CWG Review 1: Spring 2015
Tier 1 Information:
1. Management Action
S-75 Initiate voluntary donation program from all reef users via licensed dive boats or fishing boats/charters. This
donation would support reef conservation programs or projects.
-This will not happen without legislative approval, not a simple process.
-Group recommends to archive. There will not be political support for this. Can be re-visited if MPA is created down the
road.
-There might be argument for user fee if managed zones existed. There needs to be added value for this to work, for
people to partake.
-We do not see this being feasible unless management changes to include enhanced areas for which this type of license
could be considered.
2. Intended Result (Output/Outcome)
What is the end product/result of this management action?
 Collected fees from divers (and/or operators) and similar users to be used to fund critical conservation initiatives
directly related to reef resources.
 See Tier 1, Question 2: Divers would agree to a user fee if it was for an enhanced area (example, non-take
reserves or marine reserve or sanctuary) so we suggest the management action title to be changed to reflect
this....example "Initiate collection of a reef user fee (divers, fishing, tours, surfing, paddle boarding, snorkeling,
bird watching, etc.) in a marine reserve area within the SEFCRI Region to fund state approved reef conservation
programs, management and enforcement." Group 2 BW: This would be a component under N123. Need to be
careful with this. It could alienate the divers supporting conservation efforts. Needs to be done tactfully and the
revenue must be directly applied to managing and conserving the reefs. This must be explicitly known and
transparent.
3. Duration of Activity
Is this a discrete action or a recurring activity? Explain.
 Recurs indefinitely. May be temporarily suspended for certain periods of time or users (e.g. off season, senior
citizens, kids, etc.). May be an annual fee (similar to fishing license) or a small fee per diver on chartered boats,
similar to a sales tax.
 See Tier 1, Question 3: Divers might not be opposed to a user fee if it was towards a non-take zone or sanctuary,
however; FL Keys doesn't collect a fee to dive in their sanctuary- Group 2.
4. Justification
What issue or problem will this management action address? Explain.
 Helps address funding gaps for reef conservation initiatives, especially those related to the dive industry and
potential damage caused by dive boats, private boats (intended for diving), and scuba divers (observing or
underwater fishing/extraction). May also help initiatives that can enhance diving (e.g. mooring buoys, lion fish
removal). Collected money to be stored in a fund used for programs vetted/supervised by FDEP CRCP or related
nonprofit citizen support organization.
 See Tier 1, Question 4: If the goal is to increase funding for resources then why not increase fishing license fee,
we are the lowest charging for a license in the country- Group 2.

5. Potential Pros
What are the potential advantages associated with this management action?
 Diving is already a viable going concern in South Florida - fees, even if small, could add up quickly in a dedicated
account. Unfunded conservation initiatives would have a source of income from users. The fee may make divers
more aware that their activities can/do take a toll on the reefs.
6. Potential Cons
What are the potential disadvantages associated with this management action?
 May be rejected/resisted by divers and the dive operators as another burdensome tax/fee. Collected funds need
to be properly accounted (collection and spending) - adds work layer. Opportunity for improper collections,
accounting and scrutiny for how the funds are kept/spent.
7. Location
County/Counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, Other?
 Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin – could be state-wide.
Relevant Habitats: Coral reef, seagrass, watershed, etc.?
 Coral reefs and more.
Specific Location: City, site name, coordinates, etc.?
 N/A
8. Extent
Area, number, etc.
 TBD - need data about how many divers and dive days (tourists and resident users).
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 Planner Information:
N/A
Tier 2 Information:
WHY?
1. Strategic Goals & Objectives to be Achieved
Refer to the SEFCRI Coral Reef Management Goals and Objectives Reference Guide.
 See Tier 2, Question 1: FL Priorities Goal D3 Objective 4
o Through interagency coordination efforts, establish regional consistency standards and communication
efforts for fisheries, diving and boating regulations (e.g., central Web site, standard format for
brochures, etc.).
o FL Priorities Goal D4 Objective 3
o Implement a statewide licensing/permit system for boating and/or using coral-reef resources. – NLO.

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.



No.
See Tier 2, Question 2: Not sure if any agency is working on a diver fee –NLO.
3. Intended Benefits (Outcomes)
What potential environmental benefits or positive impacts might this management action have?
 -This is unknown. Money would have to be earmarked correctly or specifically by legislature for conservation
purposes. Doubtful that this would happen. If earmarked correctly, this could potentially allow for hiring
additional law enforcement officers.
 See Tier 2, Question 3: Environmental benefits: none, Economic benefits: funding for conservation projects or
more law enforcement agents, and this would be long-lasting benefits as long as the fee is in place would be the
intended benefit but not necessarily go to the correct groups – NLO.
What potential social/economic benefits or positive impacts might this management action have?
 Economic benefits: funding for conservation projects or more law enforcement agents, and this would be longlasting benefits.
What is the likely duration of these benefits - short term or long-lasting? Explain.
 -Not clear, depending how the money is actually used.
4. Indirect Costs (Outcomes)
What potential negative environmental impacts might this action have?
 No negative impacts to the environment.
 See Tier 2, Question 4: No negative impacts to the environment...however yes for economic impacts, local divers
or dive boat operators would not want to pay to dive...plus how to do charge a tourist diver? I guess build it into
the price to go on a dive boat charter? – NLO.
o Divers don't want to be singled out for this user fee, others should also be required to pay this feeGroup 2.

What potential negative social/economic impacts might this action have?
 -This could have a negative economic impact to the dive industry. Tourists could choose to dive elsewhere.
Could result in lack of support from dive, fishing community.
What is the likely duration of these negative impacts - short term or long-lasting? Explain.
 -general resistance to user fees: forever.
5. Risk
What is the threat of adverse environmental, social, or economic effects arising from not implementing this
action?

Best practices in other areas around the world (that include enhanced areas/MPAs).
See Tier 2, Question 5: There is no threat to any of the 3 areas if this action is not implemented...it currently is
not implemented so should be no change – NLO.
6. Relevant Supporting Data
What existing science supports this recommendation? (Provide citations)
7. Information Gaps
What uncertainties or information gaps still exist?
 Most other counties that collect diver user fees they do this because you are going to be diving in MPAs or

sanctuaries, so if we can get these particular regions in Florida then it’s unclear what you would be paying for
this user fee action.
See Tier 2, Question 7: Most other counties that collect diver user fees they do this because you are going to be
diving in MPAs or sanctuaries, so if we can get these particular regions in Florida then it’s unclear what you
would be paying for this user fee action – Group2.

WHEN?
8. Anticipated Timeframe for Implementation
How long will this recommendation take to implement?
 -Minimum of three years to get through Legislature.
 See Tier 2, Question 8: 2-5 years – NLO.
9. Linkage to Other Proposed Management Actions
Is this activity linked to other proposed management recommendations?
 -no.
 See Tier 2, Question 9: Unknown, there are ones for fund raising for coral reef conservation, but not from
collection user fees from divers – NLO.

If so, which ones, and how are they linked? (e.g., is this activity a necessary step for other management actions to
be completed?)
 -no
Does this activity conflict with other existing or proposed management actions?
 -no
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.
 -FWC.
 See Tier 2, Question 10: FWC, since they collect for fishing already?-NLO; FWC: unclear; unclear who would
enforce this- Group 2.

11. Other Agencies or Organizations
Are there any other agencies or organizations that may also support implementation?
 SEFCRI and other similar reef conservation organizations. If passed, everyone would support this.

Officers would need to see these permits on divers at all times when they are in scuba gear – NLO.

See Tier 2, Question 11: SEFCRI and other similar reef conservation organizations that would really benefit from
the extra money-NLO.

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.
 -divers and fishers.

See Tier 2, Question 12: Diving- NLO. FWC: Is this a stakeholder initiative: Could be.
HOW?
13. Feasibility
Is there appropriate political will to support this? Explain.
 Would need to be voted on by the public? Probably no political will. The public may support it.
 See Tier 2, Question 13: Would need to be voted on by the public-NLO
o This requires legislative action- Group 2.

What are the potential technical challenges to implementing this action? Has it been done elsewhere?
 14. Legislative Considerations
Does the recommendation conflict with or actively support existing local, state, or federal laws or regulations?
Explain.
 - See Tier 2, Question 14: no existing law for divers to pay a fee to dive on reefs-NLO; FWC: Legislative action is
required to impose a fee.

15. Permitting Requirements
Will any permits be required to implement this action? Explain.
 - See tier 2, Question 15: no permits needed, but a vote from the public would be needed-NLO

16. Estimated Direct Costs
Approximately how much will this action likely cost? (Consider one-time direct costs, annual costs, and staff time,
including enforcement.)
 ~$10 per user.
 See tier 2, Question 16: maybe 50,000-100,000? Maybe fee be ~$10 per diver?- NLO

Will costs associated with this activity be one-time or recurring?
 Annual
If recurring, approximately how long will staff time and annual costs be necessary to implement the management
action?
 17. Enforcement
Does this require enforcement effort?
 Yes, officers would need to see these permits on divers at all times when they are in scuba gear – NLO.

Provide an explanation if available.
 18. Potential Funding Sources
Identify potential funding organizations/grant opportunities, etc.
 - See Tier 2, Question 18: no need for grants, just need funds to create this action and implement, so maybe
FWC would fund this? – NLO.

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?
 - See Tier 2, Question 19: When this action is voted in – NLO.

SEFCRI/TAC Targeted Questions:
1. TAC - Is the recommendation likely to achieve the intended result? Explain.
Tier 1 – #2 (Intended Result - Output/Outcome)
 JB: Will assist with need revenue streams.
2. TAC - Is the recommendation sufficient to address the identified issue or problem? Explain.
Tier 1 – #4 (Justification)
 JB: Not sufficient to fund all that is needed but definitely a good piece of the puzzle.
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)
 JB: Is feasible but could be costly to implement.
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)
 Not in our region, but in the Keys the dive shops are supposed to collect a fee when divers dive on the Spiegel
Grove Wreck and the diver pays it once for the year and they receive a metal coin that they keep as their receipt
of payment-NLO.
 JB: Not in the region on a mandatory effort but on a voluntary effort (Reef Guard in Miami).
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.
 No it is neither – NLO.
 JB: No.
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.
 Tier 2 was not filled out by any OFR member-NLO.
 JB: No.
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.
Tier 1 - #5 (Potential Pros), Tier 1 - #6 (Potential Cons), Tier 2 - #3 (Intended Benefits), Tier 2 - #4 (Indirect Costs)
and Tier 2 - #12 (Key Stakeholders)



No, it is not because divers would have to pay for a diver fee AND a fishing permit if they wanted to lobster or
spearfishing while diving...might make divers non-divers due to the out-of-pocket expenses which would mean
dive business would be endanger of closing – NLO.
JB: Yes, Is achievable.
SEFCRI Team Group Discussion: There is no justification for a user fee; divers pay fees for extractive uses already.
We have some of the lowest pricing on fishing licenses, etc. Divers not opposed to a user fee provided it goes to
a no-take zone. Bonaire is an example where this occurs. How would this be enforced? How do you handle
tourists? Will this alienate the diving industry conservation efforts? Where will money go (specifically)?
o Charter boat fees do not include any part that goes to state conservation. There could be a similar
model to state/national parks (aka entry fee), however this might be difficult because no areas are
MPA/Sanctuary/no-take currently.
o Diver user group does not want to be the only ones charged for access to an area. In marine industry,
any users should have to do this also. Extractive uses/ charter fishing have blanket licenses or one per
person. Diving isn’t any different from nature viewing (non-consumptive user). Hard to charge fee for
this. Would be hard for diving-specific fee.
 (There is an example in the Galapagos of dive-specific fees)
o Revenue could be between $50 -$100K (~$10/ pp /annually); fee could be a turn off to tourists vs. locals.
o Consider a sales tax that applies to everyone. People who don’t use the reef still benefit from it and
potentially impact the reef.
o In an MPA area this could be enforced by an “MPA sticker” displayed on the boat (that indicates that
you’ve paid to be in the area) – everyone must display it to operate in the area; this takes some pressure
off of one user group.
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)
 FWC: FWC is "unknown" if they will support this.
 FWC: Barriers include: Clarification of responsible agency; need legislative support.
 FWC General Comments: It is unclear how a user fee would be charged for a non- consumptive use, or which
agency would be responsible for implementing such a requirement. Non-consumptive divers are similar to bird
watchers or wildlife viewers - they are non-consumptive users and no fee is required from any of these other
similar user groups.
Comments from the Reviewers:

March/April 2015 CWG Updates: MC to work on this with information from N-41 (a potential
combination). Must try to factor in percentage of beach divers and how they would be factored in.
Questions from the Reviewers:
Questions/Information Needs Highlighted by the Reviewers
1. Need to clarify where the money goes too- Group 2
2. See Tier 1, Question 6: how do you handle out of town divers and
divers already a license fee for collecting on invertebrates and
fish- Group 2
3. See Tier 1, Question 8: Need to get the number of divers using the
Addressed
by CWG:
☐
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.
reef to create what the user fee could be- NLO
4. See Tier 2, Question 7: How effective is a reef user fee with divers
in other counties...example Bonaire –NLO.
5.
☐
☐
☐ 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:

Need to clarify where the money goes too.
o Money goes to reef conservation, protection, programs, or projects to be determined such as funding
more enforcement, education and outreach and resurrection of areas in need. The fee would help to
make the SEFCRI region self-sufficient and not dependent on other funding.

How do you handle out of town divers and divers already a license fee for collecting on invertebrates and fish.
o Previous license for collecting is irrelevant, these people are benefiting economically, they can pay for
two licenses.
o How the fee is collected is an issue, in Bonaire it is collected by hotels and /or dive shops – $10 U.S.
dollars. Local south Florida divers could pay via the same annual method along with tourists. Need to
show your license to get on a dive boat, get air fills, rent gear etc…This seems to be more acceptable
to people than a “tax” on individual air fills, rental etc.
o See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357674/
o Not sure how fee amount will be determined, Bonaire did it via polling to see what was acceptable to
the majority of users.
o http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357674/

Must try to factor in percentage of beach divers and how they would be factored in. If an annual
license is the method chosen then ALL divers in the SEFCRI region would need proof of license for even
an air fill.