Resolution 324-1989
Don Craig, A.C.A.
Division of Growth Management
RESOLUTION NO. 324-1989
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR/CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO EXECUTE A
SPONSORED RESEARCH AGREEMENT FOR MATCHING FUNDS
BETWEEN MONROE COUNTY, KEY WEST, FLORIDA, AND THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS,
A PUBLIC CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
CONCERNING A FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT TO DEVELOP
AND APPLY A PLANNING SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING THE
USE AND CARRYING CAPACITY OF LAND AND WATER
PARCELS IN THE FLORIDA KEYS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Mayor/Chairman of the Board is
hereby authorized to execute a Sponsored Research Agreement for
Matching Funds between Monroe County, Key West, Florida, and the
University of Florida Department of Geography acting for and on
behalf of the Board of Regents, a public corporation of the State
of Florida, a copy of same being attached hereto and made a part
hereof, concerning a Florida Sea Grant Proj ect to develop and
apply a planning system for determining the use and carrying
capacity of land and water parcels in the Florida Keys.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held
on the ~-r1J. day of ....JIA..~ , A.D. 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY, /Jif~~~
(Seal)
,~ .
Attest: DANli'X & KOUlAGE, PIa-It
~~/i~
. CL-ER . .~,
'd,'!(]
l t: 6 \1 (t Nnr 68.
AJ!M"'4D AS TO FORM
ANDi<l1
t; 'l UF. Ie/ENe","
BY_ .~
Attorf'~-:::";;:-:-q .
,-,dU'.JnJ, .,.l '.dlU
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
SPONSORED PROJECTS
APPROVAL FORM
AGENCY APPLlCA nON DEADLINE
roo NOT LEAVE IUNIlI
'''I
SEND NOTICE OF AWARD TO:
The University of Florida
Division of Sponsored Research
219 Grinter HaU
Gainesville, FL 32611
(904) 392-1582
University Project #
il.oDS,
Date:
o postmark
o receipt
(LEA VE BLANK)
Title of Proposal: Sponsored Research Agreement for Match; ng Funds Between Monroe County, F1,
and The Un; vers 1 ty of F J on da, to undertake Sea Grant ProJect, .. A Computer-
QirecteEl Ge9gra~Aic (sasta1 IJSQ Classification SystslR fgr 1i:~9199;c PhRRiRg:
Submitted to Agencyl~fb~~~ ~f ~he ~l ori da Keys. II M9r:lr9g CQunty PliRRi r:Jg Dipt.. I<~y ~I~~ t, 1=1
(NOTE TO THE P.I.: Please proVIde maillna InStructions on paae 2)
UNIVERSITY ENDORS : The attached proposal has been examined by the officials whose sianatures appear below. The principal academic: review
of the proposalla the res 'biJity of the Departmeat/Ceater aad CoDeae. If additional space Is needed for sianatures, please provide them on a separate
sheet of paper.
APp~~or: (lfmorelh~
l A") '-^- \~ ~
NAME: Date
TITLE:
NAME: ustavo A. Antoni n; 3-28-89 Dale
~: Professor of Geography
CAMPUSADDUSS: 305 Gr; nter
TELEPHONE: 392-6233
soc. SEC. NO. 080-30-6911
Co-Principal Investigator: (If Applicable)
Other Endorsement (If Needed):
HAMIl:
TlTLB:
11ILIPHONB:
soc. SIC. NO.
Dale
HAMIl:
TITLB:
Date
Department Head:
Approval by Vice-President for Aaricultural Affairs
(For all projects involving IF AS Personnel)
C:C--1~
HAMIl: Edward Malecki 3-28-8~
~ Professor and Chair
Department of Geography
NAMa:
TITLB:
o.t.
,:1
Department Head: (If more than one)
Approval by Vice-President for Health Affairs:
(For all projee.s involving JHMHC Personnel)
HAMIl:
11TL8:
o.t.
NAME:
TITLB:
o.t.
I
'1
NAMIl:
TlTLB:
Dare
~:j;t:;~~ lh:'Lnlverslty:
....P.~~~~ 3/~m
~sistant 1)irector of ~search
Division of Sponsored Research
University of Florida
Approval by Dean or Director:
DSR.I (6/IS)
'1
,~
Of'
. .'
. .
'\',:.:,~..;- I
SPONSORED RESEARCH AGREEMENT FOR HATCHING FUNDS
between
MONROE COUNTY, KEY WEST, FLORIDA
and
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
BOARD OF REGENTS
A PUBLIC CORPORATION OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
This written Agreement is made as of the 28th of March,
1989, between the University of Florida (hereAfter FLORIDA) and
Monroe County (hereafter SPONSOR). This Agreement provides
matching funds for Florida Sea Grant Project R/C-P-17, I'A
Computer-Directed Geographic Coastal Use Classification System
for Ecologic Planning: The Case of the Florida keys," sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, National Sea Grant Office. County
matching funds, provided by this Agreement, supplement the
Federal Sea Grant budget and the University of Florida match, to
develop and apply a computer-ba.ed system for determining the use
and carrying capacity of water and land parcels in the Florida
Keys. Project results will provide the SPONSOR with .anagement
guidelines for planners that will as.ist them to formulate and
update ecologically sustainable comprehensive plans and model
ordinances for coastal zones. The results, further, will speed up
decision-making by facilitating the permitting process.
The parties mutually agree that this program shall be
conducted in accordance with the laws, rul.. and regulations of
the State of FloridA, the Board of Regents, the Stt~e University
System and the University of Florida.
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
This Agreement shall become effective on April 1, 1989, and
shall terminate on March 31, 1991.
, .....;...:..
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
All questions concerning administration of this Agreement
should be addressed to:
Donald Craig
Asst. Co. Adm. for Growth Management
Monroe County
Key West, Florida 33040
PROJECT DIRECTOR
The Project Director at FLORIDA is named to be:
Dr. Gustavo A. Antonini
Professor of Geography
305 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Telephone: (904) 392-6233
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL
:,
. ;~~
:t
.:r
::fj
The responsible official for FLORIDA will be:
Dillard C. Harshall
Assistant Director of Research
219 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gain.sville, Florida 32611
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
~}
J~
;r
The University of Florida, under Sea Grant Project R/C-P-17,
will develop and apply a planning system for determining the use
and carrying capacity of land and water parcels in the Florida
Keys. System goals are to devise a comprehensive sustainable
coastal use plan, and to continuously monitor tbe implementation
of use decisions. To achieve these goals, the p~oposed system
will: (1) identify the location, .ize and characteristics of
developed and developable parcels, (2) a.semble this information
in a locationally-structured system, (3) adapt the parcel
properties and functions to the natural ecologic tolerance. of
the parcel, and to the stat.s or conditions in adjacent parcels,
(4) aggregate the parcels' natural properties and use activiti~
into larger areal planning units, and (5) provide the capability
for accomodating an environment.l planning inventory nec....ry
for managing Monroe County coastal r.sourc.~. A copy of the
technical Sea Grant proposal is attached hereto as Appendix A.
.. ~
.-.;
1
.!
I
i
.,
, ~
:,~
;i
I
.i
,
,
!
,
i
\ 'If'
,:.:.::~ ..... >, 1" .
'." ~',,-"~'-';-o-,.
ALLOCATION OF MATCHING FUNDS
The SPONSOR will provide FLORIDA with services and ancillary
support, not less than $18,495 during 4-89/3-90 and $17,262
during 4-90/3-91, as itemized in Appendix B. Disbursement and
accounting of matching funds will be made by the SPONSOR and will
be coordinated with Dr. Gustavo A. Antonini. The SPONSOR will
provide FLORIDA with quarterly expenditure reports on this cost
participation, each year, by July 15, October, 15, January 15,
and April 15. Quarterly reports should be prepared on Florida
Sea Grant program forms (Statement of Cost Participation,
Statement of Award and Expenditures, see Appendix C>, and sent to
Contracts ~ Grants Office
128 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Unless specifically provided for otherwise in the statement
of work, neither FLORIDA nor any of its agents, instrumentaliti-
es, or employees will be liable for any damages whatsoever
arising out of, in the course of, or as a result of, work called
for by this Agreement.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
MONROE COUNTY
$/~~
-------...--------
Dillard C. Marshall
Assistant Director
Michael Puto
Mayor J Board of County Commissioners
March 31, 1989
-------- ------------
---...----.,....----------
Date
Date
e SEAL)
Attest:
---------Clerk-------
Gustavo A. Antonini
Florida Project Director
,1ft
-----~~JJ~~-------
APNlOVEQ,A6 TO 10IIM
ANcfLi}Af StJiFIC16~
BY K L/L---
Atr"rne.,a c-.
-----------------
. ~
\ ~. .
Date
Date
'}i
,...........
,,,,,,.:,,,,.':"
,_n ,,.~....,'..:O :0.;.;-,
-\ \)i,~~~__C\0~~y.~___~~ll J s,CJ
Witness
Date
" ./ '# . ",/, /<"1
, ,'1 1..;-!-!...~~i..~","...~ . ' ~a:.d.tz_':2+-:i.i-' .
\. -i. ,...J
Wi tness '.' Date
f, ::j
',;! t
,:' :~
.\
".,
:.3
i.:
-r'
:~
....1
'j,
\'
:".,;,:?;-:;'
,~..~..~...,~
~. .J
,
J
.;1
;;~
,
1t1~t:fht;>l;( r
~--
a
r -
1i:.1F.- ... ~ -..;. .-
(jR;rNf:.:~
FLORIDA SEA GRANT COLLEGE
.-,.----..--
Building 803. IFAS 0341. University of Florida. Gainesville 32611 .034'
(904) 392.5870 Suncom 622.5870
February 22, 1989
Dr. Gustavo Antonini
305 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
RE: "A Computer-Directed Geographic Coastal use Classification System for
Ecologic Planning: The Case of the Florida Keys"
Official Project Number: R/C-P-17
Duration: April 1, 1989 - March 31, 1991
Dear Dr. Antonini:
We are pleased to tell you that your proposal for the 1989-1991 biennial
grant period was accepted by the National Sea Grant (NSG) Office, and we have
submitted it as part of our revised funding package. Although our November trip
to NSG headquarters indicated most of the new line-up of projects, it was only
after receipt of a letter last month that we could be certain of the status of
all proposals.
That letter indicated that despite the recognized high quality of our Flor-
ida proposals, only a level-funded award will be made since the Federal Sea Grant
appropriation was level again this year. Thus, we have not been able to support
all projects. But we have not tried to reduce any budgets among our already lean
new projects. It has been a difficult month of arranging our projects, including,
negot1ating a few pilot efforts.
Our goal 1s to receive the Federal award to allow project starts on April
1, 1989, for those projects so scheduled. (A few don't be~in until 1990.) We
shall be in close contact with you concerning this. Note that the formal award
will be in the form of a letter and contract at the time our overall Federal
award is received.
Please note the official project number assigned to your work, which should
be used in future correspondence. In some cases the number changed if proposals
ahead of it were deleted. Any technical comments from NSG are included for your
use in project planning.
Florida A&M Unlvenltv, Florida Atlantic UniversIty, Florida Institute of TechnolollY, Florida International UnIversity, Florida State University,
University of Central Florida, University of Florida, UniversIty of Miami, University of North Florida, University of South Florida,
University of West Florida.
The State University System of Florida is an Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer.
Ill["
.~
4-
.(
j
;i
)
1\""" - .,......... .
Once funding is in hand, we shall provide orientation materials to you and
any graduate students. Our intent is to enhance your scientific contributions
by making grant administration as efficient and informed as we can. Some of our
federal regul at ions wi 11 be changing, so please read forthcoming documents
referring to these changes closely, and contact Elise Newell in this office if
you have questions about fiscal matters.
We look forward to working with you.
JCC/WS/ml/impaward.pro
cc W. Seaman
M. Clarke
P. Pope
, ,
<~'
..',",:,;,,'<"
Best regards,
rcra-
James C. Cato
Professor and Director
,:1
..Ai
.,.~.~;~.
Departm.ent of Geography
3141 Turlington Hall
University of Florida
.
Gainesville. Florida 32611
. (904) 392.()494
September 19, 1988
Dr. James C. Cato
Professor and Director
Florida Sea Grant COllege Program
Building 803, IFAS 0341
Campus
Dear Dr. Cato:
SI: 89 .. 46
We are pleased that you have encouraged us to resubmit our proposal for.
Sea Grant funding, "A Computer-Directed Geographic Coastal Use Classific~
tion System For Ecologic Planning: The Case of the Florida Keys.1I
We reviewed the helpful comments on our submission that you and the
reviewers made. In the main we agree with the thrust of statements of
reviewers A and B and yourself. The proposal has been rewritten almost
entirely, but the objectives of the research remain the same. This version
of the proposal puts greater emphasis on the scientific bases and presents
more detail on the methodology. We hope you will find it much improved.
. }~~
.~)
,.~ . ~~',\.
1.::
{" _:~.~.~
'.>Ie
..~
....;J
,,;~
~:"~:~l
. '.-;)
i~
:.l....,.~.\i
~:::;~
~ ."I'j
{"<'
t;~
. .~~l
1 "~~
i :~1'
II"...
i "~
i, ...~~
f'j
!:~
, ;'.'j'
t -',
i'.c
....1
;i.ij
! .oj,
~ ;.,.....
Encl. 51: 89-46 Proposal
./ :1
EQUAL IM'LOYMEHT ClI'I'OATUNlTY/AFFlllUATM ACTION ~
,..
",
.~ '., ~: :~-~'-:.~'~' I
. 1,.. ~..;,w"~,,-,,~'"r ':"....
s:
89-46
,er
***SEA GRANT PROJECT SUMMARY***
INSTITUTION: FLORIDA SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM
TITLE: A Computer-Directed Geographic Coastal Use Classification System
For Ecologic Planning:,The Case of the Florida Keys
COMPLETION DATE: 31 March 1991
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Gustavo A. Antonini (Project Coordinator)
AFFILIATION: University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl.
ASSOC. INVESTIGATOR: Leonard Zob1er
AFfILIATION: University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl.
Virginia Hetrick .
Northeast Regional Data Center, Gainesville, Fl.
Howard M. Tupper
Monroe County Planning Dept., Key West, Fl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBJECTIVES:
1. To provide management guidelines for planners that will assist them to for-
mulate and update comprehensive plans and model ordinances for coastal zones.
2. To develop a method of entering, storing, and accessing information required
by planners to review development applications on coastal parcels. -
3. TO. utilize the best available information to arrive. at ecologically sou~
use decisions for offshore, nearshore, shoreline, and inland parcels. ._1
4. To monitor the cumulative effects of parcel uses on the state of subregional
ecosystems.
5. To conduct pilot studies of the method in the Florida Keys, Monroe County,
and to carry out these activities with county planning personnel.
METHODOLOGY:
The methodology has two basic components: coastal use capability classification
and a geographic information system (GIS). The following steps will be followed
to attain the above objectives: (1) acquisition of raw data from tapes, maps,
remote sensing, field, county sources and coastal science literature, (2) data
extraction and geocoding at the parcel level, for.offshore, nearshore, shoreline
and inland parcels, (3) data coordination and management by a GIS, (4) construc-
tion of a normalized compatibility index for parcels and la~ger aggregates based
on the ratio between natural attributes and use requirements and comparisons with
adjacent parcels for ecologic impact, (5) state of the coastal environment
evaluation with tabular and map output.
RATIONALE:
Florida shorelines are subject to increasing adverse develppment pressures that
threaten their amenity-recreational economies. Management strategies should con-
sider interactions between built and natural ecologies. Piecemeal remedial
measures frequently provide only temporary solutions and invite additional de-
velopment. Region-wide and parcel-specific evaluations are necessary to enable
planners and governmental officials to perceive the broader and local threats
and to deviseappropri~te regulatory measures. A,comprehensive geographic infor-
mation and mappi~g system is needed based'on individual parcel and parcel aggre-
gation use suitability reviews.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: , .
The proposal reflects the unique, combination of .backgrounds of the four principals.
Antonini - cartography, air photo analysis, coasta1 'geomorphology, recreational
boating. Zobler - soil, land, and water classification and pa~cel evaluation.
Hetrick - remote sensing and computer science. Tupper - coastal planning, ,
Florida Keys. All the princ4pals have doctorates in Geography and are well
trained in statistics.
-II!'
if:'::
.,' ..,....'~;, , . . -.'
U\llIK~1
cO"'Cr'S . one-year (or less) period. Budget (or
. '
.Ional yel" is stlted in propl
PrOject Tille: ^ Computer-Directed Geooraphic Coastal
~or [cologle PlannIng: The Case of the
PrlncipaJ Invcstl(O torCs):
Institution: UnlVerSlty ot ~ Yonda
Use ClassifirAtinn ~v~tpm
Florida Kpy~ -
De tes: 8egin A../l/ AQ
End-1111/9.Q
UUOCET ITEM
$t\L.AIUES ~ WAGES
Itemized list of positions (ond names, if known),
Senior Personnel
P,:.~ustavo ~. Antonlni
~eonard lO~ler
~oward Tupper
!'r~Jnla Hetr.ck
Ot~er Personnel
Planning Technician
Biologist
~';UNGl:: UENEFITS DescrIbe below"
rU1M,\SENT F.(,)UIP~"EN~(List
I.
Man-Month! f ederaJ Mal
Se4 Sea (Unl
Grant Grantee Crant Out;
~-~g ? ?r; I 7/\14 , 14:
4 nn 1~'6no
~:~~
I
PUNDS
.,
..
I
I I
I I
I J t-
I
I ~,;nn :n~(
I
I
I
,:t
J.
.j.~
5.=
6.=
f..'DIE~D"HL.I:: S~rPLICS, ETC.
r!L\'IEL ID()m~~tl~ onlv rrom St'lI Grunt
I) rllEH COST$ inot.! fntl's, If II0[l!rCIJt>ll')
I. Cornoutcr
::.=8081 Ht!ntsl
J,~ ConsuJ tunt.s
01,' Satellite imagery. air ohotos. mape;
::., =-- Tel ephone
INnIRl::CT COSTS 'Describe bP.IOw".
=*university. $5554' **Monroe c u
To'r ,\L.s
E~pJanaljons: (Non-UrllvcrsJty) MlJtctllny, Sour(,~s, Status. Amounts it Oates:
k,
I.
:~
\
.Outside Sponsors fit Ih~ marching S column. astcrik
l.**Monroe County Planning Department
,)
...
~~
any j terns receiving these (uncJs.
SlA49S Oates411/AQ - 1/~1/90
$ Dates
$ Oa:es
f~
J.
"Pringe benefits formuJa: G.Antonini at 21.99%, l
7nhl~r At , 1,'
,
~
~
~
~"Ovcrhcad formula: Research to be conductpd nff-r;:tmpll~1 inrfir"rt I"nc:t lit ,~ ~'!
=
Note: For every two Sea Crant doUars Jjworded, the Federal Program requires at least one dollal
matching (rom the totol Florida Program. Individual projects vary. A large fraction of matc,
(unds is encoura~ed.(for Immediate Response projects zero matcl.in" funda .nay be acceptod
to the smaU budget involved. No I.n.lirect Costs are included in the Immediate Response Sea 01
award; this item may be used as adcJ::;onal match.)
institutional Endorsement: (e.g., Sponsored Reseorch Director)
Cerlifies lIecuroey of budget "nd provision o( matching (un~_$ubmission of lhe institution'S stand
sPOl\.<;ored rescoreh form i~ rCf)uircd for ri till I budget. ~~
Si.~f\ltturc:-.I/J/ff't~e#JtJt.~LV Nllt~~: DIRf.CJQl (II ~
nltr~: , rU::llIOn:
------_. '.
-----.-------
'!"
..
, ....
. UIUI"ct
. CO"'c~ a one-yeor (or less) period. Budget (0
.'
tional years is s ta t ed in prop
PrOject Title: A Computer-Directed Geoaraphic Cn~c;h'
.or tCO;o~iC Planninq: The Ca~p of thp
PrlncipaJ Investlgotor(s): ustavo A. Antonini
Inst Itutton: Un; vers ity of Flori da
IIc;p rhc~;~;~HioR Syttem
Flnr;rl.:ll \(eyt
Dales: Begln4/l/qn
End
1/3ll~
UUDCET ITEM
:;,\1./\H1l::S ~ \'iAGES
1Il'ITlI7.ed lis' o( positions (ond names, if known).
Senior Personnel
1'.!.Gus~tavo A~. Antonini
Leo!)ard ZQbler
. How~r~ TUQQer
Ot~~~g~~~~o~;~~iCk
Planning Technician
. .
l-~g
2.25
PUNDS
Federal Ma
Sea (U~
Crant Ou:
I ,~~gg hi
, , I
I' I
I I
I
II I
Mon-Months
Sea
Grant Grantee
J.
.1.
.
oJ.
,
.,
...
6.
~l:PE~O^t3Ll::: SUPPLIES, ETC.
rHt\vECTDornCSIIl" only frorn St!U Grunt)
'it!ILH C(J.,,)-;I~i Ilole r:lt('~;. If IlpphClltJJl'
I. Computer
:!. HOll t H entlll
3. =- Consultant:;
'';. Tel ephone
5.
INi5i1i1:CT COS'!"S
-.unl vers, y.
f(lr,\ L..s
E)Oplunol;ons: (Non-Urllversity) N1LJtchlnt{ Sources, Status, Amounts it Dates:
201
1.
,
r
51
262
.,
~.
,;~
,I
.OuLo;ide SponsOI"'S III the matching S column,
1.**Monroe County Planning Department
:!. ~
J.
.. Jlringe
benefits formula: G. Antonini at 21.99%. L.
asterik any items receiving these (uncJs.
S 17262 Oates 4/1/90 . 3/31/91
$ DAtes
$ Dates
Zo~ler atr,2.1%
.
Kesearch formula to be conducted off-camous. indirect cost at 23.3S
")
"
, '~
."Overhead formulu:
.,
"
"to:
.;
Note: f-'or every two Sco Cront doUars ~worded, the Federa. Program requires at leost one dol
matching Irom the total. Florida Pr6grnm. Individual projects vary. ^ larre traction or m.
lunds is encouregcd.-rFor lmmediat~ llcsponse projects zero matching lunds may be Gcceptc
to the small budget involved. No Indirect Costs are . included in the Immediate Response Sea
award; this item may be used as additional match.)
lnstituUonaJ Endorsement: (e.g., Sponsored Research Director)
Certifies neeurncy of bud~ct And provision of matehing runds. Submission 01 the institution's sta
spon.-.orcd rescoreh (orrn is rCf)uircd (or fin,,1 budf:ct. OIUARO 1iaUlSHAU.
l/J - f/' /J/JA _ / ~ ASSTMO' DIREC10R ", PfSEARCH
Si.~naturc:/J/t//M //,rft!l'.(4~ Nnme:
".. r t': I'n:;i t ion:
'.
oJ
f
;t
',~
:f
;1
'j
~;
1';t
ft
;;1
'I
:t.:....
----.---- ..
------ -.--.---
.
~
....
. r~~'
A COMPUTER-DIRECTED GEOGRAPHIC COASTAL USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
FOR ECOLOGIC PLANNING: THE CASE OF THE FLORIDA KEYS
Introduction
~
From 'Sea to Shining Sea' America's coastal waters are under assault.
In recent years, particularly during the summer of 1988, shorelines have
been subjected to a to~rent of land generated point and nonpoint source
pollutants-'dumping of sewage sludge, sewage treatment plant effluent,
medical waste, industrial organic and inorganic liquid manufactural
residuals, street stormwater flows, sanitary landfill drainage, fertilizer
and pesticide farm and suburban runoff, and direct fecal loads from
watercraft. The huge flux of pollutants flows into shallow coastal waters,
overwhelming assimilative capacities. Commercial and sport fisheries,
recreational beach activities, unique biologic ecologies, shoreline scenic
views, and the amenity-based economic and social lives of coastal com-
munities are threatened. long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, and San Fran-
cisco Bay already are near casualties. Many other coastal areas may be
added to the litany of national shoreline treasures in various stages of '
environmental degradation; among these the Florida Keys is one of the mos~
prominent and vulnerable.
The root causes are the growth of coastal population, the technologies
of amenity-recreational life styles, settlement patterns, and agriculture
and industry. Underlying these causes are social and economic forces of
post-industrialization which put a high priority on shoreline leisure-time
recreational resources. A socially acceptable way of satisfying the demand
for these resources that does not jeopardize their ecologic integrities and
continuities has yet to be developed. A feasible working solution is
needed to maintain the supply of the resource. The object of this research
is to merge science and management into an effective instrument to use and
protect sensitive shoreline ecologies. The Florida Keys is the quintes-
sential unique shoreline on the verge of entering an environmental collapse
mode because of rapid inadequately guided overdevelopment of its delicately
balanced coastal ecology. It is the 'tragedy of the poorly managed
commons' revisited (1).
The need for local and regional comprehensive p1anni~ on the Keys
(Monroe County) has been projected to increase sharply because the demand
for marine water-dependent activities in Florida may rise by 30-40 percent
over the next 30 years (2). Escalating land prices for residential and
commercial deve10~ment provide clear evidence of severe competition for
local shoreline resources. The future locations of population, public and
private services, and other activities should be distributed 1n kind,
volume, intensity, and temporal sequencing in ways that would minimally
stress and pressure the ecologies of the coastal environment. Unique sites
should be protected sanctuaries.
The Florida Keys dominate the social economy of Monroe County. The
Keys is a physically unique planning challenge because it consists of small
1
~:~
,~
.~
~
i
j
. ,
'.
:a
,
~
~
,
r~~-
~~,
>.~
archipelago-like islands extending southwest for 150 miles from southeast-
ern Florida. The Upper and Middle Keys developed on Pleistocene coral reef
and the islands tend to be long and narrow. The lower Keys formed on
oolitic limestone and are less linear and very indented. Elevations are
mostly below 20 feet above sea level. The shoreline has no true hinterland
and the land and water areas form a unique ecologic entity. The distances
between land parcels and the surrounding water are everywhere less than
3000 feet. land-water intimacy has been enhanced by the construction of
dead-end canals. The Keys is biophysically complex at large scale (small
area). To preserve the detail necessary for effective management, elemen-
tal parcels will be used as the planning unit characterized by discrete
attributes. These data will be treated as a continuous spatial distribu-
tion in order ~o integrate the parcels into a regional ecologic system (3).
For these reasons the design of an effective method that resolves the
planning challenges of the Keys will have wide application to coastal zone
management.
local planning ;s carried out under a hierarchy of authority, support,
and guidelines that extend from the federal and state levels to the county
and municipality or town. Stringent regulation of development 1s necessary
to maintain and expand the natural ecologic base of the amenity-recreation-
tourism economy of the Florida Keys. Counties were required by Florida
Statutes 163 et seq. in 1986 to prepare comprehensive development plans. .
The texts of these plans include a wealth of background information on th81
counties' natural and built environments (4). The plans, enacted by the .
county legislatures, contain land and water regulations, zoning ordinances,
and appeal processes, intended to govern future growth in response to
projected population expansion and demand for a range of public and private
services and activities. .
,i
The pivotal step in local planning is the permitting process. The
practicing planner Is the crucial decision-maker, seeking to navigate safe
passage between the Scylla and Charybdis of private gain and public loss,
of present profit and future income, of developer property rights and
community environmental security. The planner is confronted with a
plethora of site development proposals whose activities, locations, timing,
and compatibilities need to be evaluated for their separate, collective,
cumulative and marginal impacts on the ecologic subregion in which they are
located and beyond. Decisions should consider also tolerance limits,
natural assimilative capacities, preventive and countervailing practices,
and alternative uses when the ecologic state of the subregion is threaten-
ed. Information on a multitude of parameters describin~lthe state of each
developable parcel and the ecoregion should be available to the planner.
The planner tracks the movement of parcels through the permitting
process and should be aware of the levels of density in each land use and
waterfront district, set according to the boundaries of ecotypes. A given
property, for example, may include several ecotypes with varying permitted
densities; underdevelopment and overdevelopment may thus exist on parts of
the same property. In order to negotiate compliance with regulations a
transfer of development rights may have to be arranged. Records of code
enforcement often are an important planning tool. Practical problems of
subdivision development also arise when larger parcels are broken into lots
that are allocated by the developer to duplex houses, single family
2
i~
~
~1
~}
~
~
'~
~
. .}
!~~
. .
!~
~l
~~
~
,~
i
~
~
;.~
~
,.',
~
~
..,1
residences, mobile homes, floating homes, live-aboard docks or anchorages.
Federal, state, and local regulations apply to each of these settlement
patterns. land building types have different required flood elevations.
Increased use of the waterfront has led to the need for water use zoning,
based on aquatic ecotypes. The planner should be knowledgeable about the
locations of aquatic ecotype areas and their responses to use categories
and densities, according to the assimilative capacities of each type. The
dimensions of planning the coastal zone are physical, biologic, perceptual,
economic, political, cultural, and, also 10cationa1, because they are
spatially integrated in specific parcels and ecologic regions.
Development of the Florida Keys and other coastal areas is in a state
of flux. Change must be monitored in order to assess whether the area is
moving toward conformance with the objectives of the comprehensive plan,
and, to provide for adequate public utilities. This can be done by
comparing an existing state with a base line state of an earlier time
period. To perform these functions - operational, eva1uationa1, predictive
- on individual parcels and on the entire region, requires an electronic
information system designed for the purpose.
The proposed research will develop such a method by coupling a ~oastal
Use ~apability ~lassification (eUee) to a ~eographic Information ~stem
(GIS). cuee will be used to compute use suitability or compatibility
indexes for individual developable parcels by comparing ecologic demands of t
given uses to ecologic capacities to satisfy demands (assimilative capa-
city). The contribution of remedial and preventive measures to ecologic
stability also will be indicated for parcels or aggregations of them. GIS
will be used for 10cational and spatial identification and analysis of
parcel attributes collected as raw data, or after processing by euee. GIS
can aggregate individual parcels according to stipulated attributes and
provide tabular or map output of the entire area for the planning staff or
public distribution. (Further details are given in the Methods section.)
Parcel evaluations of alternate use impacts prOVide the option of scenario
analyses by planning simulations, i.e., what would be the comparative
impacts on the local and/or regional ecologies of selected use choices or
remedial measures?
. "
i
".,1
I :)
Discussions with Monroe County planners revealed their concerns with
'drowning in the data'. CUeC/GIS will have sufficient capacity to objec-
tively rationalize conflicting gUidelines, note exceptions, and track
permitting process stages by arranging and structuring the array of data on
water-land parcels. CUeC/GIS also will make insightful an~ ~reative
contributions to the evaluative, monitoring, and goal-setting aspects of
coastal zone planning. Its integrated methodology is derived from the
union of coastal ecology and regional resource develop~ent corcepts. The
method requires the acquisition of ecologic, use, and engineering data on
parcels which are evaluated according to scientific criteria, and the
generation of use alternatives. Preventive, avoidance, and remedial
strategies involving use changes and technical solutions are developed to'
achieve environmental quality levels. These alternatives are reviewed for
their diffusion impacts on other coastal processes and locations before and
after parcel agglomeration. The product is a set of implementable uses
that satisfy regional planning goals. The political decision to implement
or not, however, is not made by CUee/GIS.
3
,.
\.~,
;.'
,,;
"
The conceptual basis of CUCC/GIS is derived from Geography and
Ecology. The two disciplines have much in common and there is a striking
parallelism in thinking habits despite differences in specific systems
examined and the data acquired, because the fundamental structure of the
problems investigated are the same. The interdisciplines of ecological
geography, geographical ecology, biogeography, and landscape ecology
capture the similarities. Common definitions of Geography are: the human
use of earth resources, human ecology, spatial organization of society,
man-land relations, the human transformation of the earth (5,6,7). Common
definitions of Ecology are: the relations of organisms or groups of
organisms to the environment, living organisms and non-living environments,
interdependencies between physical and biological systems. Barrows
proposed a redefinition of Geography in 1923 as "Geography as Human
Ecology" (8).
The two disciplines follow an holistic approach and eschew reduc-
tionism. Both deal with the same fundamental processes and parameters of
energy, matter, space, time and diversity. Both are concerned with the
distribution of entities and processes in space and the linkages and
transfers of matter and energy. The core of holism is supported by the use
of data from the more reductionistdiscip11nes; ecology tends to draw on _
the physical and biological sciences, geography on the social sciences,
though neither is exclusive. Both are intensely concerned with resource J'
management, particularly with people-generated pollutants that degrade th
ecosystem. Technical terms have correspondent meanings in each discipline,
as food chain hierarchy and urban growth hierarchy, resource renewability,
cyc11ng, growth limits, succession, migration, spatial diffusion, diversity
index, etc.
The surge of interest in the global and local environments during the
two decades, 1960 - 1980, inspired the appearance of several books that
established the conceptual and methodological foundations of this research
(9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18). The National Academies of Sciences and
Engineering in 1970 identified a set of coastal zone waste management
parameters and recommended a research agenda (19). Why did it take a
decade and a half to implement these gUidelines? The reason is that the
software and hardware required to handle the large amount of data needed to
respond to were not available until recently (20). Technical advances in
data processing will enable the investigators to expand and implement the
theory. During the interval intense local ecosystem studies have accumu-
lated a data pool available to calibrate CUCC/GIS whic~~akes it feasible
to test and apply the methodology to a coastal zone area of critical
concern and growth sensitivity (21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28.29,30,31). The
proposed research will incorporate the built and natural environments into
a single ecosystem adapted to coastal zone management.
Ob.i ect i ve s
The overall project goal is to develop a systematic methodology that
can be used for two purposes: first. to devise a comprehensive sustainable
coastal use plan, and second, to continuously monitor the implementation of
use decisions in their immediate vicinity and on the state of the area-wide
4
c,>".},
"::H~
.':\;.(;
.(i~
'.:'L.>
I:...'.......
<',,:~,
/;~
:;.~
'K~
1~::1
....-:-.1-
.~~:~
"'''J
.~X~
:N
.,Cl
:~~
l~
t"
jii
l'~
'i~
1" ,
U
Lt,.
. "':' ~~: -,.
ecology. In order to attain these local and global objectives, the follow-
ing supporting objectives should be pursued:
1. To identify the location, size and characteristics of developed and
developable parcels and to ascribe their relevant physical, biological and
infrastructure services and use activities, according to four general
ecological categories: (a) offshore water, (b) nearshore water, (c) shore-
line (waterfront), and (d) land (inland coastal). (Rational: coastal
planning requires the parcel level of detailed information for decision-
making.)
(.,
I
2. To assemble this information in a locationally-structured system.
(Rationale: ecosystems have functional attributes, the impacts on which
derive from the locations and the activities of the individual parcels;
these relationships exhibit immediate and cumulative effects.)
3. To adapt the parcel properties and functions to the natural ecologic
tolerances of the parcel. (Rationale: maladaptations between the two lead
to either environmentally stressed relationships or under-utilization;
restrictions to development and opportunities for development, thus, can be
prescribed.)
4. To adapt the situations described in the previous objectives to the .
states or conditions prevailing in adjacent or nearby parcels. (Rationa1eJ
the boundaries of local ecosystems are irregular polygons while parcels an
properties are grid or legally defined and do not conform to the use toler-
ance boundaries of nature; the cumulative effect of like activities in a
locale increases the intensities of similar activity impacts, i.e., the use
diversity index tends to be low.)
5. To aggregate the parcels' natural properties and use activities into
larger areal planning-ecologic units. (Rationale: this permits periodic
evaluations of the relation between the cumulative effects of many parcel
decisions at hierarchical levels within the larger ecosystem; thus, a
comprehensive assessment of the state of the built-natural ecology can be
made for the coastal area using a system of regulated development that is
responsive to changing conditions. This will enable policy-makers,
planners and the public to understand complex environmental issues and the
interaction of environmental factors and regulatory policies.)
6. To provide the capability for accomodating an environmental planning
inventory necessary for managing Monroe County coastal r,~ources. (Ration-
ale: this offers a means of communicating information rapidly to users and
to the public; it provides the capability for summarizing data and issues,
and it permits comparisons of alternatives.)
Methods
A generalized flow chart of the CUCC/GIS information system is given ,
in Figure 1. The system links four main components: (1) an electronic
geographic information subsystem, (2) a data capture sUbsystem, (3) an
analytical subsystem, and, (4) a statistical subsystem. The functions and
operations of each component are described below.
5
;:-:
-+'.,
k
.,
','
.,.
",.
"~-.''''''i
I.
li
,!ts
lie
l~
at
[1..<>.
IIi
).:i.:"f!!::iil:
...1....
............
i.n>
C <<:C.'
....;.-.:.:..
. i,:,
-.1.............
... ........
........
. ~nf!
:~':;:::::
,".;;:::::::"
1.:1
;:J
',:J
"j
;~:I
'.J
!'I
).'.:.
'''r
...
6
~
:0
jg1!
=..
11)'0
.' :fl'<
'..14
c
S
;;
'"
c::
7ii
'"
.! CII
U e
~ .I::
=_i:
:ouo
;uJP
tlI:;) .
t~~ "'~
~ .... :a I c:
. :i:l 5
: ....... a. CJ .!. ..
.......it;~~~i
u
.
E
Q;
....
VI
>,
In
u
u
:::>
u
-
c
o
....
+-'
ra
u
....
~
.....
II)
II)
ra
,...
u
b
t
.....
,...
....
..Q
ra
Co
ra
u
Cl1
III
:::>
Ii!I"llj!~'IIII~t'~~,lillj;.;
CII c'" -.: S ...' -3'. .R. :: e .. ':.:':' .... .'
.. .. e.l:l ..: -.;;; .....
'. t::!:E" ~ :'.\ (I lit j S',:>.!,:::, ;:, :....
::. 0 . . :}~' ..:~,:,:j):\:!\,:1 :::::::::.:::I:f'?:::::0:i4{::::iif'i:i;=".,:i:':!L..
,I'
,...
ra
+oJ
II)
ra
o
u
~
o
+oJ
s..
ra
..c
u
~
,...
I.l..
..
,...
Cl1
s..
::l
0)
....
I.l..
ell GeograDhic Information Subsystem
A primary consideration in the development of cuce/GIS is the extra-
ordinary scope of its data requirements. All data inputs are geocoded for
location and describe relevant attributes of elemental parcels. The area
of the selected elemental parcel defines the coordinate system set up by
this subsystem. The area also defines the resolution, detail, and scale;
individual elemental parcels may be agglomerated. After discussions with
county planning personnel and field observations, the probable elemental
parcel area will be 50 - 100 feet by 50 - 100 feet because of the density
of development and sensitivity of the ecosystem. Tentatively, four
categories of elemental parcels will be created: offshore water, nearshore
water, shoreline (waterfront), and land (inland coastal). The elemental
parcel area of offshore water will be larger than the other three, possibly
300 feet by 300 feet. The GIS to be used, INFOTER, is a state-of-the-art
software file management package able to manipulate large geocoded data
files (20,32,33,34,35). It was created in Italy and is marketed in the
United States by the International Business Machines Corporation, IBM.
Monroe County recently purchased INFOTER. INFOTER stores data and can
aggregate elemental parcels according to user parameter stipulations to
selected hierarchical levels, assemble overlays and output maps and tables.
INFOTER has special features to cope with urban - suburban area planning
data. It is operated by an IBM main-frame computer, Model 4381, also
recently acquired by Monroe County for its Department of Information t
Systems. INFOTER and the 4381 will be linked to the University of Florida,
Northeast Regional Data Center.
(2) Data CaDture Subsvstem
The purpose of the data capture subsystem is to calibrate the at-
tributes of the elemental parcels categorized into four ecosystem groups -
inland, waterfront, nearshore water, and offshore water. Boundaries of the
four ecosystems are 10cational1y defined by the coordinates of the parcels;
similarly, ecotype subdivisions will be defined where present. Ecotype
areas are composed of one or more contiguous parcels. For each elemental
parcel, for the ecosystem group and ecotype in which it is located, and for
its existing use and possible uses, a correspondent set of environmental
parameters will be calibrated for the parcel and the use(s). Parcel
attributes and use attributes will be paired. Use attributes represent
environmental demands, and parcel attributes represent supplies. Activity
output use coefficients will be expressed per use class. For example, the
stress exerted on water parcels used as boat live-aboard a~Ghorages is a
function of the number of boats X the organic waste discharge per boat (for
a given time period); the oxygen demand of the waste load can be compared
to the dissolved oxygen of the water parcel. Alternatively, boat popula-
tion can be used, or, even field observations of the condition OT the
water. Surrogate environmental evidences, also useful in the example for
parcel classification, are the water flux through the parcel, shoreline
configuration, indicator organisms. The water flux further illustrates the
need to track the diffusion path of an export of a use impact output from
an elemental parcel to other parcels in the same ecotype area or to parcels
in another ecotype or region. A good example is the location of the
outfall of a land sewage treatment plant in an offshore water parcel. In
7
~
;~,
this instance, the condition of the active offshore coral reef should be
monitored.
Several environmental parameter files will be prepared for the
elemental parcels: existing conditions, base line conditions, planned goal
conditions. Use parameter files and a remedial or preventive action files
also will be created. The latter environmental enhancement files will
describe for specific uses in given elemental parcels, the actions which
may be taken to improve environmental conditions in the parcels to enable
them to assimilate use impacts and avoid degradation. Property and built
environmental files will be set up containing data on selected physical
facilities, as roads, water and sewage, housing type, docks, canals, etc.
Data sources and data reliabilities will vary widely, given the type
of problem. Appropriate extraction and pre-processing methods unique to
each source will be used before input to INFOTER. The flow chart of Figure
1 indicates the range of information sources: county reports, files of
county divisions and affiliated private and public utility agencies,
federal, state, and county maps and surveys, inclUding air photos and
remote sensing, literature reviews of scientific journals, books and
research reports, field observations and checking of maps with county
scientific and technical personnel. Initially, the best available informa-
tion will be used, as reconnaissance rankings. To delay until "perfect"
information is available, is to permit possible irreversible conditions to J-
develop from present trends.
Data measurement scales will be nominal, ordinal, and interval. From
our empirical experiences with data to be used in this study, the measured
observation numbers are imprecise and will be ranked on an ordinal scale.
J3l Analytical Subsystem
CUCC is the analytical subsystem that computes the use compatibilities
or suitabilities of a developable elemental parcel by comparing the
environmental needs of giyen uses to the ecologic capacity of the parcel to
meet them. cuce obtains the parcel's existing environmental parameter file
and the selected use parameter file from INFOTER and compares the cor-
responding paired parameter numerical or ranked values to calculate dimen-
sionless values or indexes, the compatibility ratios. Parameter indexes
may be composited, weighted or unweighted. If a given parameter index
exceeds (or is less than) a stated value the proposed parcel use may be
rejected. The results are returned to INFOTER for each parcel, each use,
and each parameter. The diffe-rence between the use requirem6nt parameter
value and the existing environmental parameter value of the parcel is a
statement of compatibility or incompatibility. The existing environmental
parameter file of a parcel may have to be updated to reflect changes in its
-environmental state._ It is possible to improve a parcel's existing
environmental parameter file by accessing INFOTER's environmental enhance-
ment file for a particular use if an investment is made to imp~ove environ-
mental conditions in the parcel. The base line environmental condition and
the planned goal environmental files also can be compared to the existing
environmental condition file to chart the progress of parcel, ecotype, and
ecoregional areas. An adjacency index can be computed between two parcels
by comparing their existing environmental parameter files, with or without
8
:.~
i
J{
'~
1
j
",.
resort to the environmental enhancement file. The cuce algorithm is
described in Appendix 1. A brief note on the evolution of CUCC from
previous work on land use capability classification and parcel suitability
analysis is given in Appendix 2.
(4) Statistical Subsystem
The statistical subsystem is linked to INFOTER and contains routines
for general descriptive statistics, regressions, multivariate correlation,
factor analysis, similarity analYSis of spatial and non-spatial data, and
error analysis, etc. The ~tatistical Analysis ~stem, SAS, will be used
(36).
Milestones
Tables 1 and 2 show a summary of the project milestones and include a
listing of principal investigators for specified tasks (# in [ ] is
referenced task on milestone chart). The proposed project will be ac-
complished in two stages over the 1 April 1989 - 31 March 1991 period.
Year 1 will begin with meetings to coordinate the research team and
counterpart support staff activities. A pilot area will be selected for
initial tests. An intensive review will be made of the Florida Keys'
Comprehensive Plan and an evaluation will be made of existing county data
files. Other data sources, as airphoto, satellite imagery, hydrologic, t
hydrographic, topographic, infrastructural, will be acquired [1]. A review .
of GIS procedures and INFOTER algorithms will be made in May 1989, to chart
information flows and to determine statistical analysis routines and output
options to be used [2]. Procedures will be developed, in summer 1989, for
. geocoding, file construction, and data entry [3]. The CUCC algorithms for
compatible concurrent parcel use and compatible adjacent parcel use will
also be designed in summer 1989 [4]. Test data will be geocoded [5] and
trials will be run [6] during the fall 1989 period. CUCC will be calcu-
lated for the test area in January 1990 [1]. Year 1 research will close
with a seminar review of the test results with Monroe County personnel and
an interim report documenting proposed CUCC and GIS systems design modific-
ations and supplemental data requirements [8].
Year 2 will implement the pretested, redesigned CUCC,and GIS systems
in two pilot areas with contrasting environmental ecosystems. Compatibil-
ity scaling procedures will be refined in April 1990 [9]. Following pilot
areas selection with County personnel [10], supplemental field surveys, as
needed, will be carried out during May - August 1990 [11] .1:1 Milestones 12 -
13 will cover the five month period, September 1990 - January 1991, needed
to geocode, map and analyze the two pilot areas. Results will be reviewed
with County pe:'sonnel and the final report will be prepared during Jar'Jary
- February 1991 [14]. Project findings will be presented in March 1991 to
County and south Florida regional agencies in a seminar and in a technical
written form [15].
Expected Technical Results
The expected technical product is a state-of-the-art system for
capturing detailed parcel information in order to ascertain how the coastal
zone works as an abiotic-biotic ecosystem composed of elemental parcels.
9
;.
I
J
Jable 1: Summary of Proiect Milestones Year 1
1989 1990
Tasks [ ] Investiaator,i A M J J A SON 0 J F M
[IJ Initial meeting with Antonini,
county & south Florida Hetrick
agencies, preliminary Tupper,
survey of data sources Zobler X X
[2J Review GIS procedures, de-
termine statistical analy-
sis routines and output Zobler,
options Hetrick X
[3] Design geocoding, file con-
struction, data entry Hetrick X X X
[4] Design compatible & ad- Zobler,
jacent site algorithms Antonini,
Hetrick X X X
, ',' [5]
Geocode test data Antonini X X
t
[6] Run test data and ZObler,
eva-l uate ' . -- Antonini, ,- -~=: ...
Tupper,
Hetrick X X
[7] Calculate CUCC for Zobler,
test site Antonini X
[8] Review results with county, Antonini,
conduct seminar;, prepare Tupper,
interim report Zobler,
Hetrick X X
Y'.~
Xf
','..'
.;.
:;.~:
~:}
-1:1
if.
,
:~,~
:'~j
;~(
.~~
Jj
,1i)
.~~
,)1
-~
:"J
;1
~
,
-
1'0.
1".... ..~:
,,"
....
,.;f~~:~"-:, .-,
Table 2: Summary of Proiect Milestones Year 2
1990 1991
InvestiQators A M J J A SON 0 J F M
Tasks [ ]
[9] Refine compatibility
scaling used in Year 1
[10] Select two pilot areas
with county personnel
[11] Design and conduct field
surveys with county staff
[12] Geocode pilot data
[13] Calculate and apply
revised CUCC
: . ',' .~
[14] Evaluate cuce results
with county, prepare
final report
[15] Conduct seminar,
present findings
"~.-:.'~:}
~'::_:IB
;: ,:!
',,)i:,
r;itl
" "J
\{~
t:~
~c:~
i~
r-~~
t-~
tt.;I~
t::;~
lu"!;
~t::~
li~
J.:~
LH
~.,..,.::;,t
;',';iJ
~1
'.>,
,...,'
t:;
'" j'-
.t"l
,~
Zobler,
Antonini
x
Antonini,
Tupper,
Zobler
x
Antonini,
Tupper,
Zobler
x X X X
Antonini
X X X
Zobler,
Antonini,
Tupper,
Hetrick
X X X
Antonini,
Tupper,
Zobler
X X
Antonini,
Tupper,
Zobler
:1 :1
11
,. "'
..~ ;~,~;';':"':;,.
.:~-;,..~,.~..,,: .
I
X
. I
-
\$.I:n~.~'-"~'I'''''''''
With this understanding the uses of parcels and interactions among the
parcels (or their agglomerations) can be guided toward the attainment of
parcel and regional environmental goals. The parcels may be aggregated
according to stipulated parameter values. To accomplish this, a parcel use
suitability - compatibility algorithm has been coupled to a geographic
information system. The procedures will enable practicing planners to
respond to parcel development requests and maintain reliable records to
monitor the environmental state of coastal zones. Outputs will consist of
table and map descriptions of pre-developed and post-developed parcels and
areas. Environmental change can be evaluated by reference to a base line
period, making it feasible to continuously evaluate planning policy and
implementation. With reasonably reliable parameter value estimates
obtained from the literature and field observations the environmental
impacts of parcel uses may be predicted within acceptable levels of
accuracy. The impact of alternate parcel uses on the environment may be
simulated. Putting together the scattered information in a useab1e format
will be made possible by this research.
AnticiDated Benefits
This project will provide planners and developers with a method to
make water, shoreline, and land use decisions that will sustain coastal
ecosystems. Decision-making will be speeded up by facilitating the
permitting process. The reasons for planning decisions will be more t
objective and explicit and communication with developers, policy-makers and
the public will be more effective. A Florida Sea Grant report will be
prepared as a manual for distribution to interested groups elsewhere in
Florida. The Monroe County Sea Grant extension agent will be consulted
during the research period and advised of progress. All findings will be
. .made available to him for use locally and elsewhere. Scholarly publica-
tions will be prepared for Science, Coastal Management, Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, Journal of American Planning Association,
Annals of the Association of American Geographers.
Related Work
This project is an outgrowth of the mutually supportive interests of
the research team in coastal geography, resource conservation, planning,
and in remote sensing and computer science. Without this active symbiosis,
it is unlikely that the project would have been prepared. The proposed
effort is at the frontier of coastal environmental management research and
planning. Monroe County is contracting the research team t~ conduct a
series of training sessions on GIS applications.
Possible Follow-Uo
This project is part of a research effort to link parcel classifica-
tion, resource development and geographic information systems. The
proposed project will lead to a classification of the linkages among the
network of parcels. It is the first step toward predicting changes induced
in a coastal area when development occurs and parcels are disturbed.
Subsequent, part 2, research will attempt to apply governing equations to
model fluxes and transformations and simulate the behavior of the built
coastal ecosystem. The reach of a perturbation, thus, would be predictable
12
4
.1
.~
]
1
~
,~
<, ~
'~4
~
~
i
1
1
~
.
j
.~'
1
~1
l
~
1
. .." '. ~. ,
and the distance to its attenuation location plotted. long-term project
results could provide a basis for decision-making on proposed developments
that would be scientifically explicit and ecologically well-founded. The
parcel parameter enhancement file offers the possibility of introducing
trade-off and economic evaluations into the analysis, in conjunction with
simulations. This could be a very important tool in the formulation of
long-term planning policy.
Budaet Justification
Dr. Gustavo Antonini, Principal Investigator and Project Coordinator,
will be employed for 7.5 man-months on this proposed research: 3.0 man-
months will be covered by Sea Grant and the remainder as a match by the
university. He will administer the project, supervise field data collec-
tion, and perform airphoto and remote sensing interpretations. Dr. Leonard
Zobler, Co-Principal Investigator, will be employed by Sea Grant for 8.0
man-months to direct the design of the co~patibility indexes and statisti-
cal and cartographic analyses. Dr. Virginia Hetrick, Systems Coordinator,
Northeast Regional Data Center (NERDC), will be covered by the University
of Florida as a match for 1.25 man-months to provide programming and
technical support to coordinate electronic data processing through the
various modules and linkage to the NERDC system. Monroe County will
provide 2.4 man-months of Dr. Howard Tupper's time to evaluate the practi-
cal applications of the proposed research, to serve as a liaison with t
government agencies, and to a~sist with field data collection.
The County will assign two of its employees, a Biologist and a
Planning Technician, for 12.0 man-months as project technical assistants.
These assistants will be responsible for collection of tabular data in
county and affiliated agency files, field checking environmental data, map
curatorial work, and data entry.
Travel for periodic consultations, seminars and field data collection
will be apportioned as follows: Sea Grant, 46 percent; University of
Florida, 54 percent. Computer time and services and expendable purchases
will be covered by the-university, 80 percent, and by Monroe County, 20
percent. Table 3 shows the sources of funds.
Table 3: Fundina History
Sources of Funds
Year of Project
1: 1989-1990 2: 1990-1991,J
S 43,083 S 43,664
~~
Sea Grant
Matching Funds:
Monroe County
University of Florida
S 17,262
S 29,390
S 18,495
S 31,142
~
"j.
~
;!.
;;..
.~ .
13
~
'.
.::
,J
,.
~~
~
~
Personnel
Co-PrinciDa1 Investi9ators
Gustavo A. Antonini (Project Coordinator), 080-30-6911
Professor of Geography, 305 Grinter Hall, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, FL 32611 (904-392-6233)
Leonard Zobler, 120-22-7350
Adjunct Professor, 319 Grinter Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611 (904-392-0375)
Virginia R. Hetrick, 577-58-6359
Systems Coordinator, Northeast Regional Data Center, 107 Space Sciences
Research Building, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 (904-392-
4601)
Howard M. Tupper, 548-62-2828
Development Review Coordinator, Monroe County Planning Department, Key
West, FL 33040 (305-294-4641)
References
1. Hardin, G., and J. Baden, eds., 1977, Managing the Commons, W. H.
Freeman, San Francisco, California.
2. Adams, C., 1987, An Economic Perspective of Florida's Changing Marine
Water-Dependency, St. Pa. 303, Food and Resource Economics Dept.,
Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
3. Robinove, C.J., 1986, Principles of Logic and the Use of Geographic
Information Systems, U.S. Geol. Surv. Cir. 977, Denver, Colorado.
4. Monroe County, 1986, Florida Keys' Comprehensive Plan, Vol. 1, Back-
ground Data Element, Vol. 2, Analysis and Policy Element, Key West,
Florida.
5. Abler, R.F., 1987, "What Shall We Say? To Whom Shall We Speak?",
Annals Assoc. Amer. GeoQ., 77, 4, December, 511-524.
6. Kates, R.W., 1987, "The Human Environment: The Road NOt:~aken, The
Road Still Beckoning," Annals Assoc. Amer. GeoQ., 77, 4, December,
525-534.
t
7. Morrill, R.L., 1987, nA Theoretical Imperative," Annals Assoc. Amer.
Ge09" 77, 4, December, 535-541.
8. Barrows, H.L., 1923, "Geography as Human Ecology~" Annals Assoc. Amer.
Ge09., 13, 89-109.
9. McHarg, I.L., 1969, Design,With Nature, Natural History Press, Garden
City, New York.
14
10. Berry, B.J.L., LC. Conkling,and D.M. Ray, 1976, The Geography of
Economic Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
11. Ehrlich, P.R., A.H. Ehrlich, and J.P. Holdren, 1977, Ecoscience:
Population, Resources, Environment, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco,
California.
12. Odum, H.T., 1971, Environment, Power, and Society, Wiley -
Interscience, New York.
,<
13. Isard, W., 1972, Ecologic-Economic Analysis for Regional Development:
Some,'Initial Explorations With Particular Reference to Recreational
Resource Use and Environmental Planning, Free Press, New York.
14. O'Neill, R.V., D.L. DeAngelis, J.B. Waide, and T. F. H. Allen, 1986, A
Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems, Princeton, University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.
15. Watt, K.E.F., 1973, Principles of Environmental Science, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
16. Watt, K.E.F., 1982, Understanding the Environment, Allyn & Bacon,
Newton, Massachusetts.
17. Koppelman, l., 1976, Integration of Regional land Use Planning and
Coastal Zone Science, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Washing-
ton, D.C.
18. Van Dyne, G.M., ed., 1969, The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource
Management, Academic Press, New York.
19. National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering, 1970,
Waste Management Concepts for the Coastal Zone, NAS-NAE, Washington,
D.C.
t
',,',:,/
)'~>..~
;."
(tj~J.
.,,~~
\JI
,:::.~
>:f!,
:~~
tr-,-,~
'i:~
.\<-',.'
.t-).'-
~i','
'}i:l
.t:;:
"'.rf
~"."!\
'1',l,j
'',.';..r,
,. ...~.~
: \i~
:.-!:.:~
1:.;'.,.:
F),
t~
Lii
t':,
i ;1
] .l.~
~.r~.:'t ,A
20. Maizel; M.S., 1987, A Survey of Geographic Information Systems for
Natural Resources Decision Making at the Local Level, The American
Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.
21.
Siemon, C.L., 1988, "Plan Implementation in the Florida Keys Through
Land Acquisition," Coastal ManaQement, 16, 1, 93-96.
,I 'I
American Planning Association, 1985, "Symposium: Coastal Management,
Planning on the Edge," Special Issue of Jour. Amer. Plan. Assoc., 51,
3, Summer, 263-399.
23. Clark, J.R., 1983, Coastal Ecosystem Management: A Technical Manual
for the Conservation of Coastal Zone Resources, R.E. Krieger Publ.
Co., Malabar, Florida.
22.
24. Lauff, G.H. ed., 1967, Estuaries, Conference on Estuaries, Publ. 83,
Amer. Assoc. Adv. SCi., Washington, D.C.
15
.",'t
.,~!~)
25. Brahtz, J.F.P. ed., 1972, Coastal Zone Management: Multiple Use With
Conservation, Wiley - Interscience, New York.
26. Komar, P.O., 1976, Beach Processes and Sedimentation, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
27. Coates, D.R., ed., 1973, Coastal Geomorphology, State Univ., Bingham-
ton, New York.
28. Dyer, K.R., 1986, Coastal and Estuarine Sediment Dynamics, Wiley -
Interscience, New York.
29. Csanody, G.T., 1982, Circulation in the Coastal Ocean: Fluid Mechan-
ics, Reidel, Hingham, Massachusetts.
30. Carter, R.W.G., 1987, Coastal Environments: An Introduction to the
Physical, Ecological, and Cultural Systems of Coastlines, Academic
Press, London, England.
31. Sun, J.T., ed., 1985, U. S. Geological Survey Coastal Research Studies
and Maps, U.S. Geol. Surv. Cir. 883, Alexandria, Virginia.
32. INFOTER, 1987, INFOTER-XA, Geographic Analysis Management, INFOTER-XB, .
Geographic Data Base Management, IFM Infomaster Srl, Genova, Italy. .
33. Dueker, K.J., 1987, "Geographic Information Systems and Computer-Aided
Mapping," Jour. Amer. Plan. Assoc., 53, 3, Summer, 383-390.
34. Burrough, P.A., 1986, Principles of Geographic Information Systems for
Land Resources Assessment, Clarendon Press, New York.
35. Marble, D.F., Calkins, H.W., and D.J. Peuquet, 1984, Basic Readings in
Geographic Information Systems, SPAD Systems, Ltd., Williamsport, New
York.
36. SAS, 1985, User's Guide, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
;:.'(
, ,~;:".-:1
:r,'":
.: ..'~
,;{~
~. '. . (.:
1~
~rk=.-l
~~i
';t!j
~~r\~
1\.:.
~:.~
,,~ ~
1'1
\;/i
':,f
):~ .:~
l.ii.':
'~l
"'~"~
?fr.~
"iJ
-~'i'
"',"
\~.':
t~
'/j
~,r~
.,~
".
:,.
J
':"'1
"J
16
...
'1..'"
::"
List of Appendixes
1. CUCC Compatibility Ratio
2.
3.
4.
.
,"'It
.~.
i
1
':
:1
(
i
I
t
'I
5.
j
I
I
,
'J
j
I
!
-1'r:."-"'-;'.
"~'r";...', '.~;.~"r- :'-~
, ,
A Note on Background & Development of CUCC
University of Florida, Department of Geography
Commitment of Matching Funds
University of Florida, Division of Sponsored Research
Commitment of Matching Funds
Monroe County Planning Department Commitment of
~1atching Funds
-tl
17
_II!
....
-
":,:"':t~,~,.""",, '-'--'.' .-~-,."":." (." "''''.J'''''<~'i''-:;.;"'_.:~';
J
- ,
'-"-'~".'~'"
Appendix 1: CUCC Compatibility Ratio
Compatibility analysis determines the ratios between two corresponding
sets of environmental parameters: (1) the existing condition of the coastal
elemental parcel, and (2) the parameter requirements of the existing or
planned parcel use. Data on relevant attributes of the coastal uses and
the parcels are acquired by an intense review of the scientific and
engineering literature, federal and state records, field observations with
local County personnel and extension agents. If the data are to be
ordinated the range of environmental parameter values will be divided into
several class intervals for parcels, uses, and parcel remediations. The
file structure i8 shown in Figure I-a for one parcel and R parameters for
ordinal data. Figure l-b gives the algorithm for the calculation of the
compatibil~ ratio for an area of N parcels. k uses. and 1 parameters.
The higher R is. or closer to 1 if lower. the more sustainable the ecologic
system is. Scenarios can be run to assess the impact of use changes on
the coastal zone.
"'1...
.:{,~
: .~, ';
.; ?I:'
'::f;.>,
,,~, .
,
i~
:~(.
jl
}.:~j
:'" !":: ~
,;11
I
~;
'1'
"$1
,{~
i;~
:tl
:1
:;~
i~~
''ii
''1,1
:,<,
'~p
;:]j
'.~~~
Jl
ft<
,,',
18
.
..
-,
f
~ I I I
. ~ I I I
-J 0:: <: 0:: I I I
<<:0::...., I I I
I-c.. l- I I
Vl Co. ...., I I
<:.......,~ I I
OO....~ I I
uO~< I I
I I
C-<:c.. I I
...., .... 0:: I I
1-<<:...., I I
Vl 0:: c.. Vl I I
=> => ~ I I
'J""'-J 2: I I
~Vl....,O< . .
<=>U....o::
-
0 ....,
- Vl I
I- '.:=" I
<~c.~ I
c::~....~ I
I
....,c..~c:: I
Vl-J:Z: I
=>....,<e:: I
Uc.;"'" I
-Jc:: l- I
<<c.:"'" I
I-c......,:::E: I
Vl 1-< I
<LI..""'C:: I
o c.J ..- < I
U -c..
I--"- -
I I I
I I I
I I I
c:: I I I
Q ...., . I I
...., l- I I I
I-...J"'" . I I
Vl....,~ I I I
=> U ~ I . I
"':)C::C::Z I I I
c<<~ I I I
<c..c..
I I I
c:: I I I
C ...., I I I
~-,t;j I I I
I I I
Vl....,~LI.J I I I
=>U :;:) I t I
"':) c:: c:: ....J I I I
~~~;; I I I
I I I
I I I
....J ...., I I I
<U I I I
-- I I I
CU- I I .
""'U L&.I I I .
ffi~ c I I I
0 I I I
c::a. u I I I
I I I
c:: I I I
L&.I I I I
l- I I I
....J LI.J I I I
il I I I
~ I I t
Z I I I
~ I I I
I I I :1
.
I I I -
c:: I I I I fI.l
L&.I I I I C'CI ""
l- I I I "" CIJ
....J L&.I I I I C'CI4oI
L&.I~L&.I I I I c:1.1
u :;:) I I I
c:: ....J I I I -<
~~~ I I I
-
I -
I CIJ
I III
....J I ::s ,
~ I
I cu ~
en t C
< L&.I I 0
oen I -
U :;:)
I -
....J I -
L&.I . I CIJ
U I CUU
c:: I Ci..
cr:: I 010
c.. I .- -Q.
I .....- :-.-_---- ,'\" -
.--- T '"'
19
I-
!
0 1
LI..
<
I-
C3
>-
I-
-
....J
-
CQ
-
I-
~
e
U
L&.I
Vl
:;:)
-'
....,
U
c::
cr::
Q.
..
10
-
cu
i..
:=
Q)
-
LI..
.,
!""~-~'~
where.
and,
. ;~
~'..
( P ij )
Uiw
~;.
~;
.~
:~
':
,
:~
i
~,
~
1 -:
[ ( P ij .)
1 Uiw
~
I 1 Ui
I w
I
o
R ..
j .. 1
N
Pij .. rank value of i parameter of j parcel
Uiw .. optimal rank of i parameter of w use
R · mean rank value of region enclosing N parcels,
the compatibility ratio of the region
N .. total number of parcels in ecotype or ecoregion
1 .. number of parameters in w use
· ratio of i parameter rank value for j parcel
to optimal i parameter rank value for w use;
ij and iw are corresponding sets of paired i's,
ij · iw
· mean rank ratio value of a parcel for use and
parcel parameters; the compatibilitY.tfatio of the
parcel for one use
NOTE: i,j, may be weighted
)
';!
'}
,.:::~r~}::: .
Figure "lb: Calculation of Compatibility Ratio
20
. ~','>.1.':"-'
'.;,ir...~~~,...,:
AODendix 2: A Note on BackQround and Oevelooment of CUCC
The 'oastal Use 'apability ~lassification (CUeC) system, defined by
this research, is derived from agricultural, suburban, and forestry land
evaluation systems, as bluebelting for waterfronts has been extrapolated
from greenbe1ting in agriculture to discourage the conversion of productive
farmland to suburban housing. Two basic concepts and practices are
combined and used to develop cuee algorithms as an analytical tool for
local comprehensive shoreline planning: (a) land use capability classifica-
tion, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, and (b) multiple use, U.S. Forest
Service. CUCC had initially been developed by two of the investigators
(Antonini and Zob1er) for use in an unpublished technical study of tropical
steepland agriculture in the Dominican Republic (1).
The Soil Conservation Service has developed a method of classifying
land according to agricultural capability in which soil erosion is the
decision parameter. The classification ranks parcels nationally according
to permitted use intensities (2). Multiple use of forest lands was
developed by the U.S. Forest Service as a public management tool to
allocate forest areas to partially competitive uses in a way that would
maximize public benefits on a sustainable basis. The use system is
systemically ordered because all lands Simultaneously produce more than one
output, as timber, water, fauna and flora, and aesthetic satisfactions,
even though there may be a singular prime objective (3). With an increase t
in recreation and amenity demands and values, the Forest Service is now
reappraising the role of each of the output sectors. What are the most
valuable products under present multiple use management goals? What shall
the new input-output mix be to maximize benefits? The increased value of
amenity-recreation use is now under review (4).
The issues raised and solutions sought by the Soil Conservation and
Forest Services parallel the resource management concerns faCing counties
and municipalites located along coastal United States. Classification and
evaluation in coastal areas are especially difficult because of the varied
technical requirements within and among water-land ecosystems. These
variations are exacerbated by the spatial mixing of phYSical site proper-
ties (5).
Many systems have been devised to claSSify the suitability of land for
agricultural, forestry, urban, and industrial areas (6). Methodologies for
classification and evaluation may differ in data content, logical struc-
ture, decision rules, and analysis routines used to assess r,~gional
resources, recommend use patterns, or set parcel limitations. The detail
and scale of analysis are related to parcel size, taxonomy and evaluation
objectives. Locations and constraints of parameters can be used to
construct a meaningful normative index (7,8,9,10). Constraining use
parameters may be weighted. Such classifications are applicable to scenic
values and other amenities and are incorporated in zoning regulations and
tax ratable schedules (11,12,13). These principles of classification are
applicable to coastal zones (14). The seminal work by Clark (15) has drawn
on the experiences of the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service
to find technical-developmental accomodations for ecologlca1 problems in
coastal areas.
21
~~
....;
,I.:
;;,,~
:J,~
/\
...;,
~;:f.i
i:~"',i
'~i;~
.....,"..
"; ~~
~:1~~
,~'J.:
f~
.,j
l:~
;~!
,.r
;-t
'F.
h
":j
"!
~
fl
n
',"I
~ ~
a. ,-
References
1. Antonini, G.A., l. Zobler, and R. Ryder, 1985, Project to Complete the
Agro-Ecological Analysis of the las Cuevas Watershed, 3 vols., State
Secretariat of Agriculture and Dominican Preinvestment Fund, Santo
Domingo, Dominican Republic.
2. Klingebiel, A.A., and P.H. Montgomery, 1966, land Capability Classifi-
cation, Agr. Hdb. 210, U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, D.C.
3. Convery, F.J.~ 1977, "land and Multiple Use," in Research in Forest
Economics and Forest Pblicy, M. Clawson, ed., Res. Pa. R-3, Resources
for the Future, Washington, D.C., 251-326.
4. Robertson, D., 1987, "Changing Values in Public Land Management,.
Jour. Soil and Water Cons., 42, 5, 302.
5. Ortolano, l., 1984, Environmental Planning and Decision Making, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
6. Beek, K.J., 1978, land Evaluation for Agricultural Development, Pub.
23, Intl. Inst. for Land Reel. and Improvement, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
7. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1974, Soil Survey of Brevard County,
Florida, Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D.C.
8. Clark, J., 1976, The Sanibel Report, Conservation Foundation, Washing-
ton, D.C.
9. Fabos, J.G., and S.J. Caswell, 1976, Composite Landscape Assessment,
Res. Bull. 637, Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta., Amherst, Massachusetts.
10. Dobson, J.E., 1979, "A Regional Screening Procedure for Land Use
Suitability Analysis," Geogr. Rev., 60, 2, April, 224-234.
11. Beatty, M.T., G.W. Peterson, and l.D. Swindale, eds., 1979, Planning
the Uses and Management of land, Agron. Sere 1921, ASA, Madison,
Wisconsin.
12. Reganold, J.P., and M.J. Singer, 1979, "Defining Prime Farm Land by
Three Land Classification Systems," Jour. Soil and Water Cons., 34, 4,
172-176.
t
13. Storie, R.E., 1976, Storie Index Rating, Spec. Publ. 3203, Univ. of
California, Davis, California.
14. Heatwole, C.A., and N.C. West, 1982, "Recreational-Boating Patterns
and Water-Surface Zoning," Geoar. Rev., 72, 3, July, 304-314.
15. Clark, J., 1983, Coastal Ecosystem Management: A Technical Manual for
the Conservation of Coastal Zone Resources, R.E. Krieger Publ. Co.,
Malabar, Florida.
22
Florida SEA GRANT BIOGRAPHICAL DATA SHEET
l:s~ this sh~~t..rronl side only..wilh grant proposals. Do not add attachments. Complete vitae may be submiucd ror f10rida
Sea Grant's ~ir~clor)' of experts.
~A:\IE: Gustavo A. Antonini
POSITIO:\: Professor of Geography
Tl:LEPHO:\E#: (904) 392-0375
Sl ~CO'I#: 622-0375
SOC.SEC#: 080-30-6911
EOCCA TIO~ (:\105t recent first):
Collcl:c or lJnh'crsity Dept. and/or :\1ajor
ColumbIa University Geography(Latin America)
Columbia University Geography(Coastal Geomorphology)
Columbia University GeOgraphy(Physical Geography)
Univ. Southern Cal. Music
PROfESSIO:\AL ADDRESS:
305 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Dates Attended
1962.19Sa
1961-1962
1959-1961
1955.1958
Dl1:rec
PhD
M.A.
A.B.
PROfESSIO~AL EXPERIE~CE
(A) Positions (:'\lost recent first):
Dates Or2anizatlon
1978-present University at Florida, Gainesville
1970.1978 University of Florida, Gainesville
1969-1970 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras
1968-1969 University of Windsor, Canada
1980-present US Agency for International Development
1982-present
Dominican Republic, State Secretariat of Agriculture
The Rockefeller Foundation
Position
Professor of Geography & Latin American Studies
Asso. Prof. Geography & Latin American Studies
Assistant Professor of Geography
Assistant Professor of Geography
Consultant, environmental/institutional profiling,
natural resource evaluation, Latin America
Principal investigator -
watershed planning. resource management
Principal investigator, agro-ecological .
mapping of tropical American steeplanls
1980-1982
(B) Pertinent Research, Teaching and/or Related Acth'ities (Recent Grants By Title, Source and Amount, Courses
Taught, Society Offices):
Consultant to Monroe County, Planning Department, Coastal Management and Geographic Information Systems, 1987.present
.'..".~'.'.'.<.
".
.,.
~/
;ij
,,,;/
:~1
Funded research on natural resource management, land use planning, coastal .rosion
.',
,,:,:;~
.,
Principal Investigator on externally funded contracts which, lince 1979, total $618.112
Teach courses in natural resource planning (GEA6468L), air photo interpretation and mapping (GE05125L), and advanced
physical geography (GE04201C)
;.'.~
~~~
k~
'j!;
.'~
'"
'\1
~l
.~~
fii
.,.
"::J
;-.~~
'J{
.J.
n
. -~l!
t..
l
Honorary member, Academic of Sciences of the Dominican Republic
Hold Ocean Operator, commercial U.S. Coast Guard Captain's license (50-ton, 100-mile, Florida east/west coast endorse-
ments) '1:1
(C) SUpI!rvision of 11 Theses and 9 Dissertations. :\Iembership on 19 Total Graduate Student Committees.
(D) Pertinent Publications: (Or 47 total):
'"
ffl
;i~
:::,
. ~~
1987
1982
1975
1965
1961
"A System for Inventorying the Land Resource Potential of Tropical Watersheds," Proceedings,lnternational Geographic
Information Systems Symposium. (with Leonard 20bler and R. Ryder), (in press).
"A Classification of the Steeplands of the Northern Andes: Mountain Research and Development Vol. 2, No.3, 273-280
(with J. Posner and others). I
Population and Energy: B Systems Analysis 01 Resource Utilization In the Dominican Republic. Gainesville, F1: Uni-
verSity Presses of Florida (with K. Ewel and H. Tupper).
"Infrared Image Applications in Studies of the Marine Environment: Proceedings, Third Symposium on Remote Sensing
of the Environment, 781-788.
"Interpretation of Geomorphic Features at Horseshoe Cove, Sandy Hook, N.J.... Proceedings, First Conference on Shal.
low Water Reselrch.
I';
f
.~
W
>~~
1<'
f,';'" .
23
~.: "'. ,- -' "~
Florida SEA GRANT BIOGRAPHICAL DATA SHEET
L's~ lhis she~t..rronl side' I.'nly""ilh grant proposals.' Do nol add attachments. Complele \'il.1e may be submitted for Florida
Sea Grant's director)' uf experts.
~A:\IE: Leonard Zobler
I)OSITIO:\: Adjuncl Protessor
TELEPHO'E#: (904) 392-0375
Sl'CO:\I#: 622-0375
SOC.SEC#: 120.22-7350
EDl'CA TlO~ (\105t r<<ent first):
Collq:e or l'nin~rsit~. Dt'pt. and/or :\Iajor
Columbia Universily Geography(GeologyiEconomics)
Slale Call. of Washington Soils(80tany/Chemistry)
Slale Coli. of Washinglon Soils(Agronomy)
PROfESSIO'AL ADDRESS:
319 Grinler Hall
Universily ot Florida
Gainesville. Florida 32611
Dates Attended
1953
1942
1941
Dc~ree
Ph.D
MS.
8,5.
1982-1984
1965-1982
1958-1964
1955-1958
1952.1954
1947.1951
1943.1946
1941.1943
PROfESSIO'AL EXPERIE'CE
(A) Positions (\1ost rC\.-cnt first):
Dates Organization
1987-presenl Universily of Florida, Gainesville
1984.present Universily of Florida. Gainesville
1982.1986 Goddard Instilute for Space Sludies.
Columbia Univ. and NASA. New York
Barnard College, Columbia University
Columbia University
Columbia University
Columbia University
Columbia University
USDA. Soil Conservation Service
US Army
US Dept. of Interior. Indian Service
Position
Visiting Profesaor
Adjuncl Prof. of Geography & Latin American Studie~
Senior Research Scientist
Dist. Lect. in Environmenlal Studies
Professor of Geography
Associale Professor of Geography
Assislant Professor of Geography
Leclurer in Geography
Soil Scientist. Survey Chiet. New Jerse,'
Caplain, Aerial Photographic Officer
Soil Surveyor. Idaho. Washington, Oregon
,o(
'':
(B) :Pertinent Research. Teaching and/or Related Acth'ities (Recent Grants By Title, Source and Amount, Courses
Taught, Society Offices):
Monroe County (FL) Planning Department, Consultant, Coastal Management and Geographic Information Systems.
1987-present
Council for International Exchange of Scholars, Fulbright Research Scholar Award. Dominican Republic. 1985.1986
lower Hudson Basin Water Ouality TaskForce, Westchester County, New York, Chair, 1975-1978
US Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources, Principal Investigator. Waste water disposal systems analysis. in.
tegrated water management of New York metropolitan region. 1968.1971.
Teach ccurses in environmental science, soils, and hydrology.
.j
/
-'
.
.'
,~
'I
'I
(C) Supervision of 11 Theses and 9 Dissertations. :\Iembcrship on 19 Total Graduate Student Committees.
(D) Pertin~nt Publicadons: (Or 51 total):
" 1988
i 1987
.~
"
;: 1984
1981
1978
1976
1973
-A World Soil Hydrology File for Global Climate Modelling, - Proceedings, International Geographic Information Systems
Symposium (in press)
-A Site Compatibility Index to Evaluate Tropical Steepland Soils for Agroforestry Use: ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual Meet-
ing, Atlanta. Georgia, November, 1987 (with Gustavo Antonini and R. Ryder).
-Characterization of Ground Hydrology at Climate Modelling Resolution, - AAAS Annual Meeting (with T. Caryl
-Basin Modelling of Nonpoint Source Sediment Pollution, - AAG, Annual Meeting.
-Urbanization and Water Resources on Long Island. New York: A Classic Case of Umits. - AAG, Annual Meeting.
-A Geographical Systems Analysis of the Water Disposal Networks of Ihe New York Metropolitan Region. - Geographical
Review. Vol. 66, No.1, January (with G. Cary and others).
-A Slatistical Dissolved Oxygen Model for a Free-Flowing River Syslem: Journal of the American Statistical Association.
Vol. 68, No. 32, 279.283, June (with M, Greenberg and olhers).
24
,~
Florida SEA GRANT BIOGRAPHICAL DATA SHEET
L"se litis sh~et..front sid~ only..wilh grant proposals." Do not add attachments. Complete vila~ may b~ submitt~d for f10rida
Sea Grants directory of experts.
~A\1f.: Virginia R. Hetrick
POSITI()~: Systems Coordinator
TEI.EPHO'E#: (904) 392-4601
SL""CO\I#: 622-4601
SOC.SEC#: 577-58-6359
EDl:CA TIO' (\4ost recent first):
ColI~e or t:niversity Drpt. and/or 'lajor
University of Washington Geography
The George Washington University Geography
The George Washington University Geography
PROfESSIO'AL ADDRESS:
Northeast Regional Data Center
112 Space Sciences Research Bldg.
University of Florida
Gainesville. Florida 32611
Dates Attended
1969-1974
1964-1968
1960-1964
D<1:rcc
Ph.D
M.A.
A.B.
.,'<
PROfESSIO~AL EXPERIE'CE
(A) Positions (:\Iost recent first):
Dates Organization Position
1987-present Northeast Regional Data Center Systems Coordinator
1984-1987 Northeast Regional Data Center Image Processing Scientist
1981-1983 Department of Statistics, IFAS, University of Florida Assistant Research Scientist
1973-1981 Department of Geography, Assistant Professor
1972-1973 Department of Geography, Central Washington State University Lecturer
1971-1973 Urban Transportation Project, University of Washington Pre-doctoral research associate
1964-1969 U.S. Senator Warren G. Magnuson Press and legislative slaff
1962-1964 Geography and Map Division.Ubrary of Congress Processing aide -
(8) Pertinent Research, Teaching and/or Related ActMties (Recent Grants By Title. Source and Amount. Courses ..
Taught. Society Offices): ,
Major computation projects: Designed and led project IBM-NERDC.UF joint study project to evaluate 1350 image processing
system for environmental monitoring applications; designed and led development of PC toolbox for use of SHARE. Inc., vol-
unteers: designed and developed most of the code for CSIUS (Comprehensive Scientific Informatio"n Management System).
IBM environments. .
Major tutorials: Regularly teach tutorials onuses of computer graphics in scientific applications for various organizations
(subjects: geographic information systems. digital imageprcx;essing, visualization, visual presentation methods. GKS. PHIGS,
and CGM); presently training faculty in the use of numerically intensive computing methods on IBM large mainframes; also
provide primary support for users of GIS software on our system.
.f;.
Other presentations: Invited to present seminars on various topics related to computer visualization, scientific computation,
use of geographic constructs in computer applications by various universities and scientific organizations including Cornell
University. the Technical University of Denmark, the University of Copenhagen, IBM. Southern Computer Center Directors'
Conference, Cambridge University, SEAS. and University of Uverpool).
Presently a member of IEEE. ASPRS, and Florida Association of Cadastral Mappers. Organizer of ongoing Florida GIS Work-
shops. Worked on GEOSYS, the Seattle geographic Information system from 1971 through 1973. Manager of Confereneing
and Automation for SHARE, Inc. Recipient of SHARE President's Award. 1981.
'.;i
:--.;
.:~
,
Principal research area is computational science application. in the environmental and socialscienee..
(C) Supervision of 9 Theses and 2. Dissertations. Membership on 7 Total G~yate Student Committees.
(D) Pertinent Publications: (Or 31 total):
:t
';
1911 "Changing Tran-portation Patterns in an Urban Area: Seattle - 1920 through 1970,. Proceedings, Conference on
Transporration in the Pugel Sound Region. Bellingham, WA.
1978 Chapter II in Dajani, J.S., and James Y. Jucker. eds. PI,nning for Airport Access: ,n Analysis of the San Francisco Bay
Are" NASA Conference Publication 2044. Final Report of the Stanford-NASAlAmes-ASEE 1977 Summer Faculty
Program on Engineering System De.ign.
1980 LANDSAT Digit,llmage Processing for Applic,t1ons Users: An Introduction. Copenhagen.
1982 CSIMS: Comprehensive Scientific Information Management System. Publication 82-1. Methane from Biomass and
Waste Program. Gainesville. Florida: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
1982 User E,xperience with IBM 3279. Proceedings, SHARE 58. 96-100.
1982 Device-Independent Graphics. Proceedings, SHARE 59.
1982 Digital Image Processing. Proceedings of COMPSTAT82 International Association for Statistical Computing. Vienna:
Physica-Yerlag.
1982 senior author with Portier, K.M. CSIMS - Comprehensive Scientific Information Management System: A Tool for Man-
aging Information in Biomass Programs. in Energy from Biomass: Second European Conference,A. Strub, P. Chartier,
and G. Schlesser (eds). New York: Applied Science Pubs.
1988 flint: YS FORTRAN Intercompilation Analyzer - lint for FORTRAN Programmers. Proceedings. SHARE 70. (In press)
1987 Geographic Information Systems: an Introductory Survey. Proceedings, SEAS. Spring Meeting 1987. pp. 217-230.
25
Florida SEA GRANT 840GRAPHICAL DATA SHEET
L'se this sheet..front sidl' onl)''''''ith grant proposals. Do not add attachments. Complete \'itae may be submitted for Florida
Sea Grant's directory of ellperLs.
~A:\IE: Howard Tupper
POSITIO~: Development Review Coordinator
TELEI)HO:\EII: (305) 294-4641
Sl~CO:\III:
SOC.SECII: 548-62-2828
EDl'CA TIO:\' (:\-Iost recent first):
Collt1:c or l'niH'rsit" Dept. and/or :\lajor
University of Florida Geography
University of Florida Education
University of Maryland Psychology
PRO.'[SSIO~AL ADDRESS:
Monroe County Planning Department
5825 Junior College Road West
Wing II, Stock Island
Key West. FlOrida 33040
Dates Attended
1976-1982
1971
1962
DeJ:rce
Ph,D
MEd.
A.B.
PROfESSIO~AL [XPERIE~CE
(A) Positions (:\lo$t recentlirst):
Dates Organization
1986.present Monroe County Planning Oepartment
1982.1986 City of Ceala Planning Department
1971-1975 University of Florida, Center for Latin American Studies
1962.1970 US Public Health Service
,Position
Development Review Coordinator
Planning Director
Cartographic Assistant
Public Health Advisor
t
(8) Pertinent Research, Teaching and/or Related Activities (Recent QranLs By Title. Source and Amount. Courses
Taught. Society Offices):
Doctoral research involving population projection, aerial interpretation of land use. field surveying
~.!.~
...
'1:1
(C) SuperYision 0'_ Theses and_ Dissertations. Membership on_ Total Graduate Student Committees.
(D) Pertinent Publications: (Or_tolal):
a
~j
t
~(
,g
,~
"
26
...
.,.
- .:;,~<~~;J,~t
;:.--.:..(1.:;;"'.,
,,:;!
'-,;",1
<"~~
::i;~
':.
,;:,,;;
i~~
" ~..
" . .~~
':j
~8
:~:j
',' 'A
{tj
:"':',',:'1'
,'1>
<,:;~
;.ill
"."\
';~
i:~
:.~;~
'1
;..i1
J
i~~
i."1'
)1
~,
:1
.. ~
j
~
.
(904) 392-0494
Department of Geography
3141 Turlington Hall
University of Florldo
Golnesvllle. Florida 32611
.
~IE~O TO: Gustavo A. AntonIni
FROM:
.
Edward J. Malecki '-....---"
SUBJECT: Proposai on, "A Computer-Directed Geographic Coastai Use Capablllty
Classification System for ECOlogic Planning: The Case of the Florida
Keys." to be submitted to Sea Grant
DATE:
June 29. 1988
This memo outlines commitments made by the Department of Geography in
connection with this proposal. I become the Chair of the department effective
JUly I, 1988. and make these commitments In order to meet the cost-sharing or
funding-match provisions as outlined in your proposal as follows: -
(l) Rele~ H~. For funding-match or cost-sharin~ purposes. 25% release tine
for four semesters (Fall, 1989 through Spring, 1991). to come out of your 50%
teaching activity, is confirmed. It is expected that this release will result in your
dropping GEO 4201 C (Advanced Physical Geography) in the Fall Semesters, and
GEO 6468L (Advanced Physical Geography) In the Spring semesters. It is estimated
that this release, including salary and fringe benefits. totals $13932 over the two- '
Year duration ot the research.
(2) ~Q!!l.P.YteJ' tJ.I!l~. In addition. yoU can expect to be allocated S1000 in mainframe
compu ter time trom AprU 1. 1989 to March 31. 1990. and $2000 from AprU 1. 1990
to March 31. 1991. J will make sure that Dr. Jim Henry. who disperses
departmental computer funds. Is aware of this obll5Jatlon.
(a) T.~~!m,ho~.~. 'lUlU eRtimated costs of S1008 (S40/month) will be provided by
Department of Geography funds.
(4) Q.y.9r.11t!a~. .o\t current overhead rates (23.3%) for off-campus research. this
amount of overhead matched by the University of Florida is $7874.
I:'
Please be sure to include the Department ot Geo~raphy as a unit accruing overhead
Ondlrect costs) trom this project (llne A on page 2 of the DSR SDonsored Pro.lects
Approval form fDSR-l I).
I wish you luck tn this research project.
27
IOUAL IMPLO't'MIHT OfOPOIlTUHlTY/Al'''"MATIVI ACTION .......0\'111
'l!'
...
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
GAINESVillE. 32611
THE DIVISION OF SPONSORED RESEARCH
Office of the VICe President for Research
223 Grinter Hall
904/392-4646
904/392-1582
September 9, 1988
Gustavo A. Antonini
Professor of Geography
305 Grinter Hall
Campus
RE: Computer Directed Geographic Coasted
Use Classification System for Ecoloqic
Planning: The Case of the Florida Keys
Dear Dr. Antonini:
t
,.,<:}
1:~
:} ',~::{~
'~.-t::
.;~ ; ;.!~
J'/;,:.~
IJ
!'~
(\1)
..J
lj
1]
I~
,<I
:j
j
, 'i
;j
"
J
i
Your bUdget revision to add a biologist to the above
referenced proposal has been approved in DSR. While indirect
costs were not waived, Vice President Donald R. Price has aqreed
to provide you with additional personnel ($8,251 - per year for
two years) from DSR funds. .
Mrs. Dot Storey in DSR will supervise the distribution of
DSR funds.
Best personal reqards for a successful proposal.
Sincerely yours,
~ t~"'<-J' C jt1a.,.ktl
Dillard c. Marshall I :1
Assistant Director of Research
DCM/bb
cc: Mrs. Priscilla Pope
-~.,
EOUAL EMPLOVMENT OPPOIlTUNITV~~'IIlMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYEIl
...?:"'f:.......-~
.~J;;,~~..;..-..:-. _'
~~~D' ~.~~3~~E
IJOSI :J9. .6.1
Monroe County Planning Department
5825 Junior College Road West
Wing III, Stock Island
Key West, Florida 33040-4399
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEA
Jerry Hernandez. District 1
MAYOR Gene lytton. District 2
Wm. Billy Freeman. District 3
Mayor Pro tern Mike Puto. District 4
John Stormont. District 5
September 16, 1908
James C. Cato, Director
Florida Sea Grant
Building 803
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
t
RE: Grant Proposal 51 89-46, "A Computer-directed Geographic
Coastal Use Classification System for Ecologic Planning: The
Case of the Florida Keys'
Dea~' Dr. Cato:
1 wish to take this opportunity to express the planning depart-
ment's pleasure that Sea Grant is able to fund the "Boat Live-
Aboards in the Florida Keys "study and that the research will be-
gin shortly. The boat live-aboard condition is of growing inter-
est and concern to citizens in Monroe County.
Durinq the interval between awardinq this grant and securing
its funding, the planning department has continnefl, to coordinate
wi th the University of Florida Geography Department, represented
by Dr. G. Antonini, to seek funding for researching other coastal
and nearshore problems. The Monroe County administrator's office
has authorized the planning department to seek such funding. Fi-
nal expenditure of funds are subjec:t to approval of the Monroe
County Board of Commissioners.
As you arepr)ssibly awat'e, Monroo County is requi~'ed to revise
its Comprehensive Plan, to bring it into compliance with F.S.163,
the Local Government Comprehensive ?lanning and Toland Development
Act. Working in collaboration with Dr. Antonini, we have identi-
fied a methodology for managing ecological change in the Florida
Keys that will incorporate a new geographj.c information computing
29
.,.
.~
system that the county has acquired and which will allow us to
moni tor and analyze changes in land and water use. The planning
department is prepared to support the proposed research. with the
professional services of a planner, a planning technician and a
biologist and $1,000 required for obtaining needed remote-sensing
information.
I am hopeful that Sea Grant will aid us in securing this pro-
posal worthy of funding. Thi s department is convinced that the
proposed research will provide a comprehensive coastal use plan
that will include an ecological monitoring procedure for on-going
applications.
t
,:-...
DC/lk
dclet
,
.;i,
~
,.r'}
,ti
:~:~:j
.'~.~
N
~
;~;
-I
.:;'~
':,1
:,~~
-1:1
~{
'?J
t..~j
:;~1
..'i.."f'
f:
l
i'j
;.J
;:1
~i
j
,I
,
i
.,
..J
30
,,,,
.'. ~~-......
.-..... ;~.,.,.~
APPENDIX B
MONROE COUNTY MATCHING BUDGET
Year 1: (4-1-89 to 3-31-90)
Budaet Item
A.
Salaries and Wages (includes Fringe Benefits)
1. Senior Personnel
Co-Principal Investigator,
Howard M. Tupper, 1.2 man-months
2. Other Personnel
Planning Technician, 3.0 man-months
Biologist, 3.0 man-months
B.
Expendable Supplies and Equipment
Satellite imagery, air photos, maps
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs (23.3%)
-\ '2
MATCHING FUNDS YEAR 1
. J.<.-
{':~d
:',-~~
til
:,',;l,:",
~~~1
:,j
J
~,l
A. Salaries and Wages (includes Fringe Benefits)
1. Senior Personnel
Co-Principal Investigator,
Howard M. Tupper, 1.2 man-months
2. Other Personnel
Planning Technician, 3.0 man-aonths
Biologist, 3.0 ..n~onth.
(I
~
:'::'~
,~;j
'';'
;it
I
i,'j
;I,'
",~
'/1
Total Direct Cost.
'I:'
Indirect Costs (23.31)
MATCHING FUNDS YEAR 2
GLOBAL MATCHING YEARS 1 Ie 2
$33757
lW--'
;;~.~
, -.' ~';~'
$ 4000
$ 5000
$ 5000
$ 1000
---------------
$15000
$ 3495
--------------
$18495
. 4000
. 3000
$ 3000
.14000
. 3262
-------------
$17262
'..
.
\)
~
~
~
~
~-.}
ij!
.'fij
-'~si
I
ft
~j
~I
!~
I
.!l
,~-:
>;
II,
~
*,..
'il
'h
',1
"l
i'
,
CO
~
e:
c.::I
o
c:
Q.
I-
::z:
~
c.::I
ce
&.i.I
en
<(
Q
-
c:
o
-'
u..
s..
IV
.10
S
:::I
::z:
::z:
o
-
l-
ce
Q.
-
U
-
l-
e:
~
l-
V)
o
U
l.I..
o
...
::z:
&.i.I
2:
~
l-
ce
l-
V)
.,
C,
:::I
o
U
U
<
s..
:::I
o
>-
-
::z:
-
::z:
o
I-
:z
ce
.
<
.
c.::l
.. ..
s.. a
o 0
., s..
"' l.I..
0\
.....
'"
Cl,I -0
> 0
c _
- s..
Cl,I
.- Q.
'"
e.
.,
u s-
c 0
'- a.
s.. Cl,I
Q. e:
...
1:::1
I~
j
...
~
o
1..'-
os..
~IV
Q.
0\
C:~
c:
.s:: Cl,I
u s..
.... I..
~=
2:~
s..
Q.I
.10
e
:::I
::z:
~
c
~
s..
c.::I
"'
IV
en
..
c:
=1
",
N
e
Q.I
....
-
.,
s-
o
QJ
e:
....
c:
QJ
s..
s-
=
y
-oc
Cl,I'--o
.....'-C1J~
"'",....c:
O\.s:: QJ =
'-enC\o
.- -os
.10.,=<
o"'cc
o
u
QJ
>"O.s::
.... cu ..,
., ....
", '- 0\ L
-OCC1l
::s ,_ ...
e QJ -0 ...
:::I ex :::I ",
u I~:::I
-'~7_::
....,
.~
Q.j
.~I
:1
~
V)
.-
",
....
o
....
QJ
E
",
Z
III
~
~
V)I....
L&.t
--
e:c:
<=
-'c
<u
enu
<
'"
I
j
/- I
..
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
~I
.t~r:"
~II
;::
""'"
;1
~l
I
i
I
'i--''
I
I
I i
C
QJ
(.:l
o
~ ....
~
._ III
... ,.,
0::
w.. IV
N
9
~
A
en
&.i.I
c,:)
~
..
V)
~
-
c:
<
-'
<
en
-'
;5
o
....
. i I
-
u
....
IV
.
a.
:::l
0'
~
>
,.,
I..
I-
a.
x
~
e
IV
....
-
-
V)
~
c:
::;)
I-
-
9
-
~
Q.
><
&.i.I
e:
&.i.I
::
....
o
"
. . ,:.~:"...~';'" :
V)
l-
V)
o
U
....
U
&.i.I
c:
-
Q
.....
<
:(S
I-
1
I
~
ul
~
I
I
I
'/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
u...
o
,~
I
j
-0
C
'tV
I~
I....
t:':
I",
I""::J
/'E
a.
I,~
.....
s..
iO
'-
-
-
I::
!~
10\
I.:
s.......
tV --
.s:: "':7
'" =
"'
~
"'s-
co
u'-
"'QJ
s.._
IV .10
> tV
0_
u--
",
....>
s..,.,
o
0.-0
QJ C
s..,.,
QJCl,I
>-
0-_
.10 '-
,.,
c:
CUo
.s::
... QJ
., ...
I ....",
II;j
, .- 6
I .... 0
s..u
QJ
UO\
c:
~.-
.10 .,
Cl,I...
1..0
cue.
J:: 0-
:::I
- '"
I
...JI
<
I-
o
....
s
~I
,
I....
tV
..s:::.
.....
i
I
I
~I
~.
cl
I
Q.I
..s:::.
<OJ
.....
c:
:::I
o
U
u
~
'"
..
QJI
:;1
1
I
I
..r
"01
1111
~
---
en/
..
,
FEDERAL EXPENDITURE REPORi
STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM SEA GRANT PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF AWARD AND EXPENDITURES
Principal Investigator:
Report Periods - from:
Your Account Number:
G. A. ANTONINI
to
Sea Grant Office Number:
Column 1
Budgeted Award
Column 2
This Period's
Expenditures
R/C-P. 17
Column 3
Cumulative
Expenditures
Column 4
Sa lance
Column 1 Minus 3
Salaries
s
s
s
Fringe Benefits
..
Consultants
Exp. Supplies
Travel
Publications
Other Costs
-Equipment
Total Direct
s
s
s
Indirect Costs
TOTAL COSTS
s
s
s
* Items purchased under Equipment this period:
1)
2)
3)
:11
**!ndirect Costs:
% of
.
.
I hereby certify that to the best of my k"~wledge and belief the above report Covers the
expenditures on th i sacco~nt , is comp 1 et -d accurate t and expenditures have been made t in
accordance with appropriate grant policy. 'pporting documents are available for audit.
1
**
Signed;
Title:
. Date:
'----
Institution: