CWG Review 1: Spring 2015
Tier 1 Information:
1. Management Action
N-14 Enhance distribution of educational materials highlighting the economic and recreational values of southeast
Florida reefs to enhance awareness by residents, elected officials, and visitors. Source reports are optimally updated
every five years.
Request that the Florida Legislature allocate funds to determine the economic valuation of the entire Florida
Reef Tract, from St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park to Dry Tortugas National Park. The study will be modeled
on the recent St. Johns River Economic Study, which was completed by the University of North Florida and its
partners in about one year and for $400,000. The Florida Reef Tract study will include economic valuation of
the reef for coastal protection; property values; carbon sequestration; nutrient removal; recreation; fisheries;
ecotourism; and other ecosystem services. The goal is to provide economic data to highlight the economic
value of the Florida Reef Tract, inform decision-making, and empower stakeholders to make a difference in
coral reef conservation and restoration. (this figure could be used as a reference for future study parameters
or funding requests)
*use old figures for products until they are updated.
2. Intended Result (Output/Outcome)
What is the end product/result of this management action?
 Increase appreciation of economic and recreational value of reefs by residents, elected officials, and visitors.
Provides necessary data for funding opportunities. KF/AP
 Provides information on solutions for tackling reef stressors; empower target audience to make a difference.
This could be a positive indirect result of the educational materials.
3. Duration of Activity
Is this a discrete action or a recurring activity? Explain.
 On-going, People are constantly coming in and out of the state to visit, moving into the area or new to political
office. As population ages new users are introduced to the reefs
4. Justification
What issue or problem will this management action address? Explain.
 Lack of support and awareness of the reef tract. Provides necessary data for funding opportunities.
5. Potential Pros
What are the potential advantages associated with this management action?
 Increase support and awareness of the reef tract
 Empower individuals to take actions to make a difference
6. Potential Cons
What are the potential disadvantages associated with this management action?
 None
7. Location
County/Counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, Other?
 SEFCRI region
Relevant Habitats: Coral reef, seagrass, watershed, etc.?

Coral Reef Ecosystem
Specific Location: City, site name, coordinates, etc.?
 Reef tract
8. Extent
Area, number, etc.
 Reef tract
9. Is this action spatial in nature?
 No
Do you believe this management action could be informed by the Our Florida Reefs Marine Planner Decision Support
Tool?
If yes, you will proceed to the next section on Marine Planner Information.

Marine Planer Information:
N/A
Tier 2 Information:
WHY?
1. Strategic Goals & Objectives to be Achieved
 All strategic goals // 1. FL Priorities Goal A2 Obj 1, FDEP CRCP EOA Goals A-D, SEFCRI LAS AA: Issue 1 Goal, Issue
1 Obj 1, Issue 2 Goal, Issue 2 Obj 1-8, SEFCRI LAS LBSP Issue 5 Goal, FL Priorities - C3, C3 Obj 1, 3, 4. FL Priorities Goal D3 Obj 3, D4, D4 Obj 2, 4; SEFCRI LAS FDOU Issue 3 Goal, Goal Obj 4 2. All strategic goals
2. Current Status
Is this activity currently underway, or are there planned actions related to this recommendation in southeast
Florida? If so, what are they, and what is their status.
 SEFCRI, and possible unknown sources // 1. not implemented to my knowledge 2. SEFCRI, and possible unknown
sources
 The data that is needed to develop this type of educational material is outdated. Educational efforts are
currently being conducted by SEFCRI and others alike however basing it on current economics is not in place at
this time due to the study needing to be done first. Group agrees.
3. Intended Benefits (Outcomes)
What potential environmental benefits or positive impacts might this management action have?
 Increased understanding of resource use through data collection and analysis. Better protection of the reefs and
awareness of the economic and recreational values. // 1. Increase awareness of the economic and recreational
value of coral reefs and the SE FL Reef Tract 2. Increased understanding of resource use through data collection
and analysis. Better protection of the reefs and awareness of the economic and recreational values.
What potential social/economic benefits or positive impacts might this management action have?
 Better protection of the reefs and awareness of the economic and recreational values. //
Overall increased awareness to all stakeholders may lead to actions that incorporate this recognition. For
example, municipality growth and management plans may take into account economic impacts of
environmental impacts to coral reefs, campaigns to incentivize private businesses to enactcoral-specific greener
practices are bolstered by economic data, reminder to recreation-based businesses and groups on the economic
impacts of environmental impacts. 2. Better protection of the reefs and awareness of the economic and
recreational values.
What is the likely duration of these benefits - short term or long-lasting? Explain.
 10 years when data would need to be updated. // 1. long-lasting, but information will need to be updated
regularly requiring data collection at regular intervals. 2. 10 years when data would need to be updated.
4. Indirect Costs (Outcomes)
What potential negative environmental impacts might this action have?
 None // none
What potential negative social/economic impacts might this action have?
 None // none
What is the likely duration of these negative impacts - short term or long-lasting? Explain.
 None // none
5. Risk
What is the threat of adverse environmental, social, or economic effects arising from not implementing this
action?
 Uninformed decision making, and missed funding opportunities // 1. missed opportunity to engage all
stakeholders on the value of coral reefs 2. Uninformed decision making, and missed funding opportunities
6. Relevant Supporting Data
What existing science supports this recommendation? (Provide citations)
 Unknown // Unknown. closest type of study may be Shivlani, M., and Villanueva, M. 2007. A Compilation and
Comparison of Social Perceptions on Reef Conditions and Use in Southeast Florida. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. Miami, FL. 200 pp. related studies (not on SE FL Reef Tract) Cesar, H.J.S., Burke, L.,
and Pet-Soede, L. 2003. The Economics of Worldwide Coral Reef Degradation. Cesar Environmental Economics
Consulting, Arnhem, and WWF-Netherlands, Zeist, The Netherlands. 23 pp. Cesar, H., P. van Beukering, S. Pintz,
and J.Dierking, 2002. Economic valuation of Hawaiian reefs. Arnham, The Netherlands: Cesar Environment
Economics Consulting.
7. Information Gaps
What uncertainties or information gaps still exist?
 Supporting data, out dated or all together missing. // Economic studies need to be performed to estimate $
value of coral reef -related activities and economic impact of harmful impacts to coral reefs Supporting data, out
dated or all together missing.
 Consider looking at the NCREMP socio-economic study that just was done by Maria Dillard (NOAA). The data she
collected was for the entire Florida Reef Tract but maybe the data could be parsed out to only look at the SEFCRI
region.
WHEN?
8. Anticipated Timeframe for Implementation
How long will this recommendation take to implement?
 Currently underway and continuously as new studies are released.
9. Linkage to Other Proposed Management Actions
Is this activity linked to other proposed management recommendations?
 Yes
If so, which ones, and how are they linked? (e.g., is this activity a necessary step for other management actions to
be completed?)
 N-11, N-12, N-17, N-20, N-21, N-34, N-51, N-60, N-100, N-104, N-112, N-123, N-132, N-142, N-143, N-148
Provides necessary information for decision making. // N-11, N-12, N- 17, N-20, N-21, N-34, N-51, N-60, N-100,
N-104, N-112, N-123, N-132, N- 142, N-143, N-148 Provides necessary information for decision-making
Does this activity conflict with other existing or proposed management actions?
 Not that is known // Not that is known
WHO?
10. Lead Agency or Organization for Implementation
What agency or organization currently has/would have authority? Refer to the Agencies and Actions Reference
Guide.
 SEFCRI and FWC // SEFCRI and FWC DEP, NOAA
11. Other Agencies or Organizations
Are there any other agencies or organizations that may also support implementation? Explain.
 Local Governments, NGO's, FDEP, NOAA, NMFS, Marine Industries Association, National Park Service, Tourism
councils/ boards // Local Governments, NGO's, FDEP, NOAA, NMFS, Marine Industries Association, National Park
Service, Tourism councils/ boards, Chambers of Commerce, Dive and eco-tour industry organizations,
commercial and recreational fishing organizations
12. Key Stakeholders
Identify those stakeholders most greatly impacted by this management action, including those from whom you
might expect a high level of support or opposition. Explain.
 Business Communities, Residents and visitors of Florida // Business Communities, Residents and visitors of
Florida, recreational divers, recreational and commercial fishing, boating industry, any maritime-related
industry, tourism industry
HOW?
13. Feasibility
Is there appropriate political will to support this? Explain.
 Yes, Politician like supporting data and reference materials that aren't asking them to make a decision. // Yes,
Politician like supporting data and reference materials that aren’t asking them to make a decision. Yes, any
information highlighting and relating the economic value of a state resource to the overall state economy should
garner broad support.
What are the potential technical challenges to implementing this action? Has it been done elsewhere?
 Funding for an appropriate level of data collection and analysis. // 1. Funding for an appropriate level of data
collection and analysis 2. Economic data will have a shelf life. Studies and the resulting educational material will
need to be updated at some point, requiring more funding. Yes, to a certain degree:
http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/values/psaposters/, but more specific SE FL Reef Tract material needs to
be developed.
14. Legislative Considerations
Does the recommendation conflict with or actively support existing local, state, or federal laws or regulations?
Explain.
 No
15. Permitting Requirements
Will any permits be required to implement this action? Explain.
 None
16. Estimated Direct Costs
Approximately how much will this action likely cost? (Consider one-time direct costs, annual costs, and staff time,
including enforcement.)
 >$250,000
Will costs associated with this activity be one-time or recurring?
 The data collection will be a onetime cost with updates years down the road.
If recurring, approximately how long will staff time and annual costs be necessary to implement the management
action?
 The educational material will be a recurring cost once developed and printed.
17. Enforcement
Does this require enforcement effort?
 No
Provide an explanation if available.

18. Potential Funding Sources
Identify potential funding organizations/grant opportunities, etc.
 Governor's budget, potential federal funding, license plate funding. Funding can come from private-public
partnerships.
 Direct request from legislature
19. Measurable Outcomes/Success Criteria/Milestones
How will the success of this recommendation be measured? How will you know when the intended result is
achieved?
 1.) Completion of the development of the materials 2.) Distribution and utilization of the materials to all
stakeholders
SEFCRI/TAC Targeted Questions:
1. TAC - Is the recommendation likely to achieve the intended result? Explain.
Tier 1 – #2 (Intended Result - Output/Outcome)

2. TAC - Is the recommendation sufficient to address the identified issue or problem? Explain.
Tier 1 – #4 (Justification)

3. TAC - Is the recommendation technically achievable from a science or management perspective? Explain.
Tier 2 – #8 (Anticipated Timeframe for Implementation) and Tier 2 - #13 (Feasibility)

4. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - Has this been done (by SEFCRI, other agencies or organizations in the SEFCRI
region)? Explain.
Tier 2 – #2 (Current Status)

5. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - Is this recommendation a research or monitoring project?
(Recommendations should be turn-dirt management actions, not the step you take before a management action).
Explain.

6. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - If either of the following applies to this management action, provide
feedback on which information submitted by the Community Working Groups may be more appropriate, or if
entries should be merged. Explain.
a. There are different viewpoints for an individual management action (i.e. two working group members
provided separate information, as indicated by a ‘//’ marking between them).
b. Information submitted for this and other draft management actions is sufficiently similar that they might
be considered the same.

7. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - Non-agency Question: Is the recommendation technically achievable from
your stakeholder perspective? If not, do you have suggestions that would allow this to become technically
achievable from your stakeholder perspective? Explain.

8. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - Agency Question: Is the recommendation technically achievable from a
management perspective? If not, do you have suggestions that would allow this to become technically achievable
from your agency's management perspective? Explain.
Tier 2 – #10 (Lead Agency or Organization for Implementation) and Tier 2 - #11 (Other Agencies or Organizations)

Comments from the Reviewers:


None; no reviewers commented on this RMA. See below for some questions to consider to strengthen this RMA.
March/April 2015 CWG Updates: MC to sign up for this RMA, TAC member John Fauth to assist
Questions from the Reviewers:
Questions/Information Needs Highlighted by the Reviewers
1. What type of materials are being planned? Reports, public service
announcements?
2. How would these materials be disseminated
3. Is this intended to be a new study, or creation of materials from
existing data? New study – existing data are outdated.
4.
5.
Addressed
by CWG:
☒
☒
☒
☐
☐
6.
☐
7.
☐
Not Addressed by CWG
Because:
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
Questions from the CWGs back to the Reviewers:

What type of materials are being planned? Reports, public service announcements? I believe the original intent

was both print media materials ( ie- brochures) as well as social media (web, radio PSA, TV PSA) Budgetary
constraints would limit. The material is intended to promote awareness of the resource, therefore basic ecology,
location, threats, economic importance would be the main focus. Not intended to target divers, fisherman etc.
Intended more for people that would not normally be aware of the resource, although divers and casual fishing
enthusiasts certainly would benefit.
How would these materials be disseminated? See above, through print media (mailers? Newspaper ads?) social
media, news media
Additional information by SEFCRI Team and/or Technical Advisory Committee

Look at Saint Johns River Basin study (socio-economic study) – Courtney Hackney UNF organized funding for the
study.
John Fauth is the POC