotal: telephone


*Hourly charge rates:
USE LEVEL
0-15 hrs.
15.1-40 hrs.
40.1-80 hrs.
80.1-120 hrs.


DAY
8-5
19.92
17.74
15.55
13.15


EVENING
5:01-11
13.60
12.42
11.25
9.96


NT. WKEND
11:01-7:59
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99


$24,024
11,726


$35,048


6,810


$35,750


7,150


1,968

4,000

1,200


4,483


1,570


7,596


1,570

4,200

1,260


9,099











Table 5. Continued


Component Year One Year Twob

7) Office Equipment
2 desks @ 400 ea. 800
1 2-drawer file cabinet 200
2 computer stands @ 143 286
2 secretarial chairs @ 146 292
2 side chairs @ 125. 250
Subtotal: equipment 1,828

8) Computer Equipment
Zenith Z200 (IBM AT compatible) 2,900
Zenith Z150 (IBM XT compatible) 2,000
2 Modems (Hayes @ 500 each) 1,000
Printer (Radix SR-15 or
comparable) 649
Software
Reference Manager 695
Multilink Advanced 500
Subtotal: computer 7,744
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $63,081 $59,029

9) Overhead:
Office space, electricity,
housekeeping, etc. 5,000 5,250


TOTALc COSTS: $68,081 $64,279

START-UP COSTS: $11,322

YEARLY OPERATING COSTS: $56,759 $64,279

TOTAL $68,081 $64,279


a All costs are figured at rates paid by
a new stand-alone office.

b Maintenance of first year levels and
crease in costs are assumed.


the University of Florida and assume


a five percent across-the-board in-


c These costs assume the project is independent. If it were a budget item of
an organization such as the University of Florida, overhead (item 9) would
be forgiven. If the project were funded by an outside source, but carried
out at the University of Florida, indirect costs would be added. At 25%
excluding computer equipment and overhead, these charges would be: 1st
Year $13,834, 2nd Year $14,757.











Table 6. Approximate costs to operate a Coastal Information System
third year. (Maintenance of second year levels and a five
across-the-board increase in costs are assumed.)


Comoonent


1) Second year direct
operating costs:


2) 5% cost increase:
3) 50% hourly use charge increase
for greater use of the "800"
toll-free line.


SUBTOTAL: DIRECT OPERATING COSTS


4) Purchase of 2 2400 baud Hayes
Modems @ 500 each.


TOTAL:


in its
percent


Approximate Costs


$64,238


3,212


3,979


71,429


1,000


$72,429


Twenty-three hours more use per month (68 hrs. total), spread over the
hourly rate categories in the same ratios as year one, but allowing for 10% in
rate increases since year one. Total "800" hourly charges for year three
equal 11,963.














Table 7. Approximate costs to operate a Coastal Information System in its
fourth year. (Maintenance of third year levels and a five percent
across-the-board in crease in costs are assumed.)


Comoonents


Annroxiuate Costs


1) Third year.direct
Operating costs:


2) 5% cost increase:


3) 33% hourly use of the
"800" toll-free line*


$71,429


3,571


1,743


76,743


Twenty-two hours more use per month (90 hrs. total), over year three, figur-
ed at the same ratio of hourly rates as year one, but allowing for 15% in-
crease in hourly rate charges since year one. The increase in cost does not
equal one third, since increased use has placed the databank in a lower rate
category. Total "800" hourly charges for year four equal 14,304.


TOTAL


i "Tn .... . .














Approximate costs to operate a Coastal Information System in its
fifth year. (Maintenance of fourth year levels and a five percent
across-the-board increase in costs are assumed.)


Components


1) Fourth year direct
operating costs:


2) 5% cost increase:


3) 16% greater use of the
"800" toll-free line*


TOTAL:


Approximate Costs


$76,743


3,837


2,403


82,983


Fifteen hours more use per month (105 hrs. total), over year four, figured
at the same ratio of hourly rates as year one, but allowing for 20% increase
in hourly rate charges since year one. Total "800" hourly charges for year
five equal 17,422.


Table 8.










Options for Implementation

Due to the statewide and interorganizational cooperative nature of an
effective CIS, it is unrealistic to think in terms of short-range implementa-
tion of the system. In other words, the prototype system organized by this
project to demonstrate the feasibility of a CIS would not suffice as a "public
resource." There is not a budget to support a central staff person (e.g., an
information specialist) to perform even the rudimentary duty of turning on the
power for the computer daily, nor to support operating expenses such as pub-
licity and updating the information files. Further, the contents of the pre-
sent database are largely Florida Sea Grant titles, so that a large body of
references is lacking.

Hence our recommendation is that a long-range plan to fully implement a
Florida Coastal Information System be developed according to the specifica-
tions in the preceding section. The approximate cost for such an effort is
estimated as $68,000 in the first year. Initial effort would be organized
according to the tasks listed in Table 9. It is anticipated that the system
could be operating on a statewide basis, and well-advertised eight months
after initial funding.

Start-up Tasks

Initially, the existing database of over 800 Florida Sea Grant titles,
plus 125 FDER contract reports, and 27 model ordinances from the Center for
Government Responsibility could be revised to insure 100% accuracy (task A,
Table 9). Concurrently, the software development companies would be contacted
for any necessary revisions of the computer programs used in the CIS (task B).
Using the Florida Sea Grant Extension Program network of 11 agent field of-
fices and four specialist offices, controlled access field testing of the cur-
rent and revised pilot version of CIS could be done (task C).

Almost immediately on receipt of funding work also should begin to expand
the database (task D) by enlisting the help of some or all of the organiza-
tions that volunteered cooperation in the 1985 survey. Telephone and personal
contact would be needed to make arrangements for this, and to provide guidance
for electronic transfer of data after organization in the proper format.
Realistically a limited number of organizations should be targeted for first-
year contact. In its first year CIS will need heavy effort just to organize
it. If successfully initiated, in successive years work will shift to updat-
ing and maintenance.

Initial contact has already been made with the Florida Information Re-
source Network (FIRN) concerning the possibility of handling communications
between callers and the CIS databank on FIRNCOM, the state-wide communications
network maintained by FIRN. FIRNCOM allows local calling from any place in
the state to reach any computer on the network. This would eliminate user
long distance costs for accessing the CIS, without the considerable cost of
maintaining an "800" toll-free telephone line. FIRN's mission is to improve
communications in education and our inquiries concerning possible use were
greeted with interest. When the databank is funded, a concrete proposal to
FIRN should be considered, however, FIRN does have some restrictions on access
to FIRNCOM and these must be explored thoroughly in light of the mission of
the CIS databank.













Table 9. Tasks for a
operation.


coastal information system manager in first year of


MONTH
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


A. Revise existing
database
B. Upgrade software
(from vendor)
C. Field test CIS
access
D. Secure additional
databases
E. Interagency coor-
dinating meeting
F. Advertise to
selected audiences
G. Operate CIS
H. Further expansion
of database
I. Statewide adver-
tisement
J. Annual report


X X


X X


S X X X


X X
X











Also in year one it is envisioned that some advertisement of the CIS
would be made, with addition of other databases and expansion of services if
resources are available to support appropriate labor and costs (Table 9).

System Operation

Finally, this report touches on the options for an organizational head-
quarters for a Coastal Information System. As indicated previously, no system
exists onto which a CIS could be "piggy-backed." Without incurring new costs.
Thus, possibilities for hosting/operating the CIS include:

.a private, non-profit organization dedicated to non-advocacy, objective
"brokering" of information. The Florida Marine Information Network
(MARINE) is in this category.

.an individual State agency focused on coastal issues. One example is
the Office of Coastal Management of the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation.

.a statewide, university public service program with local delivery out-
lets, such as Florida Sea Grant College.

.a newly created State entity.

.a consortium of public and private organizations that agree to an annual
subscription program for sharing costs of operation, with headquarters
at a place to be determined.

Previously, the personnel and operating requirements for a CIS were des-
cribed. In closing, it is relevant to note that the CIS could be operated
quite flexibly in terms of giving users broad access to the system (e.g., by
telephone verbal request, by computer modem, or in writing, at a central
office or at branches), for not only citations and reference information for
printed materials but also audio-visual resources, lists of speakers, etc. In
a growth state the size of Florida, the price tag is a bargain when compared
to the value of Florida's coastal resource.

CONCLUSIONS

1. In Florida there is a widening gap between public awareness of vital
coastal subjects -- and their practical applications -- and the ability
of marine organizations to deliver timely coastal information. This is
at a time when such information is all the more crucial due to increased
multiple use of coastal resources.

2. Sixteen of 33 marine organizations surveyed responded and all expressed
interest in how a computer-based coastal information system might be
established to provide coordinated and streamlined response to technical
and lay-level requests for coastal information.

3. A conservative estimate is that 16 public and private marine and coastal-
related organizations in Florida receive at least 12,200 information re-
quests annually. (Non-respondents to the project survey would increase
this level of inquiry.)











4. No system is in operation to provide an electronically activated coastal
information service to serve the needs of Florida's broad array of marine
and coastal interests.

5. Existing computer systems may be utilized in a Florida Coastal Informa-
tion System (CIS). A pilot microcomputer system was established and
demonstrated by this project, proving the feasibility of a CIS.

6. At projected levels of demand over the next five years, a mainframe com-
puter network is not practical.

7. In its first year a Florida Coastal Information System could build a
database of over 5000 coastal reference citations.

8. A pool of 16 public and private organizations exists as possible partici-
pants in organizing such a system.

9. Major categories of information sought in inquiries directed to these
organizations and marine extension agents include living marine resource
subjects such as seafood quality, coastal habitat quality, life history
of plants and animals, beach processes such as erosion, coastal regula-
tions and government policy, and engineering/construction.

10. Audiences for coastal information include homeowners, journalists, devel-
opers, planners, water managers, tourists, fishermen, boaters, local
governments, etc.

11. The first-year start-up cost -- to completely organize from "scratch" --
of a Florida Coastal Information System is approximately $68,000. Annual
operating costs (in 1985 dollars) are about $64,000. Start-up in an
organization with office space and support could be substantially less
(i.e.,$60,000).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this project was provided by the Florida Department of Envir-
onmental Regulation Office of Coastal Management, project CM-113, with W.
Seaman, Jr., and J.C. Cato as principal investigators and M.L. Clarke as
associate investigator. Principal representatives of this agency who provided
advice and assistance during the study were David Worley, James Stoutamire,
Carolyn Lewis, Thomas Savage, Jacqueline McGorty, Dean Jackman and Joe Hand.
Meetings of the Board of Directors of the Florida Marine Information Network,
Inc. provided formal opportunities to report progress and receive comments and
suggestions from Paul Leach, Paul Fulham, Donald Sweat, Russ Fee, Jerry Sansom
and David Voights.

Special acknowledgment is due to Dr. Tom Walker, University of Florida,
whose broad knowledge of microcomputer bibliographic database systems was
invaluable in the investigation of a host system for the CIS databank; to Dr.
Ernest Beutler, M.D., the developer of Reference Manager, who works tirelessly
to improve his product and who spent long hours adapting Reference Manager to
our very specialized needs; to Steve Tefertiller and Carl Gill at FAST for











4. No system is in operation to provide an electronically activated coastal
information service to serve the needs of Florida's broad array of marine
and coastal interests.

5. Existing computer systems may be utilized in a Florida Coastal Informa-
tion System (CIS). A pilot microcomputer system was established and
demonstrated by this project, proving the feasibility of a CIS.

6. At projected levels of demand over the next five years, a mainframe com-
puter network is not practical.

7. In its first year a Florida Coastal Information System could build a
database of over 5000 coastal reference citations.

8. A pool of 16 public and private organizations exists as possible partici-
pants in organizing such a system.

9. Major categories of information sought in inquiries directed to these
organizations and marine extension agents include living marine resource
subjects such as seafood quality, coastal habitat quality, life history
of plants and animals, beach processes such as erosion, coastal regula-
tions and government policy, and engineering/construction.

10. Audiences for coastal information include homeowners, journalists, devel-
opers, planners, water managers, tourists, fishermen, boaters, local
governments, etc.

11. The first-year start-up cost -- to completely organize from "scratch" --
of a Florida Coastal Information System is approximately $68,000. Annual
operating costs (in 1985 dollars) are about $64,000. Start-up in an
organization with office space and support could be substantially less
(i.e.,$60,000).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this project was provided by the Florida Department of Envir-
onmental Regulation Office of Coastal Management, project CM-113, with W.
Seaman, Jr., and J.C. Cato as principal investigators and M.L. Clarke as
associate investigator. Principal representatives of this agency who provided
advice and assistance during the study were David Worley, James Stoutamire,
Carolyn Lewis, Thomas Savage, Jacqueline McGorty, Dean Jackman and Joe Hand.
Meetings of the Board of Directors of the Florida Marine Information Network,
Inc. provided formal opportunities to report progress and receive comments and
suggestions from Paul Leach, Paul Fulham, Donald Sweat, Russ Fee, Jerry Sansom
and David Voights.

Special acknowledgment is due to Dr. Tom Walker, University of Florida,
whose broad knowledge of microcomputer bibliographic database systems was
invaluable in the investigation of a host system for the CIS databank; to Dr.
Ernest Beutler, M.D., the developer of Reference Manager, who works tirelessly
to improve his product and who spent long hours adapting Reference Manager to
our very specialized needs; to Steve Tefertiller and Carl Gill at FAST for










their tremendous assistance with development of the mainframe pilot database;
to Ann King and Dr. Richard Strain for their help with general purpose micro-
computer database programs; to Jeff Lillycrop and Paul May of the Corps of
Engineers for their assistance with mainframe database systems; to Ken French
for his help in all facets of system development; and .to Doug Gregory, Bob
Wilson, Dean Jackman, Joe Hand, Tom Savage, Russ Fee, Don Sweat, Jackie
Whitehouse and Marilyn Little for their help in testing and setting up demon-
strations of the system.

REFERENCES

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1984. A survey of general public
estuarine knowledge in Charlotte and Lee Counties. MGT/Market Research,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Leahy, T.M., Jr. (ed.). 1984. Marine education and research organizations in
Florida. Florida Coop. Exten. Serv., Sea Grant Exten. Bull. SGEB-3.

Lewis, R.R., III. in press. Mangrove habitat and fishery resources of Flor-
ida. in W. Seaman, Jr. (ed.) Florida aquatic habitat and fishery re-
sources. Florida Chap. American Fisheries Society.

Seaman, W., Jr., J.C. Cato, and M.L. Clarke. 1984. Enhanced public coastal
information through a statewide databank network: feasibility and pilot
study. Proposal to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Office of Coastal Management. Florida Sea Grant College Program,
Gainesville, Florida.










their tremendous assistance with development of the mainframe pilot database;
to Ann King and Dr. Richard Strain for their help with general purpose micro-
computer database programs; to Jeff Lillycrop and Paul May of the Corps of
Engineers for their assistance with mainframe database systems; to Ken French
for his help in all facets of system development; and .to Doug Gregory, Bob
Wilson, Dean Jackman, Joe Hand, Tom Savage, Russ Fee, Don Sweat, Jackie
Whitehouse and Marilyn Little for their help in testing and setting up demon-
strations of the system.

REFERENCES

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1984. A survey of general public
estuarine knowledge in Charlotte and Lee Counties. MGT/Market Research,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Leahy, T.M., Jr. (ed.). 1984. Marine education and research organizations in
Florida. Florida Coop. Exten. Serv., Sea Grant Exten. Bull. SGEB-3.

Lewis, R.R., III. in press. Mangrove habitat and fishery resources of Flor-
ida. in W. Seaman, Jr. (ed.) Florida aquatic habitat and fishery re-
sources. Florida Chap. American Fisheries Society.

Seaman, W., Jr., J.C. Cato, and M.L. Clarke. 1984. Enhanced public coastal
information through a statewide databank network: feasibility and pilot
study. Proposal to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Office of Coastal Management. Florida Sea Grant College Program,
Gainesville, Florida.























APPENDICES 1-3*


































* Appendix 4, "Operating guidelines for recommended systems," is 21 pages long
and available on request from Florida Sea Grant.







APPENDIX 1 -- ITEM 1
43 -






May 14, 1985


NO ITEM TO INSERT


Dear
NO ITEM TO INSERT,


This letter is to introduce a pilot project dealing with ways to enhance
communications and information flow in the area of coastal and marine
resources. Earlier this year we started a 10-month project to determine how
computer-based systems might help natural resource organizations streamline
the flow of information between sources and those interests that request
information. The kinds of information and interests we are addressing include
technical and governmental concerns as well as lay-level, semi-technical
issues related to coastal development, recreation, fisheries, ecology, marine
trades, etc.

On a trial basis we are assembling citations for reference information
such as reports, extension bulletins, films, etc. from the Florida Sea Grant
library and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations. We are
evaluating various mainframe and microcomputer bibliographic software packages
to use in storing and recalling citations to these references. Various trials
are planned, and the project will culminate this fall with a demonstration of
the pilot system and preparation of a feasibility report regarding different
system options.

As part of the feasibility report we want to make some projection as to
the need and interest of organizations such as yours relative to the possible
operation of such an information system. We obviously are not asking anyone
to make a binding commitment. Our goal at this point is simply to assess who
might find such a system potentially useful. Among the possible users are:
technical staffs of water-related agencies seeking planning documents, model
ordinances, etc.; businesses in search of economic or environmental reports;
journalists; educators and coastal homeowners.

Therefore we are asking you or someone you designate to complete and
return the enclosed survey sheet. The responses will be compiled in an
anonymous summary in our final report, and will be helpful in.deciding on
follow-up to the pilot study. We are designing our database to be capable of
taking materials from the largest variety of electronic sources possible;
anything from word processors to main frames. So please list all sources
available in your area, even if you're not sure about them.

The intent of the project is not to assemble a library. Rather, we are
deciding whether it is possible to establish a "yellow pages" that identifies
what information (e.g., publications, people, films) is available for a
coastal subject, and where to obtain it.







44







-2-


Your help will be very much appreciated. We intend to provide a copy of
the final report to organizations that return a completed survey. If you'd
like more information call our project coordinator, David Reddy at
(904) 392-5870.

Sincerely yours,



Paul D. Fulham
Acting Executive Director


Enclosure







APPENDIX 1 -- ITEM 2


Florida Coastal Information Systems Resource Report Form

The Coastal Information System Project, as outlined in the accompanying
letter, is examining the feasibility of using a computer-based bibliographic
system to improve access to technical and semi-technical information about
Florida's coastal resources for researchers, governmental agencies, educators,
legislators, etc. and the general public. This form attempts to gauge the
interest of organizations which maintain, produce, or disseminate information
on the coastal zone in participating in such a network and to develop an
estimate of the kinds and volume of queries such a network might deal with.

The response of your organization to this survey will help determine
possible follow-up to the feasibility study. Completion of this form by the
person responsible for information programs and data management is requested.

r Organization

Contact Person Completing This Form.

Telephone (SUNCOM)

Address





II. If this kind of system existed would you be interested in participating?



III. Please list in the space below a half-dozen or so of the most commonly
asked (serious) coastal resource-related questions-or categories of
questions-directed to you by your various clients, whether they're the
public-at-large or more specialized commercial, governmental, or private
interests.















-2-

IV. Approximately how many requests for information about the coastal zone do
you receive each month? A. TECHNICAL:

B. LAY PUBLIC:

V. Would you be willing to provide us with citations to references and
reports on the coastal zone, from data and information files you maintain?



If so, are any of these references stored on electronic media which would
allow direct electronic transfer?

Approximately how many references might be involved?



Please return this form by to Mr. David Reddy, Florida Sea Grant
College, Building 803, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611.

Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions or suggestions,
please call David Reddy at 904/392-5870, SUNCOM 622-5870.







APPENDIX 2


FLORIDA SEA GRANT COLLEGE
Building 803. Unlvlsty of Florida. Gaievil 32611
(904) 382-87s0 Snom 622-5870 April 11, 1985


TO: FSGEP Agents & Specialists

FR: William Seaman i

RE: Coastal information system

REPLY REQUESTED

Earlier this year I sent to you copies of our proposal for the feasibili-
ty study of using a computer-based bibliographic system to enhance our res-
ponse to various requests for information. I've briefed the specialists about
the project and a few others of you also have met David Reddy, the project
coordinator. This memo springs from a planning meeting Don Sweat attended
with us the other day.

Specifically, in beginning to index information resources in the pilot
system we need to establish categories and key words. We need your help as
fol ows:


Please list in the space below a half-dozen or so of the most commonly
asked (serious) questions -- or categories of questions -- directed to
you by your various clients, whether they're the public-at-large or more
specialized commercial, governmental, or private interests.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.

Florida A&M University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida Institute of Technology, Florida International University, Florida State University,
University of Central Florida. University of Florida. Univesity of Miami, University of North Florida. University of South Florida,
University of Wet Florida.


The State University System of Florida Is an Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer.







48


8.


9.


10.


Examples of generic questions might be "How do I buy fresh fish?" or "How
can I save my beach?". More specific questions might include "Are there any
beach access ordinances in Florida?" or "Where does red tide occur?".

Please give this sane thought and take just the few minutes to write in
your questions. Please reply
by April 30. Thanks.

A final note: "No flaky entries, please. Offer void where prohibited by
law."

WS/ml/hl.14

cc: M. Clarke
D. Reddy
Project file







49 APPENDIX 3


List of Questions, and Categories of Questions,
Most Commonly Asked of Organizations
Responding to Survey of Coastal Information
Requests in Florida


Subject Matter


Question, or Category of Question


Economics and Business

1. I'm new to the area. Can you tell me what fisheries
would be good to go into?

2. Questions from soon-to-be retirees from the North
about potentials for (1) aquaculture in Florida, (2)
getting into various businesses (marinas, seafood
wholesale, etc.), (3) anything else to supplement
retirement income.


Recreation


Seafood Quality and













Fishery Biology and


3. Where can I go fishing, get maps, put in my boat,
rent a boat?

Harvest

4. Shellfish harvesting areas.

5. Edibility of sea life.

6. Are waters of ..... presently open for shellfish
harvesting?

7. Is there a red tide at ..... and is .... safe to eat?

8. Marine animals as food (especially shellfish).

9. Is ..... safe to eat?

Management

10. Information on federal fishing regulations.

11. Where are certain fish?

12. Why are certain fish no longer here any longer?

13. Coastal fishes, fisheries & aquaculture.

14. What are the laws regarding fishing for ... (e.g.
lobsters, stone crabs) ... in Florida?











Aquaculture and Natural Product

15. Role of marine animals in studying epilepsy, heart
disease, and mental illness.

16. Send me information on aquaculture of (tilapia,
catfish, shrimp, etc.)

Shore Dynamics, Circulation and Erosion

17. Solutions to Erosion Problems

18. Coastal setback, seawall construction and repair.

19. Historic shoreline changes.

20. Wave climate information.

21. Beaches and beach erosion.

22. Questions on the physics of littoral transport.

23. Coastal geology, sediments, continental shelf.

24. Coastal hydraulics, tides and oceanography.

25. Detailed tidal/current information.

26. Historic erosion rates.

27. Sea level and other coastal changes.

28. Can fluctuations in coastal oceanographic processes
and/or plant-animal community structure be predicted
from modeling schemes?

29. Salt tolerable grasses and plants. Natural vegeta-
tion for landscaping.

Marine Structures and Engineering

30. Questions on construction of erosion control stru-
ctures.

31. Location and depth of existing federal navigation
channels.

32. Clogging of powerplant cooling water intake by
jellyfish.

33. Coastal engineering and structures.

34. Saltwater intrusion.











35. Navigation, recreation.

36. Environmental problems caused by construction.

Policy, Regulation and Legal Issues

37. Who is in charge of what -- federal, state, local?

38. Saltwater fishing regulations.

39. Is (dredging, filling, effluent, etc) at ..... legal,
and who can I call to (complain, check records,
etc.)?

40. Coastal zone management.

41. Is it legal to import .....?

42. Regulatory 'responsibilities and limit of authority
for governmental agencies.

Coastal Habitat Quality

43. Environmental resources.

44. Why can't this area be developed (involving wet-
lands)?

45. What is the value of wetlands to fish?

46. Effects of "pollution" on marine resources.

47. Requests for information on: Mangroves and mangrove
management.

48. Concerns about offshore drilling.

49. Sewage outfall areas, etc.

50. What is known about recruitment of seaweeds, animal
larvae (both invertebrates and fishes) in coastal
waters?

51. How will man-induced disturbances (both urban and
industrial developments) impact water quality,
nearshore currents and sedimentation processes?

52. Are data bases representing long-term monitoring of
nearshore marine and estuarine environments avail-
able.


53. Location of wetland areas.


























Natural History and


54. Importance of freshwater nutrient inputs to coastal
fisheries.

55. Freshwater requirements for estuaries.

56. Economic values of coastal ecosystems.

57. Estuarine pollution problems.

58. Pollutant migration.

59. Effects of organic sediments on estuarine water qual-
ity.

60. Aeration (re-aeration) of oxygen-deficient waters.

Identification of Organisms

61. Dangers of stinging by jellyfish and Portuguese Man-
'O-War.

62. What should I do with this injured (animal, usually a
bird)?

63. Biology of marine animals (especially sharks).

64. Who do I call about a stranded turtle, porpoise or
whale?

65. Fish identification.

66. Manatee and seaturtle.

67. Coastal ecology

68. Sturgeons.

69. Does MML have data on ..... during ..... or at .....?

70. Identification of fish and local invertebrates.

71. Have the local marine flora and fauna been described
in regard to regional and seasonal patterns of diver-
sity distribution and density?

72. Species inventories for specific areas.

73. ... plus a wide range of questions on the natural
history of local plants and animals.

74. What animal is this? (followed by a description)











Educational Materials and Speakers

75. What is our reaction to (media reports on coastal
issues)?

76. Marine biology speaker request.

77. Possibility of providing programs for school classes.

78. General questions (normally from out-of-state) from
students wanting to attend universities in Florida
where are they, what are programs, etc?

79. Send me everything you have on the subject of .....
Really a wide variety of subjects.


ml/h3.8







University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs