<%BANNER%>
UFIR IFAS
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00003046/00001
 Material Information
Title: A Survey of Stakeholders to Determine Florida Sea Grant's 2006-2009 Programmatic Objectives for Coastal Communities and Water-Dependent Businesses
Physical Description: Fact Sheet
Creator: Swett, Robert
Publisher: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
 Notes
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Melanie Mercer.
Publication Status: Published
General Note: "September 2005"
General Note: "TP-149"
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00003046:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:

SG06800 ( PDF )


Full Text

PAGE 1

enen en en en en en en

PAGE 3

A Survey of Stakeholders to Determine Florida Sea Grants 2006-2009 Programmatic Objectives for Coastal Communities and Water-Dependent Businesses Compiled and Edited by Robert Swett and Susan Fann Florida Sea Grant College Program University of Florida Gainesville, Florida September 2005

PAGE 4

ii

PAGE 5

iiiTable of Contents Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. ....................iii List of Tables..........................................................................................................................................v List of Figures................................................................................................................ ......................vii Introduction............................................................................................................................................1 Survey Results.......................................................................................................................................4 Ranking Principal Issues...................................................................................................... .....4 Survey Respondents Top Issue.................................................................................................5 Ranking the Main Aspects of Principal Issues..........................................................................6 Issue 1: Comprehensive, science-based, regional waterway planning and management to improve navigation and safety......................................................7 Issue 2: Coastal recreation/tourism planning and development...........................................8 Issue 3: Public access to coastal waterways.......................................................................10 Issue 4: Development of economic and environmental sustainability goals and indicators that measure progress toward their attainment....................................11 Issue 5: Non-point source pollution...................................................................................13 Issue 6: Restoration and maintenance of aquatic habitat....................................................16 Issue 7: Assessment of environmental impacts on coastal waterways...............................18 Issue 8: Public education to enhance meaningful participation in the creation, implementation, and monitoring of coastal policy...............................................20 Issue 9: Preserving historical and cultural resources..........................................................22 Issue 10: Protected/endangered species management........................................................23 Issue 11: Information to support management and decision-making.................................23 Issue 12: Balancing multiple uses of coastal waterways................................................25 Ranking Tools and Techniques................................................................................................26 Ranking Information Delivery Formats..................................................................................30 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................33 Appendix 1. Florida Sea Grant 2002-2005 Strategic Issues and Goals...............................................35 Appendix 2. Survey Responses Related to Other Florida Sea Grant Goal Areas................................37 Appendix 3. Survey Instrument...........................................................................................................41 Appendix 4. Types of Organizations and Organizational Roles of Survey Respondents....................55

PAGE 6

iv

PAGE 7

vList of Tables Table 1. Distribution of survey invitees a nd respondents by organization type or role.....................2 Table 2. Priority rankings of economic a nd environmental sustainability issues..............................5 Table 3. Survey respondents rankings of tools and techniques to address issues that affect coastal communities and water-dependent businesses...............................................27 Table 4. Survey respondents ranking of formats for disseminating information..............................31

PAGE 8

vi

PAGE 9

viiList of Figures Figure 1. Business (office) locations of survey respondents in Florida based on ZIP code..............3 Figure 2. Survey respondents top issue........................................................................................ ....6

PAGE 10

viii

PAGE 11

1Introduction The call of Floridas coasts is undeniable; people relish the opportuni ty to live, work, and play as close to her shorelines and waterways as possible. Indeed, the 35 coas tal counties account for almost 80 percent of the States population. Flor idas coastal communities and water-dependent businesses face difficult, yet cr itical challenges: how to bala nce population growth, development pressure, recreational demands, and tourism w ith maintenance and enhancement of coastal environmental quality. There is a compelling need to foster strategies for community development and business growth that are equitable and sustai nable. By the year 2020, the population of Floridas coastal coun ties is projected to approach that of the entire state in 2000. Water-dependent enterprisestraditionally small businesses engaged in recreation, tourism, and the marine tradesare at risk and need to in crease their productivity and efficiency by adopting new technologies, adapting to changes in the regu latory environment, and maintaining access to coastal waters. For sustainable development to succeed, all stakeholdersincluding users, policymakers, regulators, and resource managers need new methods and information sources to assess the individual and cumulative links be tween communities and industries and their physical, economic, and environmental impacts. The mission of Florida Sea Grant (FSG) is to enhance the practical us e and conservation of Floridas coastal and marine resources a nd thereby foster a sustainable economy and environment. FSG advances its mission through re search, extension, and education. Every four years, with assistance from partners and stakeholders, FSG updates its strategic plan to insure that the goals and objectives underlying its missi on are relevant and on-target. Ten goal areas encompass the current range of FSG programs (Appendix 1). The survey results presented in this report will guide the 2006-2009 program efforts a nd expenditures of one of these goal areas: Coastal Communities and Water-Dependent Businesses. Survey respondents listed a number of topics that best fit within other Florida Sea Grant goal areas. These responses are presented in Appendix 2. A 24-question Internet-based1 survey was used to reach a broad spectrum of partners and stakeholders located throughout Florida (Appendi x 3). This survey approach minimized the demand on each participants time, yet maximized the guidance and knowledge that each provided to Florida Sea Grant. Th e sample represented a cross-section of audience groups (Table 1): 731 potential respondents were contacted and 151 completed the survey. The top respondent groups were agencies with statew ide responsibility, institutions of higher education, municipal or county agencies, regional planning agencies or or ganizations with regional responsibility, and non-governmental organizations. Table 1 lists, by organization type or role, the number of persons invited to participate, the number who responded, and the response rate (percent). The last column represents the propor tion of all survey responses contributed by each organization type/role. Figure 1 is a map that shows the busin ess (office) location for all survey respondents (based on ZIP code); Appendix 4 provides a lis t of the various orga nizations with which respondents were associated. 1 Commercial, online survey software at surveymonkey.com was used to operationalize the survey.

PAGE 12

2Table 1. Distribution of survey invitees an d respondents by organization type or role. Organization Type or Organization Role Number of Persons Invited Number of Persons Responding Response Rate Percent of All Responses State Agency or Organization with Statewide Responsibility 91 32 35% 21% Institution of Higher Education 52 21 40% 14% Municipal/County Agency 71 19 27% 13% Regional Planning Agency or Organization with Regional Responsibility 55 19 35% 13% Non-Governmental Organization 65 17 26% 11% Municipal and County Elected Official 246 14 6% 9% Marine Industry 59 9 15% 6% Federal Agency 33 6 18% 4% Private Consulting Firm 24 6 25% 4% K-12 Educational Institution 12 5 42% 3% Print Media Organization 23 3 13% 2% TOTALS 731 151 -100% AVERAGE RESPONSE RATE 21%

PAGE 13

3 Figure 1. Business (office) locations of su rvey respondents in Florida based on ZIP code.

PAGE 14

4Survey Results Ranking Principal Issues Respondents were presented the following list of 12 issues that may affect the environmental and economic sustainability of coastal communities a nd water-dependent businesses. The items listed in parentheses after each numbered issue repres ent specific aspects of the overall issue. 1. Comprehensive, science-based, regional wate rway planning and management to improve navigation and safety (channel main tenance, signage, boat traffic). 2. Coastal recreation/tourism planning and deve lopment (protection of natural habitats, artificial reefs, recreationa l boating, recreation/tourism facility siting analyses, carrying capacity). 3. Public access to coastal waterways (beach acc ess, marina slips, boat launch locations, public to private conversion, land trusts). 4. Development of economic and environmental su stainability goals and indicators that measure progress toward thei r attainment (carrying capaci ty, reduced regulatory and permitting channel maintenance costs, total acreage of public r ecreation/conservation land). 5. Non-point source pollution (boat discharges and boat maintenance, marina operations, shoreline/yard maintenance). 6. Restoration and maintenance of a quatic habitat (seagrass, mangrove). 7. Assessment of environmental impacts on coas tal waterways (channel maintenance, runoff derived shoaling and pollution, shoreline la ndscape/yard maintenance, waterfront development). 8. Public education to enhance meaningful pa rticipation in the cr eation, implementation, and monitoring of coastal pol icy (science-based knowledge). 9. Preserving historical and cultural resources (working waterfronts). 10. Protected/endangered species management (manatees, coral reefs). 11. Information to support management and decision-making (GIS spatial data, aerial and satellite imagery, local/regional impact assessments). 12. Balancing multiple uses of coastal waterw ays (recreational and commercial boating, protected species, habitat protection). For each of the 12 issues presented, respondents we re asked to indicate how important it is to them or to their organization that Florida Sea Grant makes it a research, extension, and education priority over the next 5-10 years. The rankings, based on survey responses for each of the 12 issues, are listed in Table 2 in descending orde r according to High Pr iority rank. (The issue number in the first column corresponds to the list above.) The five t op-ranked high priority issues were coastal recreation/tourism planning and development (73%), followed by restoration and maintenance of aquatic hab itat (65%), protected/endangered species management (64%), and information to support management and decision ma king (58%). The next four issues were tied at 54 percent: non-point source pol lution, assessment of environm ental impacts, public access to coastal waterways, and public education. The re maining four issues were balancing multiple uses (52%), development of sustainability goals and indicators (48%), comprehensive,

PAGE 15

5 scientific waterway management (48%), and, fina lly, preserving historical and cultural resources (28%). Respondents were given the opportunity to enter high priority issues not listed on the survey that they wanted to emphasize. Additional issues en tered by respondents are presented later in the report. Table 2. Priority rankings of ec onomic and environmental sustainability issues. Issue Number Issue Not a Priority Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority No Opinion 2 Coastal Recreation/Tourism Planning and Development 1% 3% 23% 73% 1% 6 Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic Habitat 0% 6% 28% 65% 1% 10 Protected/Endangered Species Management 1% 7% 26% 64% 2% 11 Information to Support Management/Decisions 1% 11% 30% 58% 1% 5 Non-point Source Pollution 0% 7% 37% 54% 1% 7 Assessment of Environmental Impacts 1% 9% 34% 54% 1% 3 Public Access to Coastal Waterways 4% 8% 33% 54% 1% 8 Public Education 0% 7% 37% 54% 2% 12 Balance Multiple Uses 1% 7% 37% 52% 3% 4 Development of Sustainability Goals and Indicators 3% 9% 38% 48% 2% 1 Comprehensive, Science-based Waterway Management 3% 17% 30% 48% 2% 9 Preserving Historical and Cultural Resources 5% 21% 43% 28% 2% Percentages across rows may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Survey Respondents Top Issue Survey respondents were asked to indicate whic h of the 12 issues presented to them on the questionnaire, or which issue they had added, they would rank as the MOST IMPORTANT issue to be addressed over the next 5-10 years. Previously, a respon dent may have ranked several issues as high priorities (Table 2); however, th e purpose of this question was to determine which issue a respondent consider ed to be the highest priority overall. The results are instructive, since the aggregated responses (Figure 2) do not mirro r the rankings contained in Table 2. A majority (14.1%) identified public access to wa terways as the single most important issue, followed by non-point source pollution (13.3%), coastal recreation/tourism planning (11.9%), and environmental and economic sustainability goals and indicators (10.4%). Balancing multiple uses of coastal waterways was identified by 8.9 percent, followed by restoration and maintenance of aquatic habitat (8.1%), envi ronmental impact assessments (8.1%), public education on coastal issues (5.9%), information and data for resource management and decision-

PAGE 16

6 making (5.9%), waterway management (5.2%), protected species management (4.4%), and historical and cultura l resources (3.7%). 8.9% 5.9% 4.4% 3.7% 5.9% 8.1% 8.1% 13.3% 10.4% 14.1% 11.9% 5.2% 0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0% Issue 12 Issue 11 Issue 10 Issue 9 Issue 8 Issue 7 Issue 6 Issue 5 Issue 4 Issue 3 Issue 2 Issue 1 Percentage of All Responses Waterwa y Mana g ement Coastal Recreation/Tourism Plannin g Public Access to Coastal Waterways Economic & Environmental Sustainability Goals N on-Point Source Pollution Restoration/Maintenance of Aquatic Habitat Environmental Impact Assessments Public Education on Coastal IssuesHistorical/Cultural Protected Species ManagementInformation and Data Balancing Multiple "Uses" of Coastal Waterways Figure 2. Survey respondents' top issue (135 responses). Ranking the Main Aspects of Principal Issues Respondents were asked to list wh ich specific aspect(s) of each of the 12 principal economic and environmental sustainability issues, identified in Table 2, that Florida Sea Grant should make its HIGHEST research, extension, or education priority over the next 5-10 year s (aspects are listed in parentheses for each issue below). Respondents were informed that the aspects listed on the questionnaire for each issue were not all-inclusiv e and, therefore, they were asked to enter any aspect not listedif they felt it should be the foremost FSG research, extension, and education priority. Below, for each of the 12 issues in turn, the priority aspects named by the respondents are ranked in descending order in an asso ciated table. If more than tw o respondents mentioned an aspect that was not listed on the questionnaire, it is includ ed in the relevant tabl e; otherwise, additional aspects identified by respondents ar e listed following the table. After survey respondents ranked issues and aspects, they were asked to propose the best strategy or action plan and to list the necessary re sources (e.g., money) for addressing their MOST IMPORTANT issue. Respondents were further asked to describe up to thre e specific research

PAGE 17

7 topics that they recomme nd Florida Sea Grant fund2 to help resolve the issue that they ranked as most important. Responses were edited only when clarity or broad categorization was an issue. Many responses were not delimited by a single survey category (i.e ., action plan, necessary resources, or research topic), but rather provided overl apping discussion. All responses, taken together, provide a valuable glimpse into the collective mindsetan important element when considering the design and implementation of research, extension, and edu cation activities to addr ess the serious issues that Florida faces. Issue 1 : Comprehensive, science-based, regional waterway planning and management to improve navigation and safety (channel maintenance, signage, or boat traffic). Respondents listed boat traffic as the most impor tant aspect (45%) of comprehensive regional waterway management and planning, followed by channel maintenance (32%), and signage (18%). Speed zones (waterway, safety, and manatee) were an additiona l aspect identified by multiple respondents (5%). Issue 1: Regional Waterway Manage ment and Planning (65 responses) Boat Traffic 45% Channel Maintenance 32% Signage 18% *Speed Zones (waterway, safety, and manatee) 5% *Additional aspect cited by multiple respondents Issue 1 concerns the design and maintenance of the water-based infrastructure (e.g., channels, canals, inlets and passes, ports, Intracoastal Wa terway) that supports r ecreational and commercial boating activities on Floridas coastal waterways. Aspects of this issue include maintenance dredging, spoil disposal, on-wate r zoning (e.g., speed zones), and the design and placement of signage. Science must form the basis for the design and implementation of regulatory and management measures that are a pplied in coastal areas, whether it be the placement of waterway speed zones or the specifications for channels For example, one question raised was whether (and how) the design, placement, and maintenance of boating infrastructure serves (or can serve) to protect adjacent aquatic habitats. Science must underpin the answer to this and other questions related to issue 1 (as well as to the other 12 su rvey issues). Necessarily, such analyses and evaluations require the collection of adequate data to inform the scientific and the decisionmaking processes. Examples of information need s mentioned by respondents include boat traffic estimates and determination of county-specific, recurring boating activities. Once regulatory and management measures are implemented, it is criti cal to determine their effectiveness, if the desired result is achieved and, if not, then how could it be achieved? Many respondents echoed the need for economic an alyses to determine the value derived from Floridas coastal resources, whether from recr eational activities such as boating or from ecosystem functions such as fisheries habitat and pollution filtering. The results from these 2 Each year Florida Sea Gran t (www.flseagrant.org) awards approximately 1 million dollars to fund research projects that address issues within its 10 major goal areas (see Appendix 1).

PAGE 18

8 analyses could provide the rationale and jus tification for requesting funding necessary for waterway planning and management. As can be e xpected, the inadequacy of funding sources to conduct projects and activities was a recurring concern in this and many other issues. For waterway management activities, one volunteere d solution is for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to consider the economic benefits of recreational boating when conducting project cost/benefit analyses. For this to occur, howev er, political action is required, an arena and strategy suggested by many. In this case, for exampl e, an action strategy is to alter the Rivers and Harbors Act and administrative rules to include re creational benefits as a priority public purpose for waterway maintenance and cr eation. The high cost of dredge material management may be offset by beneficial reuses, wh ich should be evaluated and encouraged when effective and appropriate. Federal, state, and local coordination of waterw ay management and maintenance activities could facilitate cost savings and provide for regionally-based comprehensive planning. Intergovernmental coordination could help st reamline the channel maintenance permitting process (reduce complexity) and eliminate unn ecessary duplication. One respondent suggested the need to revisit (1) the efforts of the Environmental Efficiency Commission, which was charged with consolidating and streamlining agen cy reviews and decision s, and (2) the State Programmatic General Permitting.3 One option to explore is wh ether results obtained from similar projects can be used to streamline the permitting process. Lastly, a question posed was whether waterways can be treated as rightsof-way and integrated into the land-side transportation planning system and, thus, accrue similar benefits. More on-the-water law enforcement (and funding) is needed to improve waterway safety and boater compliance with regulations. Enforcemen t should be augmented with enhanced public education of boating rules and re gulations, navigation and safety procedures, and environmental stewardship. All such efforts should include an assessment of their effectiveness. Issue 2 : Coastal recreation/tourism pl anning and development (protection of natural habitats, artificial reefs, recreational boating, recreation/tourism facilit y siting analyses, or carrying capacity). Protection of natural habitats was the most often cited aspect (47%) of issue 2, followed by recreational boating (14%), artificial reefs (14%), recreation/tourism facility siting analyses (13%), and carrying capacity (13%). Issue 2: Coastal Recreation/Tourism Plan ning and Development (102 responses) Protection of Natural Habitats 47% Recreational Boating 14% Artificial Reefs 14% Recreation/Tourism Facility Siting Analyses 13% Carrying Capacity 13% 3 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/w ater/wetlands/erp/spgp.htm.

PAGE 19

9 Issue 2 considers the infrastructur e that supports recrea tion and tourism activities within Florida, including, for example, the siting and management of recreational and boating facilities, beaches, and artificial reefs. Stated another way, this issue poses the followi ng question: How can we make sure that enough water-related recreational destinations and activit ies exist for residents and tourists, without compromising the sustainabili ty of Floridas enviro nmental resources? One respondent stated that our natural resources need to be preserved because many habitats take decades to function properly and, therefore, it should not be acceptable to destroy a natural habitat even though a "new" one is being created (i.e., mitigation). One option suggested is to design and evaluate methods that enhance and stabilize Floridas ecotourism industry. Better local, state, and federal interagency cooperation is needed, as well as adequate information to inform decision-making processes. Policyan d decision-makers at all governmental levels require detailed, accurate, and current assessm ents of the economic contributions and the environmental impacts of, for example, access fa cilities, artificial reef s, beach renourishment, and boating and supporting industries. The deployment of arti ficial reefs (e.g., shipwrecks/vessels) should be based on scien tific guidelines that demonstrate increased productivity and/or decreased negative environmen tal impacts. For exampl e, the sinking of the USS Oriskany off Pensacola is expected to generate high economic benefits, but environmental side-effects are undetermined. Once such projects have been implemented, they need to be monitored and any negative impacts mitigated. Beach renourishment is widely practiced in Flor ida; however, there are unresolved questions as to its effects on natural and artifi cial reefs, near-shore fisheries, and hardbottom habitats due to, for example, storm-induced sand migration. Another concern mentioned was protection requirements for migratory and imperiled shorebir ds that increase costs and delays for permitted renourishment projects yet, it was argued, there is insufficient documentation of project impacts. Associated issues include species tolerances to noise, movement, lights, and increased human activities and whether there are successful adaptation, avoidance, or mitigation techniques that can be employed. Controversy often accompanies resource management issues, as exemplified by the polarization that surrounds current manatee protection effo rts in Florida. The "my way or the highway" mentality that pervades both sides of such issu es must be eliminated. Groups demanding more access and those demanding more protection must engage in productive dialog that results in effective pressure on our legisl ative bodies. In addition to be tter planning, consensus building and facilitation skills ar e required, as well as education effo rts, to enhance public understanding of the issue. Recreational boating in Florida is a major activity and, as such, de serves adequate attention. One fear expressed is that prevailing resource management attitudes are such that only passive, nonpowered boating is promoted in shallow estuarine systems. A balanced approach is required to allay such fears, accompanied by development of methods and technolog ies to reduce harmful environmental impacts. Information that can assi st includes spatial and temporal details on boat traffic patterns, analogous to studies conducted for vehicular traffic on land.

PAGE 20

10 Issue 3 : Public access to coastal waterways (beach acc ess, marina slips, boat launch locations, public to private conversion, or land trusts). The need for boat launch locations was the most often cited aspect (35%), followed by marina slips (25%), beach access (22%), public to private conversion (14%), and land trusts (4%). The loss of public access to coastal waterways is a major issue in Florida, as evidenced by numerous media reports and by recent legislative activity.4 There are various facets to the access issue, such as boatyards, boat storage facilities, ramps, marina slips, re sidential docks, and beach and navigational access. While th ere is an apparent trend towa rds conversion of public access to private and more exclusive uses, the actual loss rate of commercial and recr eational waterfront to more restrictive uses is unknown. Some believe however, that the loss rate is such that immediate action is required to stem the tide of conversion. Factors that contribute to loss of access include the decline in financial viability of many water-dependent businesses due to increasing property values and rising taxes. Add itionally, finding suitable sites to construct new facilities or to expand existing ones can be difficu lt due to high costs of coastal propert y, natural bathymetry limitations, and regulatory constraints (e.g., those related to water body designations). Numerous questions underlie the public access issue, the answers to which will facilitate informed planning and decision-making. For instan ce, what are the economic, environmental, and social costs, benefits, and impacts associat ed with public waterfront s and the conversion of facilities to more exclusive uses? What primary factors en courage conversion of public waterfront access to private uses, and what re gulatory and non-regulatory approaches exist to preserve public access? What is the recreati onal carrying capacity of our coastal areas? The answer can help determine where and how boat la unch facilities are sited and their effects on natural habitats. Survey respondents mentioned a number of possible solutions with respect to public access, some of which are mentioned in the Florida House Bill4 on the loss of working waterfront lands and public access. Any solutions broached should seek to balance enviro nmental (species and habitat) protection and adequate public access to coasta l resources. One sugge stion is to analyze the effectiveness of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to prevent the conversion of water access 4 See HB 955 Waterfront Property (www.myfloridahouse.gov). The bill requires future land use plan element of local comprehensive plan for coastal county to includ e criteria to encourage preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts; provides requirements for shoreline use component of coastal management element re: recreational and commercial working waterfront s; provides for funding certain boating grant programs administered by the Flor ida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Issue 3: Public Access to Coastal Waterways (90 responses) Boat Launch Locations 35% Marina Slips 25% Beach Access 22% Public to Private Conversion 14% Land Trusts 4%

PAGE 21

11 facilities to more exclusive uses. The anal ysis could determine which public policy and regulatory changes, if implemented, would prot ect and enhance public use of the waterfront. Potential legislative solutions in clude (1) initiatives (e.g., simila r to Save Our Homes property tax restrictions) to protect water-dependent businesses from redevelopment and (2) the designation and protection of a proportion of land for water-dependent uses, such as ramps, marinas, and working boatyards. These soluti ons, and others employe d throughout the U.S., could be compiled in a handbook of successful comm unity strategies to optimize public use of waterfronts and be made availabl e to local Florida governments. Potential financial solutions include the purch ase of development right s from water-dependent businesses to ensure that future sales of such properties preserve their water-dependent uses. Tax incentives could serve to preserve and expand public access and to discourage condo-creep. Perhaps, as some communities are doing, it is time to bite the bullet and purchase suitable properties outright in order to stem the loss of public waterway access. To facilitate land purchases, the development of creative State program s that work with, or emulate, organizations such as Forever Wild, Nature Conservancy, and Ducks Unlimited might be warranted. Such programs could include mechanisms to incr ease grant and funding oppor tunities to local governments, as well as guidelines to encourage mi xed-use facilities that require public access as part of the design, yet retain profitability. The development and implementation of local an d regional comprehensive plans to preserve and/or increase public access to coastal waterways should be fostered. Adequate plans would include demographic projections a nd needs standards for recreationa l marine facilities, such as the number of boat ramp lanes or marina slip s needed per 1000 users. A comprehensive, statewide assessment should determine the supp ly and demand for public access at local and regional levels. The resulting information could then be incorporated within science-based decisions modelssuch as site suitability a nd economic impact analysesdeveloped for siting public access infrastructure. One problem is the adversarial rela tionship that often exists betwee n county, state, and/or federal agencies or between public parties (e.g., ri parian landowners blocking beach access). One respondent asked, "Why can't regulators proactively work with counties and cities to find boat ramp sites that will satisfy both environmenta l and user needs?" A potential solution is to facilitate meetings or partners hips that include the appropriate partiessuch as regulators, industry, local decision-maker s, commercial and recreationa l boaters, and homeownersto develop local and/or regional access plans. Success stories from other communities can serve as examples: one respondent mentioned Ft. Lauderdale as a community that has been successful in maintaining both working boatyards and habitat. Issue 4 : Development of economic and environmental sustainability goals and indicators that measure progress toward their attainment (carrying capacity,5 reduced regulatory and permitting channel maintenance costs, or total acreag e of public recreati on/conservation land). 5 Carrying capacity refers to the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area within natural resource limits, and without degrading the natural, social, cultural, and economic environment for present and future generations. http://www.carryingcapacity.org/whatis.html.

PAGE 22

12 The need to consider carrying capacity was the as pect most often cited (51%), followed by total acreage of public recreation/conservation land (39%), and reduced regulatory and permitting channel maintenance costs (10%). Issue 4: Economic and Environmental Sustainability Goals (51 responses) Carrying Capacity 51% Total Acreage of Public Recreation/Conservation Land 39% Reduced Regulatory And Permitting Channel Maintenance Costs 10% Sound economic and environmental goals need to be established or the other (11) issues listed in the survey will remain problematic and, inevitab ly, become more so. Feasible and defensible sustainability goals are required, as are ecological indicators to m onitor environmental status and to reveal human impacts to coastal systems. Compliance with issue 4 require s that the status of Floridas coastal areas be determined in order to establish a baseline against which future change and/or progress can be measured. A statewide ec onomic valuation of coastal resources would permit assignment of dollar amounts to trade-offs contemplated during re source-related decisionmaking processes. Science should underlie growth management pla nning and the laws, rules, and regulations that are designed to counter negative development -related impacts on coastal resources. Clearly identified and agreed upon plans and milestones ar e needed to measure progress; Otherwise, we are like a ship adrift with no ability to reach our goal. Growth management plans should be comprehensive, such that they can be applied by local, state, and federal permitting agencies in a coordinated and consistent manner and obtai n similar outcomes. While sound planning and development practices are important, they must be accompanied by adequate statutory enforcement of standards adopted by local governments and by State regulatory agencies. Respondents listed a number of specific research and planning objectives. One suggestion was to identify those aspects of growth that have th e greatest adverse effects and then provide less damaging alternatives: once accomplished, expenditures and management activities can then be prioritized. A city commissioner opined that l and preservation and cons ervation is a key to managing growth and that state and local pr otection programs should be accelerated and expanded. One way to accomplish this is through th e establishment of land trust corridors using economic incentives. Greater impetus is needed to incorporate sustainability practices (e.g., greenroofs, permeable pavement) into the design of large-scale developments. Another suggestion was to require mandatory one-to-one offset s: i.e., setting aside one unit of protected land for each unit of development. The need for adequate information, or data, was a concern mentioned by numerous survey respondents. One telling observati on is the need for adequate tim e to collect data; often the pressure to make decisions in a timely fash ion does not allow adequate time to gather the necessary information to make th e best or wisest decision. Econo mic data and analyses were a frequently mentioned requirement; for example, th e need for cost-benefit analyses that include the true value of wetland restoration or the impact of marine industries and water-dependent activities on local economies.

PAGE 23

13 There is a need for leadership to bring together opposing si des of issuesto seek common ground. (Sea Grant was mentioned as playing a role in this capacity.) Processes are needed to build consensus among the competing interests: for instance, to preserve environmental quality while allowing development. Consensus buildin g should target those audiencesbusinesses, local communities, mission-oriented scientists, el ected officialsthat are appropriate to the particular issue at hand. The goal should be to balance competing interests through partnerships, using scientific research and outreac h to build (political) consensus. Issue 5 : Non-point source pollution (boat discha rges and boat maintenance, marina operations, or shoreline/yard maintenance). The most often cited aspect of non-point s ource pollution was boat discharges and boat maintenance (38%), followed by shoreline la ndscape/yard maintenance (35%), marina operations (22%), and storm water runoff (5%). Issue 5: Non-Point Source Pollution (78 responses) Boat Discharges and Boat Maintenance 38% Shoreline Landscape/Yard Maintenance 35% Marina Operations 22% *Storm water Runoff 5% *Additional aspect cited by multiple respondents Floridas is a tourist economy, and clean waters are imperative for residents and visitors alike. Numerous statements by respondents lamented Fl oridas status with regard to non-point (and point) source pollution. One responden t stated that Florida has invested 30 years in managing for environmental quality, but escalating water qua lity problems indicate a lack of successas exemplified by TMDL6 requirements, which affirm that be st management practices (BMP) have failed. Another respondent said th at non-point source pollution woul d negatively influence nearly every issue listed in the survey, if not adequate ly controlled. Research has shown that our bays are not as healthy as in the past; the question we face is what can be done, at what cost, and which bays need the most help now? Examples of specific problems mentioned by respondents include: nitrogen rich effluents entering waterways; bacterial pollution and sedi ment deposition near shellfish harvest areas (sediment re-suspension and transport can smother shellfish beds); beach closures due to local water pollution events; pesticide and fertilizer pro ducts in yard runoff; discharge of waste from large vessels (e.g., cruise ships) into coastal waters; and ocean du mping of all kinds. In addition, questions abound, such as what causes large-area pollution that leads to ecosystem changes (e.g., harmful algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico); how do various pollu tants affects biodiversity; and how does thermal pollution affect estuarine habitat and marine organisms? Respondents mentioned many appro aches to resolving pollution pr oblems, which are listed in subsequent paragraphs. First, however, we should look to existi ng success stories or examples 6 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is the amount of a particular pollutant that a particular stream, lake, estuary, or other water body can handle without violating state wa ter quality standards. www.dep.state.lf.us/water/tmdl

PAGE 24

14 before duplicating efforts unnecessarily. For ex ample, it was suggested that successes in Chesapeake Bay or in the Indian River Lagoon might be emulated; or that the Great Lakes might serve as a model for stronger boat waste laws. Basic scientific information is required in order to guide the planning process, particularly since non-point source pollution is often a volatile political issue. One suggestion given was to develop a budget of (major) pollution sources and to pr ioritize remedial or preventative actions accordingly. Such a budget might specify, for inst ance, the relative cont ribution and impact of various pollution sourcese.g., storm water runo ff, highway pollution, septic systems, lawn treatments, family-home practices, marinas, a nd vesselson water quality and aquatic habitats. Included would be quantification of particular co nstituents, such as heavy metals and nutrients. Additional research is needed to better understand the sources and impacts of pollution and to provide quantification of the nut rient/pollutant carrying capacity of coastal ecosystems. With such information available, acti ons can be prioritized based on th e scale and extent of impacts; the feasibility of solutions; the degree of intergovernmental cooperation; and the availability of local, state, and federal funding. Good informa tion and ongoing assessments will require tracing and monitoring inputs (e.g., septic discharges) into our water bodies. This will necessitate improvements in the accuracy and cost-effectiv eness of scientific methods, such as DNA testing.7 Lastly, there is a need to determine and prioritize new strategies and/or management practices that are best for minimizing and mitigating impacts that stem fr om various activities, such as development. The design and emplacement of proper infrastruc ture can help eliminate many existing sources of pollution and guard against fu ture occurrence. Needed are a dditional storm water control and treatment facilities, the means to retrofit or re store older systems and outfalls, and the design and construction of control/treatment systems for residential devel opments built without them. It must be recognized that tertiary storm water and sewer treatment facilities, though needed, are a tremendous financial burden for local governments to assume on their own and, thus, state and federal support is warranted. Advanced technology can play an important role. For example, baffle-box type traps hold storm water runoff until harmful chemicals are broken down. Failing and inadequate septic systems8 are a significant pollution source and their mana gement should be improved, including regular inspections to identify and replace failing system s. Such inspections should be tracked over time. Pumping of human waste from boats into pump-out facilities is not a viable long-range solution and, therefore, complete human-waste treatmen t systems for boats should be developed (e.g., Clivus Multrum-type9 composting). In addition, research is needed to determine if best management practices (BMP) are effective, such as those employed by the Clean Marina Program10 (i.e., is water cleaner as a result?). 7 http://www.napa.ufl.edu/99news/ecoli.htm. 8 A septic tank system serves as an on-site wastewater treatment system in places where public sewers are not available. One third of all Florida homes, a bout 1.6 million households, use septic tanks; http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/issues/septic.htm. 9 A composting system that uses no water. 10 The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Law Enforcement, formed the Clean Boating Partnership to work with private organizations such as the Marine Industries Association of Florida in their

PAGE 25

15 Alternate landscaping and lawn care techniqu es offer significant opportunities to reduce pollution. One example is the development and prom otion of cost effective landscaping grasses that require less treatment with fertilizers and pe sticides. Floritam, which is unsuitable for coastal areas, is still in high use; Zoysia varieties s hould be developed and marketed as proven sod replacements (not plugs). A dditional gains can occur by deve loping and promoting lawn care products that are less harmful to the environment. As with all issues, funding is a hur dle and potential sources to addr ess prioritized actions need to be identified: examples include impact fees, ve hicle/vessel registration fees, and federal cleanup dollars. Pay your way solutions can be implem ented in some situations by identifying the shortand long-term economic and environmental costs or impacts that are associated with specific human activities. Appropriate costs can be a dded to user fees and/or surcharges and then earmarked to address resulting impacts. In ad dition, surcharges could be placed on products (insecticides, pesticides, fertilizer, gasoline) that contribute to po llution and the resulting revenues applied to mitigating activities, such as restoration or educ ation. Collaboration may provide cost savings by combining the efforts of local, state, and federal agencies, as well as nonprofits and volunteers, to provide person-hours, equipment, and funding. Collaborative funding could facilitate acquisition of sensitive prope rty in undeveloped areas, particularly when communities, such as small towns, do not have the spare capital to pur chase vacant land. Such acquisitions can protect essential habitats that also serve to filter runoff contaminants before they enter aquatic environments. Last, but not least, financial incentives could be provided to developments to reduce runoff and to improve treatment of non-point source pollution from residential areas. Regulatory and legislative solutions to polluti on problems will always play a role, although one respondent suggested that the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection do not adequately ad dress non-point sources of nutrient input into coastal waters. A respondent sugge sted that a process be instituted, equivalent to that used by Metropolitan Planning Orga nizations (MPO), that requires ma naging agencies to work from a common plan or face the prospect of losing stat e and federal fiscal resources. The respondent noted that competing agencies, seeking dominance, too often divert management efforts from planned goals or desired results. Another soluti on is to determine the developmental carrying capacity of watersheds and neighboring waters and then (1) establish growth threshold values for percent cover of impervious surface as well as storm water runoff nutrient thresholds (e.g., TMDL, PLRG: pollution load redu ction goals) or (2) set development limits. More targeted approaches might include establishing limits on landscape companies that spray near shorelines or storm water drainage systems, or strictly enforcing compliance with existing laws for banned and restricted chemicals (e.g., pesticides, herbicid es). Studies that gauge user compliance with existing codes and regulations can benefit a variety of purposes, including planning, development of education programs, and agency staffing decisions. Education and recognition are important tools for helping to resolve pollution problems. Educational programs should be developed to in form people and businesses of their role in generating and controlling non-point source polluti on, of the importance of beach water quality, commitment to improve the health and cleanliness of our waterways. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/la w/Grants/CMP/default.htm.

PAGE 26

16 and of the oceans inability to handle indiscriminate waste discharge. It was recommended that funding be secured to develop innovative K-12 educational programs that both teach children and create good environmental stew ards. Public outreach efforts co uld serve to ensure that the economic basis of product-use decisions includes potenti al environmental impacts. Funding, grants, or other rewards can be given to organizations th at implement storm water best management practices, such as, in parking lo ts and landscaping. Shoreline volunteer programs that monitor water quality could suspend applications of particular substancessuch as fertilizers or pesticidesfor determined pe riods of time when water quality declines. Participating communities might be awarded grant funding and be designated Clean Watersheds. Effective (scientifically proven to produce significant resu lts) voluntary compliance strategies should augment regu latory and law enforcement mechanisms. In other words, a continuum of environmental protection tools is needed. Issue 6 : Restoration and maintenance of a quatic habitat (seagrass or mangrove). The most often cited aspect of restoring and maintaining aquatic habitat was seagrass (59%), followed by mangrove (32%). Several respondents cited a need to consider all submerged aquatic vegetation (4%), coral reef s (2%), and oyster reefs (2%). Issue 6: Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic Habitat (100 responses) Seagrass 59% Mangrove 32% *All Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 4% *Coral Reefs 2% *Oyster Reefs 2% *Additional aspects cited by multiple respondents The answers to habitat restorati on and maintenance (pre servation) vary. Some habitats are large and can be acquired, some are private and entail education of owners, while others are marine and may require restriction of activities. Over all, land-use management is probably the most important option. Habitats easily damaged by human activities (e.g., sh allow-water seagrass beds) need to be protected and may require the establishment of areas of limited or prohibited activity for sufficient durations to permit recove ry and/or protection. Li mitations assigned to such areas may include no-take zones for offs hore habitats, no-motor (internal combustion engine) zones for shallow seagrass beds, or the restriction of both development and high-speed boat traffic for the stabilization of some shore lines. Science should provide the basis for deciding when and where such areas are established. For instance, the effectivenes s of Marine Protected Areas11 (MPA) and the optimization of their use aro und the Florida peninsula need to be better understood. Furthermore, Essential Fish Habitat12 (EFH) for aquatic resources (e.g., high-value marine recreational fish species) needs to be better defined and understo od; how does its loss, 11 According to the World Conservation Union, marine protected areas (MPAs) consist of any area of the intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical, and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or the entire enclosed environment. 12 Congress defines Essential Fish Habitat as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (16 U.S.C. 1802(10)).

PAGE 27

17 degradation, or restoration affect aquatic living resource populations and communities? Hardbottom habitat in the near-shore is ephemeral, yet considered Essential Fish Habitat and protected. In all cases, it is best to conceive and coordinate co nservation and protection measures at the ecosystem level. Better science-based guidance is needed to protec t and restore habitats (e.g., marine, benthic, seagrass, mangrove, coral reef, wetlands, nearshor e hardbottom, and natura l growth shoreline). On-going projects must be monitored and reviewed more closely to identify failure and success trends. Examples of needed guidelines include design and material options for nearshore hardbottom mitigation or the relevant criteria fo r defining setbacks (e.g., soil types, vegetation). A historical assessment of past activities that impact aquatic ha bitatcoverage, wildlife usage, materials, construction options, monitoring t echniques, and success criteriacould help to reduce the planning and design costs for futu re projects (e.g., beach restoration, inlet maintenance, pipeline and cable installation, por t channel construction) and any negative impact on habitat. In addition, the effects of wate rway and navigation improvements on natural resources need to be determined; in particular the influence of channel dredging, speed zones, and boat wakes. Effective planning for habitat restoration and main tenance is required in the face of multiple and varied assaults on marine habitats. Comprehensiv e and detailed habitat mapping will facilitate better management and improve the capability to assess conservation, restoration, and maintenance potential. Efforts will be improve d through long-term monitoring of habitat and environmental conditions in order to better unders tand spatial dynamics and to clearly track and understand changes. Improved methods (e.g., GIS) fo r tracking mitigation efforts may help to improve their success, as well as to lower costs. The benthic hab itat work done in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is the type of profile that may benefit Florida coastal user groups in their decision-making. Similar work in Florida woul d create benchmarks where none exist and provide for change analyses. A statewide effort should be launched to standardize coastal (underwater) mappinga geographic (spatial) layer that is required for effective management and research. The same information would serve for other uses, such as identifying mitigation areas, development planning, or waterway management and maintenance. The impacts of expanding coastal development on native aquatic environments are varied and include, among others, increased in flux of nutrients, altered fres hwater flows, and loss of buffering for upland and wetland habitats. Wate rfront development should be planned and managed so that coastal environments are not overwhelmed or shallow habitat fragmented, destroyed, or degraded. This will require identi fying, at local and regi onal scales, minimum required estuarine habitat space, structure, and size (minimum functional physical area); maximum reasonable human use levels; and stra tegies to eliminate pollution from various sources. The necessary resources to accomplis h these tasks include long-term funding for monitoring efforts and focused, shor t-term (few years) research funding for specific solutions to pre-identified issues. Responsible growth that balances water use and habitat conservation with low-impact development will require fundamental changes in attitudes and policy. E ducation is vital to bringing about these changes and, in concert w ith regulation and enfor cement, can play an

PAGE 28

18 important role in the restorati on and maintenance of habitat a nd overall environmental quality. Educational programs can be designed for a va riety of users groups, including elementary schools, marinas, boaters, and homeowners, and be targeted for specific purposessuch as reducing boat impacts on seagrass beds. Environmental education programs can teach recreational and commercial users about estuarie s and oceans, the importance of protecting fish habitat, and the economic benefits derived from resources. Public acceptance (through education) of marine protected areas, including no-take and no-entry zones, is necessary to ensure their effectiveness. Education also can play a role in the early de tection and prevention of marine invasive species, by developing and teaching best management practices to shorelinedependent businesses with the po tential to introduce marine i nvasive species (e.g., bait shops, fish houses, ports, boatyards, and marinas). Public acceptance of and appreciation for th e importance of services provided by aquatic ecosystems can be bolstered by st udies that establish the economic value of those services and, thus, demonstrate the benefit of habitat protection. Furthermore, such studies might serve to establish the economic value of coastal resour ce conservation versus coastal development. Media outlets (e.g., newspapers, TV, and radio sta tions) should be a high priority when seeking project partners. Public recogni tion can serve as a powerful incen tive and teaching tool, and can consist of ceremonies that rec ognize private citizens and businesse s that set the best examples. Such ceremonies could be replayed on public ac cess cable stations to reinforce the message. Another way to broadcast messages is thr ough multi-partner, intera gency cooperation, with many people (e.g., public, private, state, federal, local, university) thereby delivering the same message. Interactive education can take the form of involving stude nts and teachers in restoration projects with the additional benefit of lowe ring project costs while developing stewardship. Numerous research questions remain to be an swered. A broad question is how to reverse the decline of Florida's living coral reefs and reef -dependent fish and i nvertebrate communities. Other research topics listed by respondents included determining th e impacts of the 2004 hurricanes on aquatic habitat; the role and impor tance of habitat interc onnectivity (e.g., offshore natural and artificial reefs, seagrass meadows, mangroves) in the life histories of marine organisms; the resiliency of s eagrass to disturbances (e.g., storms and prop scarring) and degree of re-colonization after such impacts; the impact of coasta l construction and inland water quality on nearshore and offshore habitats; the degree of habitat (seagrass) lo ss from various sources, such as thermal pollution or overgrazing by manatee populations; the impacts of reduced vegetative buffers on aquatic ecosystems; the use of nearshore hardbottom habitat by fish and turtles (e.g., foraging). Lastly, a re spondent suggested that more stud ies are needed of the range, abundance, and status of seagrass H. johnsonii a major concern with permitting agencies tasked with port projects. Issue 7 : Assessment of environmental impacts on coastal waterways (channel maintenance, runoff derived shoaling and pollution, shoreline landscape/yard maintenance, or waterfront development). The m ost often cited aspect for assessing e nvironmental impacts on coastal waterways was waterfront development (45%), followed by runoff derived shoaling and pollution (22%),

PAGE 29

19 shoreline landscape/yard maintenance (21%), channel maintenance (10%), and cumulative impacts (2%). Issue 7: Assessment of Environmental Impa cts on Coastal Waterways (82 responses) Waterfront Development 45% Runoff Derived Shoaling and Pollution 22% Shoreline Landscape/Yard Maintenance 21% Channel Maintenance 10% *Cumulative Impacts 2% *Additional aspect cited by multiple respondents There is a need for creative approaches that allo w people to live and work near the water (coasts) without damaging or degrading natural ecosystems. When determining the potential environmental impacts that stem from human activ ities, credible scientific evidence must form the basis, not emotional arguments. Survey re spondents listed numerous items they believe require environmental impact assessments, some quite specific and others much broader in scope. Items mentioned included impacts due to runoff pollution from new developments; poor storm water control; hydrologic al terations (mosquito ditches, canals); specific human activities (e.g., tourism, fishing); hydrocarbon contributions from airports near coastal areas; land use changes; and coasta l overpopulation. Remaining (pristine) estuaries that are most vulnerable to cumulative impacts need to be identified. Focused and coordinate d federal, state, and local efforts might then be mounted to minimize impacts through policy, monitoring, and enforcement. More stringent regulations for habitat protection may be required. A strategy sugge sted is to design (waterfront) development to minimize impacts near (pristine) wetland area s, for example, by emulating the function and design of natural systems (e.g., fl ood control, water qua lity). Sea Grant res earch dollars should support the development of additional low impact strategiessuch as community docks or mooring systems that protect coral reefs. A comprehensive statewide assessment should identify and prioritize specific areas to target. It was suggested that Sea Grant sponsor a workshop, to include all major agencies (e.g., Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, water management districts), to identify specific problems and devise strategies to resolve them. The wo rkshop could also serve to assess quantification (data/information) needs. Respondents posed numerous resear ch topics that included: Assessment of the cumulative impacts of wate r-based activities (e.g., development, point and non-point source pollution, waterway signage, boat traffic, waterway/navigation improvements) on resources (e.g., protected species, essential fish habitat) The effects of urban sprawl, waterfront development, and land use conversion on aquatic/marine resourceswha t is the tipping point? The impact of proposed large-scale, rapi d development in ru ral coastal areas The source of hypoxia triggers in estuaries Impacts due to disruption of the natural hydr ologic cycle (e.g., fres hwater inflow to estuaries via surface and gr oundwater infiltration)

PAGE 30

20 Impacts of hard structure armoring of shor eline (e.g., bulkhead, seawall), particularly along protected water bodies The effects of boat live-aboards (i.e., longterm mooring) within aquatic preserves Identification and assessment of the true impacts of recreational boating and fishing on (Gulf of Mexico) fisheries The effectiveness of laws that re quire cumulative impact assessments Identification of essential activities with the greatest impact on sensitive coastal, tidal, and benthic ecosystems Issue 8 : Public education to enhance meani ngful participation in the creation, implementation, and monitoring of coastal policy (science-based knowledge). The most often cited aspect of public education to enhance participation in coastal policy was public education/science-based knowledge/incr eased participation (70%), followed by education/training for K-16 students and teacher s (12%), and increasing public knowledge of codes and regulations (5%). Issue 8: Public Education to Enhance Part icipation in Coastal Policy (51 responses) Public Education/Science-Based Know ledge/Increased Participation 70% *Education/Training for K-16 Students and Teachers 12% *Increase Knowledge of Codes and Regulations 5% *Additional aspects cited by multiple respondents Several statements made by respondents capture the te nor of this issue: that is, the importance of sound education (knowledge is power). People cannot be responsible land stewards if they have highly polarized beliefs regarding their relationshi p with coastal resources and management issues To the extent possible, politics must be removed from issues Loss of public faith in agenda-driven science jeopardizes responsiveness to resource management The last statement suggests the following research question: What are the effects of agendadriven science on public compliance with resource laws and environmental programs? As stated by one respondent, a sustainable fu ture depends on the education of young peoplethe ones who will be formulating future public policy. The formal K-16 educational system is the obvious vehicle for reaching young people. A primar y need is adequate funding for student and (science) teacher education programs that em phasize a balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability. Today's world is business-driven and most students do not understand that environmental sustainability und erpins a sound economy. Teachers statewide should be trained on environmental sustainability topics; if you reach one teacher, you reach over 100 students. Furthermore, environmen tal education programs in public schools and science organizations need to be enhanced, si nce, as one respondent stated, you only conserve what you love and only love what you know. Educa tional goals are best reached with balanced sets of lessons, labs, simulations, readings, case studies, and hands-on activ ities that match state science standards and that enab le teachers to involve students in all aspects of coastal development issues.

PAGE 31

21 Student instruction should extend beyond the fo rmal classroom by including hands-on activities that address relevant topics, such as marine sc ience. For instance, most students have knowledge of habitat restoration, but they do not understand how it works or why it is important; not only do students need to appreciate the monetary and non-economic values asso ciated with habitat restoration, they also would benefit by particip ating in restoration projects. Other activities outside of the classroom might include educati on initiatives that, for instance, meld boating safety with environmental stewardship. In addition to the K-16 community, the public obvi ously warrants targeted education efforts. In general, the goal of public education should be to foster conservation and stewardship in the shortest time possible, and to promote particip ation in coastal policy implementation by a diverse group, from homeowners to public agency staff to decision-makers. Public input should inform the decisions and strategies that guide NOAA and other federal, state, and local agency programs. There are, of course, innumerable topi cs to address, some specific, others quite general. One topic listed, for instance, was to increase public awarene ss and understanding of the importance (e.g., economic value) of coastal and marine resources. Whatever the education topic, numerous methods are available to transmit the desired message; they include marketing, public service announcemen ts, and/or information flyers. Another idea broached was to develop a citizen's guide to living on the coast that te aches how to reduce the environmental impacts due to residents and coas tal development (e.g., reducing runoff, invasive species control, long-term impacts of developing in coastal areas). Given Floridas status as a tourist destinati on, visitor education shoul d be supported. Too many tourists come to the coast and do not understand the impact of thei r actions on natural resources. A suggested method is to air public service spots on airplanes. Recreationa l users should also be educated about best practices to follo w when in sensitive management areas. There is an obvious desire to boost the involvement of an educated public in the debate that surrounds issues. An informed and engaged citizenry can benefit policymaking and the legislative processes that occur at all levels of government. To achieve this end will require the design and implementation of methods to reach non-participants. An informed and engaged public will have many occasions to interact with various classes of professionals, such as lawyers, resource managers, and engineers. Instru ctional resources for prof essionals are therefore needed so that they (1) know the issues; (2) de velop skills to assess, pl an, and communicate; and (3) have the ability and opportunity to interact with the public. Outreach programs, whether aimed at schools, co mmunity organizations, or other audiences, can be a cost effective way to increase public engagement and to elicit support. For instance, dedicated outreach programs might bridge gaps between coastal managers and public users, eliminating the us or them mentality. The opposing sides of an issue often desire the same end, but frequently there is much distrust to overc ome. For this reason, the science that supports particular management goals must be available to the public in a format that is understandable. Also required are effective ways to educate elec ted officials (e.g., municipal and county) and to advance science-based decision-ma king regarding coastal land use, development, and long-range

PAGE 32

22 planning. Sea Grant is particularly suited to assist with education, by extending scientific research studies to public audiences. Other suggestions include (Sea Grant) collaborating with th e Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence13 (COSEE) to address public education issues, and to bu ild international capacity (education and training) by establishi ng strong links with academic, education, and science communities in developing nations. Social marketing14 tools could be used to develop comprehensive profiles of marine communities, stakeholders, and their interactions, and to determine resource requirements for developing and sustaining effective partnerships that foster a sense of community value. Issue 9 : Preserving historical and cultura l resources (working waterfronts). Issue 9: Preserving historical a nd cultural resources (29 responses) Working Waterfronts 100% In addition to working waterfronts, respondents mentioned the need to consider water sports areas, marinas, and boat launch facilities. Mentio n was made of the loss of many such areas and facilities and the need for strategi es to get them back, and how to maintain industries important to coastal communities, while protecting the environment. A creative suite of incentives and strategies are needed to retain and/or expand recreational and commercial working waterfronts, while providi ng for environment protection. Government can provide incentives through prope rty taxes, permit restrictions, or other government fees. A question posed by one survey respondent is whether state historical tax credits can be expanded to protect cultural resources on the waterfront. Besides the potential for historic designation, a variety of other examples and measures coul d serve to retain and/or conserve working waterfronts. These include the purchase of develo pment rights, land trusts, model ordinances, or, simply, better access to grant money. Unfortunately, many communities are unaware of the various options available to them; Sea Grant sh ould consider developing a guidebook to make this information widely available. Additional strategies to retain and/or expand worki ng waterfronts can come from facilitated sessions (e.g., statewide and region al) with stakeholders, or through tours. Either could serve to inform policymakers at all levels of government about (the loss of) working waterfronts. Also needed is an assessment of the economic imp act and value of commercial fishing and boat construction facilities, as well as the cost-benef its of small and medium-sized ports and harbors to state and local economies. Las tly, planning requires better information to identify activities 13 The Centers for Ocean Sciences Edu cation Excellence (COSEE) is a network of seven regional centers that act locally and regionally (www.cosee.net). The goals of COSEE are: to promote the development of effective partnerships between research scientists and educators; to disseminate effective ocean sciences programs and the best practices that do not duplicate but rather build on existing resources; and to promote a vision of ocean education as an interdisciplinary vehicle for creating a more scientifically literate workforce and citizenry. 14 Social marketing is the planning and implementation of programs designed to bring about social change using concepts from commercial marketing. http://www.social-marketing.org/sm.html.

PAGE 33

23 that may adversely affect cultur al and historical resources, thus affording the opportunity to deny their authorization. Issue 10: Protected/endangered species manage ment (manatees or coral reefs). Manatees were mentioned most often (43%) fo llowed closely by coral reefs (41%). Several respondents added all endangered species (5%), s ea turtles (4%), habitat (4%), and water birds (2%). Issue 10: Protected/Endangered Speci es Management (93 responses) Manatees 43% Coral Reefs 41% *All Endangered Species 5% *Sea Turtles 4% *Habitat 4% *Water Birds 2% *Additional aspects cited by multiple respondents Actions to protect endangered species include the establishment and enforcement of no-take areas, Marine Protected Areas (MPA), and ocean zones set aside for protection. Species and habitat protection should be c oupled with boater education, boa ting regulations, and adequate enforcement of existing laws. Once established, regional assessments are needed to determine the effectiveness of zones (e.g., affects of boa ter compliance within speed zones in reducing manatee deaths and injuries). The results co uld improve zone delineat ions and aid in the development or revision of educational programs. Furthermore, the effectiveness and design of waterway signs for manatee protection need to be improved and better methods developed to separate vessels from manatees (e.g., avoidan ce technology). One suggesti on was to incorporate GIS layers of manatee protection zones with personal GPS units that are in wide use by recreational boaters. Assessments of protected species (sea turtles, dolphins, manatees) are needed to determine the effects of degraded estuaries on their health and, ultimately, on the health of the people living in and around these areas. Research tools should be developed to monitor protected species on broad temporal and spatial scales. Lastly, a respondent indicated th at the time between notificati on of violators and compliance with existing code regarding lig hting requirements during turtle nesting season needs to be reducedthe current time period is too long to benefit the species. Issue 11: Information to support management and d ecision-making (GIS spatial data, aerial and satellite imagery, or local/regional impact assessments). Respondents cited GIS spatial data as the inform ation most needed to support management and decision-making (38%), followed closely by local/regional imp act assessments (37%), and aerial/satellite imagery (25%).

PAGE 34

24 Issue 11: Information to Support Management and Decision-Making (87 responses) GIS Spatial Data 38% Local/Regional Impact Assessments 37% Aerial and Satellite Imagery 25% Many areas of Florida are developi ng rapidly (e.g., urban sprawl) and regulatory toolssuch as statutes and rulesare not always based on good sc ience, but, rather, on personal judgment calls at the time of development. Similar to othe r professionals, regulators require sound, sciencebased information to be able to adequately a ssess environmental impacts and devise solutions, such as permitting criteria, which are appropriately targeted and sufficiently restrictive without being overly burdensome. The information requirements that underlie regulatory and management efforts and policymaking are substantial. It is prudent, therefore, to catalog, review, and consolidate existing information and data so urces before initiating new collection efforts. Consultation with the community of marine and coastal users and managers can help to identify existing information as well as that which is lacking. This will require methods, including feedback mechanisms, to identify the appropriate sources, to collect input, and to distribute data. Respondents frequently mentioned socioeconomic da ta as being necessary to adequately address several issues. For example, there was an expressed need for socioeconomic surveys related to (outstanding) protected areas, si milar to those completed in Br oward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Monroe counties fo r their reef systems.15 Also reiterated, was the importance of determining the value of coastal and ocean na tural resources to various sector s of Florida's economy, such as tourism and marine industry. Exemplars of this type of work include the NOAA National Ocean Economics Program16 (Judith Kildow, Principal Investigator), which is designed to inventory ocean and coastal assets. A number of suggestions were related to da ta collection methods. Re quired are new sensor technologies (e.g., real-t ime nutrient sensors)17 and low-cost toolsincluding remote sensing, insitu monitors with telemetry capabilities, and analytical softwareto monitor the health of waterways and thereby quickly pinpoint proble m areas. Ideally, a network of real-time environmental monitoring stations could be in stalled and personnel trained to evaluate the resulting data. More generally, established sta ndards for the capture and compilation of marine and coastal data would facilitate data sharing across projects. Mapped (GIS) information, such as habitat and other ecological data compiled at the appropriate spat ial and temporal scales, would help meet research and management needs. Specific data needs mentioned included recu rring aerial photography of all shorelinesboth coastal and interior; continued collection of boat and boater informati on; SEACOOS and IOOS 15 The Socioeconomic Study of Reef Resources in Southeast Florida and the Florida Keys. 16 The objective of this project is to provide useful data on ocean-related economic activities and resource trends to government, businesses, and individuals to assist with investment and management decisions as they attempt to balance conservation and growth in coastal areas; http://noep.csumb.edu/. 17 For example, see the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's in situ autonomous monitoring platform known as MARVIN, which transmits near real-time data via satellite uplink. Available data includes: water and air temperature, salinity, wind speed and direction, pr ecipitation, barometric pressure, relative fluorescence (a proxy for chlorophyll a), current speed and direction, water depth, NO3+NO2, PO4, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity; http://www.merhabflorida.org/calooHome.htm.

PAGE 35

25 data,18 and bathymetry; and GIS data and imagery th at permits improved identification of natural resources and impacts. Information products are needed for both management and layperson audiences that provide comprehensive spatiote mporal perspectives of environmental and economic impacts that derive from diff erent coastal development scenarios. Once collected, data must be easily accessible to potential users. It is essential, for instance, that results from funded research be adequately docume nted and made widely available to the coastal zone management community. Florida ranks low among states in providing access to GIS spatial data for its communities and, therefore, signifi cant effort should be focused on providing the necessary access. Development of a statewide Intern et-based resource and associated services to make public the existing information and data would help.19 Sea Grant could become involved with the DLESE20 program (Digital Library of Earth System Education) by, for example, funding graduate students to contribute Sea Grant-re lated information to the Web portal, greatly increasing exposure to a larg e, international audience. Coping with prodigious informati on requirements and datasets requi res better tools, such as models and computer applicati ons that serve to better present (visualize) and interpret information. Examples include geographic info rmation systems that integrate established models, such as hydrologic models or numeri cal modeling of hydrodynamics and water quality. Other important tools, such as imagery and remote sensing techniques, can help identify and adequately map locations and characteristics of sensitive aquatic resour ces (sea grass, oyster bars, mangroves, salt marshes, listed species habitats). Issue 12: Balancing multiple uses of coastal waterways (recreational and commercial boating, protected species, or habitat protection). Habitat protection was most often cited (39%), followed by recreational and commercial boating (34%), protected species (21%), and boating and other uses (6%). Issue 12: Balancing Multiple Uses of Coastal Waterways (87 responses) Habitat Protection 39% Recreational and Commercial Boating 34% Protected Species 21% *Boating and other uses 6% *Additional aspect cited by multiple respondents Numerous times throughout the survey, respondents either mentioned or alluded to a need for balancethe basic thrust of i ssue twelve. The frequent call wa s for balancing recreational use 18 The Southeast Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing System (SEACOOS) is to be a part of the larger Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observations System (IOOS). 19 View any of the following Websites fo r exemplars of GIS information and othe r resources made available to local communities: www.wateratlas.org, www.sarasota.wat eratlas.org, www.hillsbo rough.wateratlas.org, www.seminole.wateratlas.org, and www.polk.wateratlas.org. 20 DLESE is the Digital Library for Earth System Education, a geosciences community resource that supports teaching and learning about the Earth system. DLESE is funded by the National Science Foundation and is being built by a distributed community of educators, students, a nd scientists to support Earth system education at all levels.

PAGE 36

26 with the restoration and conservation of natural coastal resour ces: that is, ensuring fair access while safeguarding habitat. The multiple activitie s and functions associated with our waterways and waterfronts lead to use and us er conflicts as in, for example, recreational versus commercial, boater versus non-boater, and fishing versus non -fishing. As growth explodes along Floridas coasts, balancing competing uses will only become more difficult. Balance, however, is vital to protecting valuable habitats. Therefore, a question before us is how to pres erve traditional waterway uses while enlisting citizen support for protection in itiatives. Naturally, there ar e no easy solutions. However, the many ideas presented by respondents offer much hope. Sea Grant can continue to assist by enhancing its role as a conduit for sciencebased information, fostering dialogue between conflicting user groups, facilita ting inter-agency collaboration, sponsoring community forums, and assisting local governments to evaluate economic and environmental impacts associated with alternate strategies. Ranking Tools and Techniques Survey respondents were asked to rate the importa nce of eight tools and te chniques that could be used to address issues affecting coastal communities and water-dependent businesses (Table 3). The headings for columns 2 through 5 in Table 3 contain the levels of importance that a respondent could assign to each tool or technique. The values in pa rentheses within each of these four column headings were used to calculate the average rank (column 6) for each tool/technique (not important = 0, low importance = 1, medium importance = 2, and high importance = 3). In each cell located under columns 2 through 5, the quantity in parentheses corresponds to the number of respondents and the percentage to the proportion of respondents who ranked a tool/technique at that partic ular level of importance. Partnerships and partnership building received the highest average rank (2.6): 65 percent of respondents (95 respondents) de emed it of high importance, 28 percent (41) of medium importance, and 7 percent (10) of low importan ce. The next highest average rank was received by science-based facilitation to enhance public involvement in coastal policy and management decisions (2.5), followed by the application of science-based mode ls (2.5). Next came environmental/science education (2.4), decision support tools (2.4), technical training/professional development (2.2), online information search tools (2.1), and topical conferences/workshops (2.1).

PAGE 37

27Table 3: Survey respondents rankings of tools and technique s to address issues that affect coastal communities and water-dependent businesses. Tools And Techniques Not Important (value of 0) Low Importance (value of 1) Medium Importance (value of 2) High Importance (value of 3) Average Rank Partnerships and partnership building 0% (0) 7% (10) 28% (41) 65% (95) 2.6 Science-based facilitation to enhance public involvement in coastal policy/management decisions 1% (2) 6% (9) 36% (53) 57% (84) 2.5 Science-based models (e.g., social and environmental carrying capacity, risk vulnerability, supply/demand projections) 0% (0) 6% (9) 43% (63) 51% (76) 2.5 Environmental/Science education (e.g., in-service training for managers, policymakers, teachers) 0% (0) 8% (12) 41% (61) 51% (75) 2.4 Decision support tools (e.g., geographic information systems, remote sensing, imagery) 0% (0) 7% (11) 46% (69) 46% (69) 2.4 Technical training or professional development (e.g., content specific, process skills, technology tools) 0% (0) 14% (21) 53% (78) 33% (48) 2.2 Online information search tools (e.g., data, training, funding) 0% (0) 20% (30) 58% (74) 30% (44) 2.1 Topical conferences/workshops 1% (2) 14% (21) 58% (85) 26% (38) 2.1 In each cell, the quantity in parentheses corresponds to the number of respon dents who ranked the tool/technique at that particular level of importance and the percentage indicates the proportion of respondents who ranked the tool/technique at that level of importance. Rankings with the greatest number of responses are highlighted in bold. Respondents were given the opportun ity to list three addi tional tools or techni ques that were not listed on the survey. In many cases, they elabor ated on the tools/techni ques presented on the survey: Partnerships and partnership building: Engage political entities and marine industry; use not-for-p rofit groups to gather data, conduct assessments and environmental rehabilitati on; engage federal, st ate, regional, local entities in concerted pl anning and development Include coordination with profe ssional societies, university research departments, civic organizations, civic watch dog groups, economic development community Better use of citizen volunteer groups/system Utilize information available from resource users who have been active in specific areas for long periods (e.g., up to half a century) Science-based facilitation to enhance public involvement: Public projects (e.g. mangrove planting, reef ball deployment); publicize success stories Youth education programs th at include field experience Field experiences for policymakers and the media Public outreach events; public service announcements

PAGE 38

28 Contests and idea competitions distributed via newspapers Provide information to non-English speaking citizens Education (e.g., environmental) modules for High School science classe s, marine facility personnel, business leaders, and public (e.g., coastal residents) Cross-fertilize formal higher education progr ams (e.g., environmental science, engineering, and policy administration curricula) Sponsorship of specific coastal efforts by loca l organizations (e.g., similar to Adopt-A-Road); accomplish through direct funding, or via project monitoring Recognition of local governments that make efforts toward cleaner/safer waterways Establish community programs Science-based models: Science-based models to demonstrate that grow th can coexist with proper stewardship of natural resources Quantitative predictive models for ecosystem management (e.g., Carl Walters and Daniel Pauly)21 Numerical models for hydrodynamics, water qual ity, sedimentation, quantitative fisheries Local/regional economic impact analyses of recreational boating and comprehensive waterfront planning Recreational boating and use-intens ity projections and forecasts Input/output economic impact models Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Environmental/science education: For homeowner associations and special dist ricts not controlled by local government For the public: on benefits of resource enhancement Professional training for educators Information dissemination to local chambers of commerce Topical white papers for legislature Citizen referendums Insertion of relevant environmental informa tion into professional/trades certification programs Decision support tools: A Web-based clearing house of decision support tools Surveys of local communities to gauge knowledge of issues and where public support is lacking Anecdotal observations over time are mi ssing from today's environmental programs Gap Analysis; water quality monitor; STORET/TMDL; NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System); TSS-total suspended sediment; GPS technology; field research 21 For more information see: http://www.f isheries.ubc.ca/members/cwalters/ or http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/members/dpauly.

PAGE 39

29 Economic studies to inform political decisions, particularly with regard to habitat and resource valuations Geographic information (for GIS): bathym etric mapping, mapping of environmentally important resources; boat traffic service areas and traffic analyses Technical training or professional development: Online training and DVD-based training procedures Grant/fund procurement training Train managers on statutes relevant to th eir duties (e.g., knowing a nd understanding laws regarding permitting and resource protection) The Court System how to sue to carry out adopted plans State lobbying and engaging the political process Employ training that is low cost and targeted to local issues Training content specific to user groups Mandatory education classes for boat owners regarding safety, boater responsibility Fisheries trainingremote (e .g. hydro-acoustic or radio tags) tag-and-monitoring systems for gauging fishing mortality of Florida's hi gh value fish and invertebrate species Topical conferences/workshops: Regular regional or local meetings University meetings and programs At marine trade shows County Commission meeting presentations Teleconferences Policy workshops Legal issues that affect water-dependent coastal communities and businesses Miscellaneous ideas (Political process): Enhance visibility of extension agents within local government Maintain a presence in Tallahassee Interagency coordination Monitor (occupational) positions in county governments Hold environmental organizati ons to their mission: Why is Save the Manatee Club involved in growth management? Why is the Humane So ciety involved in waterway regulation? The public is losing trust in these groups Reign-in activist state an d federal staffers; many are not held accountable for misrepresentation of facts

PAGE 40

30Ranking Information Delivery Formats A role of Sea Grant extension is to disseminate information that helps clients and stakeholders resolve issues that affect coastal communities and water-dependent businesses. Respondents were shown 24 different methods or formats to disseminate information and were asked how likely they are to make use of each one (Table 4). Of the 151 survey respondents, 150 answered th is question. The headings for columns 2 through 6 in Table 4 indicate the degree to which a respondent would likel y use a particular information format. The values in parentheses within each of these six column headings were used to calculate the average rank (column 8) for each format/method (least likely = 1, somewhat likely = 2, likely = 3, very likely = 4, and extrem ely likely = 5). In each cell located under columns 2 through 6, the quantity in parentheses corresponds to the number of respondents and the percentage to the proporti on of respondents who ranked a form at/method at that particular level of likelihood. For each format/method the ra nk receiving the greatest number of responses is highlighted in bold. The two most likely sources of information sele cted by respondents were Web sites and one-onone contact (the traditional extension mode); bot h sources were ranked at 3.8 (out of a maximum possible score of 5). The next five most likel y sources of information selected by respondents were workshops and training (3.7 ), conferences and seminars ( 3.5), professional meetings (3.4), geographic information systems (3.3), and electron ic newsletters (3.3). The five lowest ranked sources of information were posters (2.5), e-ma il discussion groups (2.4), radio (2.3), distance learning (2.2), and audio tapes (1.8).

PAGE 41

31Table 4. Survey respondents ranking of formats for disseminating information. Information Formats Least Likely (value = 1) Somewhat Likely (value = 2) Likely (value = 3) Very Likely (value = 4) Extremely Likely (value = 5) No Opinion Rank Web sites 2% (3) 9% (14) 26% (38) 21% (32) 40% (60) 1% (2) 3.8 One-on-one contact 4% (6) 10% (14) 23% (33) 30% (43) 32% (46) 3.8 Workshops and training 2% (3) 12% (18) 29% (42) 28% (41) 28% (41) 1% (1) 3.7 Conferences and seminars 5% (7) 12% (17) 33% (49) 31% (45) 19% (28) 1% (1) 3.5 Professional meetings 5% (7) 14% (21) 31% (46) 27% (40) 22% (32) 1% (1) 3.4 Geographic Information Systems 7% (11) 11% (17) 30% (45) 22% (33) 25% (37) 4% (6) 3.3 Electronic newsletters 8% (12) 15% (23) 30% (44) 30% (44) 17% (25) 1% (1) 3.3 Journal articles 11% (16) 16% (24) 27% (40) 29% (42) 17% (25) 3.2 CD-ROMs 7% (11) 24% (36) 21% (31) 28% (41) 18% (27) 1% (2) 3.2 Extension fact sheets 7% (10) 23% (34) 28% (42) 24% (36) 17% (25) 1% (1) 3.2 Technical documents, government reports, proceedings 13% (20) 14% (21) 27% (41) 29% (43) 16% (24) 1% (1) 3.2 Newspapers 12% (17) 22% (33) 25% (37) 27% (40) 14% (20) 3.1 Scientific journals 13% (19) 22% (33) 27% (40) 16% (24) 20% (30) 1% (1) 3.1 Electronic journals (Ejournals) and magazines (Ezines) 18% (26) 16% (24) 25% (37) 25% (37) 16% (23) 3.0 Demonstrations or exhibitions 9% (13) 26% (38) 32% (47) 26% (38) 7% (11) 1% (1) 3.0 Books 14% (21) 22% (32) 34% (50) 23% (34) 7% (11) 2.9 Television 18% (27) 21% (31) 33% (48) 16% (24) 12% (17) 2.8 Video tapes 15% (22) 31% (45) 27% (40) 23% (34) 3% (5) 2.7 Trade publications 21% (31) 26% (38) 27% (39) 21% (31) 5% (7) 1% (1) 2.6 Posters 22% (33) 35% (51) 24% (36) 8% (12) 10% (15) 2.5 E-mail discussion groups (list servers) 32% (48) 23% (34) 26% (38) 13% (19) 6% (9) 2.4 Radio 30% (44) 28% (41) 27% (40) 12% (17) 3% (5) 2.3 Distance learning 27% (40) 34% (50) 16% (24) 13% (19) 5% (8) 5% (7) 2.2 Audio tapes 52% (77) 28% (41) 15% (22) 4% (6) 1% (2) 1.8 Rankings with the greatest number of responses are highlighted in bold.

PAGE 42

32 Respondents were given the opportunity to lis t three additional formats for disseminating information that were not specifically listed on the survey: Public Access Cable TV Celebrity spokesperson Infomercials Movie trailers and public service announcemen ts (e.g., airplanes, tourist destinations) Internet Streaming Video DVD Internet mapping sites (i.e., Internet map servers) Mail outsdirect mail to targeted audiences for specific issues Printed fliers in utility bills E-mail snippets/announcements Hardcopy newsletters Newspapers, brochures Stakeholder-specific publicati on (e.g., Sourcebook for the Ma rine Sciences by Florida Oceanographic Society) Commercial magazines (e.g., Readers Digest, Parade) Children publications Billboards/posters Boater operator course Demonstrations at boat shows and other public ev ents (e.g., fairs, park programs, Earth Day, aquaria, museums ) School programs Science teacher training programs Public hearings; local stakeholder meetings PowerPoint presentation (e.g., at conferences) Conferences for fishing guides, conservation gr oups, Florida Oceanographic Society, marine summits Civic organization sponsorships

PAGE 43

33Conclusions Based on stakeholder input provi ded during the survey, Florid a Sea Grant established 2006-2009 programmatic priorities for coastal communities a nd water-dependent businesses. In February 2005, there was a call for statements of interest for two-year research projects based on the following research objectives and priori ties as determined from the survey.22 Objective A. Foster Economically and Envi ronmentally Sustainable Growth for Coastal Communities and Water-Dependent Businesses 1. Develop environmental and economic sustainabili ty goals that assist public policy decision makers in managing coastal communities and water-dependent businesses; develop corresponding indicators that measure progress towards goal attainment. 2. Evaluate social and economic costs and benefits that derive from public to private conversion of waterfronts and waterway acce ss points, examine the causes of decline/growth in recreational and working waterfronts, and analyze incentives to retain water-dependent and water-related facilities that serve public need s and reflect social values. 3. Evaluate public policy and regul atory and non-regulatory tools that increase/decrease the rate of public to private conversion of wate rfronts and waterway access points. 4. Create and extend new technologies and products that meet emerging business opportunities, ranging, for example, from concepts that improve charts for recreational boaters, public access to ocean observation system information, and equipm ent modifications for vessels that reduce or eliminate environmental impacts. Objective B. Develop Decision Support Tools and Information to Guide Public Policy and to Support Coastal Zone Management 1. Evaluate the cumulative and secondary impacts on coastal ecosystems due to development, tourism, and recreation; develop the capacity to forecast the long-range sust ainability of coastal ecosystems; and provide comprehensiv e spatial/temporal perspectives on environmental/economic impacts of vari ous coastal development scenarios. 2. Analyze the biophysical effects of naviga tional improvements and boating activity on waterways and adjacent habitats. 3. Link decision conceptssuch as place-based management, growth management, and water surface zoningwith the application of geographic information technologies to plan for optimal use of coastal shorefronts and adjacent waterways. 4. Develop methods to characterize, map, a nd forecast recreational boating patterns and activities, both in time and geographic space. 5. Measure the economic value to coastal commu nities and water-dependent businesses of natural resources (natural capi tal) and develop and extend info rmational products for citizens and community decision makers. 22 Opportunities for Biennial Core Program funding normally occur every two years. The ne xt opportunity will be in 2007.

PAGE 44

34 Objective C. Create a Regulatory and Non-regul atory Framework for Sustainable Community Development and Business Growth 1. Determine the efficacy of best management pr actices (BMP) for water-dependent businesses, such as those employed in the Clean Marina Program; develop non-regulatory mechanisms that enhance voluntary compliance with environmenta l BMP; and examine empirical relationships between voluntary compliance strate gies and actual results. 2. Determine how new technologies and decision c oncepts that pertain to nearshore waters fit into the complex federal, state, and local jurisdictional framework for marine waters. 3. Develop a legal concept for the most common i ssues that give rise to coastal and marine conflicts, and evaluate alternativ e dispute resolution mechanisms. 4. Assist coastal communities that have endured declines in their economic bases to refocus and utilize existing resources to their eco nomic and environmental advantage.

PAGE 45

35Appendix 1. Florida Sea Grant 2002-2005 Strategic Issues and Goals23 Economic Leadership Goal 1: Use Marine Biotechnology to Create and Enhance Products and Processes from Floridas Coastal Resources Goal 2: Determine Production and Manage ment Techniques That Make Floridas Fisheries Sustainable and Competitive Goal 3: Develop the Food and Hobby Segments of Floridas Marine Aquaculture Industry Goal 4: Improve the Product Quality and Safety of Floridas Seafood Products Goal 5: Increase the Economic Competitiven ess and Environmental Sustainability of Coastal Water-Dependent Businesses Coastal Ecosystem Health and Public Safety Goal 6: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Coastal Water Quality Goal 7: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Coastal Habitats Goal 8: Prepare for and Respond to Coastal Storms Education and Human Resources Goal 9: Produce a Highly Trained Workforce Goal 10: Create Scientifically a nd Environmentally Informed Citizens 23 www.flseagrant.org.

PAGE 46

36

PAGE 47

37Appendix 2. Survey Responses Related to Other Florida Sea Grant Goal Areas Survey respondents listed a number of topics that best fit within other Florida Sea Grant goal areas. For a complete list of the goal areas see Ap pendix 1 or visit the Florida Sea Grant Web site (www.flseagrant.org) for a more detailed account of the activities that occur within these goal areas. Goal 2 : Determine Production and Management Tec hniques That Make Floridas Fisheries Sustainable and Competitive Issues: The sustainability of marine fisheries is in question, according to findings of the Pew ocean commissionwe need to focus some effort there Floridas recreational marine fisheries are valued at $5.4 billionwhat information and regulatory changes are needed to sustain th em in face of tremendous population growth? Fisheries Managementneed to maintain sust ainable fisheries and associated habitats (spawning grounds) Over-fishing (both recreational and commer cial)need to bala nce population growth with sustaining resource; reduce by-catch Broward County controversy: ex tent of damage to inshore juvenile habitat stemming from renourished sand on local beaches; need to determine (i.e., long-term monitoring) the importance of this juvenile habitat Utilization of limited fisheries among competing groups Essential Fisheries Habitat identification Understanding the effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas and optimizing their use Suggested Actions/Strategies/Needs: Start working on new directions in fisheries management that integrate Pew Ocean Commission suggestions (or at least e xplore options and make suggestions on improvements to begin the debate) Establish limits to fishing methods that dest roy habitat and negativ ely impact recreational fishing and catch limits (e.g., shrimp trawlers in 40 to 100 feet of water drag and destroy bottom and catch dozens of grouper/snapper that are thrown away; define operation areas for trawlers, survey/map bottom habitat to de fine critical areas; prepare guidance maps and regulations to focus working areas and off-limit areas for trawlers; survey/document recovery of fishery as a tool to decide when to restore recreational take limits and catch size Education and implications: inform public a bout the importance of protecting juveniles and their habitat; Fish = f ood: a recent socioeconomic study in SE Florida produced staggering numbers; our ec onomy depends on these resources and they must be

PAGE 48

38 protected; more information is needed about where they live and how to enhance their survival Coordinate fisheries stock assessments with the fisheries management needs of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Measure the economic impact/value of specific recreational fisheries Data on the effectiveness of fi sheries management strategies Increased funds for research and education Sea Grant can play major role in protecting commercial and recreational fisheries through education and guidance (e.g., policies and take li mits that reflect best available science) Suggested Research: Better understanding of what constitutes Esse ntial Fisheries Habitat (EFH) for high-value marine recreational fish species and how loss/degradation/restoration of EFH affects aquatic/coastal living resource populations/communities How to reverse the decline of living coral reef s and reef-dependent fish and invertebrate communities? Resolve critical uncertainties underly ing effective use of marine stock enhancement/artificial reefs as fishery management tools Methods to reduce post-release mortality of recreationally caught fish by using dehooking devices Post-release mortality studies with catch-and-release fishing efforts Identify the true impacts of recreational boating/fishing on Gulf of Mexico fisheries Interaction between the natural/artificial reef s; how proximity influences fish and coral recruitment Safer aquaculture practices, so that displacemen t of wild fisheries by aquaculture can take place at steady pace, not as a crash Economic changes in Florida fishing industry suggest that more re search is needed regarding aquaculture and the public perception of r ecreational impact on the environment Bathymetry to understand habitat usemulti-beam/side-scan sonar mapping need to be incorporated into management strategies a nd real-time systems that include acoustics, video, and water quality Goal 6 : Protect, Restore, and Enhance Coastal Water Quality Issues: Upstream watershed activities and impacts that affect freshwater i nputs (timing, quality) to the estuary downstream Saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifer Dramatic impacts (e.g., on nature-based tour ism) of altered water budget (e.g., altered flow regime) on coastal resources (e .g., degraded estu arine productivity) Water quality and quantity is a critical commodity given the growing population of coastal communities; the next decade may see demand exceed supply; Sea Grant should lead the charge to protect the resource before it becomes critical

PAGE 49

39 Suggested Actions/Strategies/Needs: Comprehensive community-based water-suppl y plans (e.g., retention/storage demands, natural resource demands, water-table dependent natural communities) Develop watershed plans with input from all stakeholders (e.g., Apalachicola Bay) Find the cheapest way to desalinize brackish water for human consum ption; use treated wastewater for commercial and residential us es (e.g., irrigation, car washes); recycle water Maintaining and improving the quality, quantit y, and timing of freshwater flows (e.g., Apalachicola Bay) Suggested Research: Develop region-specific wa ter (hydrologic) budgets Ground and surface water quantities, availabil ity, and budget for the ACF watershed and adjacent counties based on potential user s over next 20 years (Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint Rivers System and Watershed Basin)

PAGE 50

40

PAGE 51

41Appendix 3. Survey Questionnaire The survey questionnaire on the following page s was designed online using tools provided by surveymonkey.com. The survey was printed directly to a PDF from within a browser (Microsoft Internet Explorer), since that was the only method available on surveymonkey.com. Links were provided in the questionnaire to the following definitions of terms used in the questions: Sustainabilitymeeting the needs of the present without compromi sing the ability of future generations to meet their own n eeds. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Co mmon Future. Oxford University Press: New York. 1987. Carrying Capacityrefers to the number of i ndividuals who can be supported in a given area within natural reso urce limits, and without degrading th e natural, social, cultural, and economic environment for present and future generations. http://www.carryingcapacity.org/whatis.html. Non-point Source Pollutionpolluti on that occurs when rainfa ll, snowmelt, or irrigation runs over land or through the ground, picks up pollutants, and deposits them into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters or introduces them into ground water. www.epa.gov/waterscience/bioc riteria/glossary.html.

PAGE 52

42

PAGE 53

Exit this survey >> Florida Sea Grant Strategic Planning Water-Dependent Coastal Co mmunities and Businesses The Florida Sea Grant (FSG) mission is to enhance the practical use and conservation of coastal and marine resources to create a sustainable econom y and environment FSG advances that mission through research extension and education Every 4 years, with assistance from it s partners and stakeholders, FSG updates its strategic plan to insure that goals and objectives that underlie its mission are relevant an d on-target. That time has arrived and FSG seeks your input to gu ide 2006-2009 program efforts and expenditures. As an incentive, the first 15 pers ons who complete the survey will receive a printed copy of the handsomely illustra ted publication titled A Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways Furthermore, an additional 15 persons who complete the survey will be randomly selected to receive a copy of the publication as well. We are implementing an Internet-based su rvey to minimize the demand on your time, yet maximize the gu idance and knowledge that you provide to us. On aver age, the survey takes 30 minutes to complete and we ask that you comple te it by August 31st. Ten goal areas encompass the current ra nge of FSG programs. The survey we ask you to complete a pplies to only on e of those goal areas, titled Water-Dependent Coastal Communities and Businesses ." The current 2002-2005 goal ar ea priorities that we are reviewing for possible revision can be found HERE Examples of current projects within this goal area can be found HERE To insure a representative sample we invited a select group of persons from a broad spectrum of entities to re spond to this survey. Please do not invite other people to participate in the survey. If you have any questi ons or if you want to provide additional feedback, then please E-mail Robert Swett On behalf of James Cato Florida Sea Grant Di rector, thank you for participating!

PAGE 54

1. Listed below are examples of issues (e.g., Public access to coastal waterways) that may affect the environmental and economic sustainability of water-dependent coastal communities and businesses. For each issue listed, please indicate how important it is to you and your organization that Florida Sea Grant make it a research, exte nsion, and education priority over the next 5-10 years. (If HIGH priority issues that you want to emphasize are not listed, you will have the opportunity to enter them in question 3 below.) Not a Priority for Us Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority No Opinion 1. Comprehensive, sciencebased, regional waterway planning and management to improve navigation and safety (e.g., channel maintenance, signage, boat traffic) 2. Coastal recreation/tourism planning and development (e.g., protection of natural habitats, artificial reefs, recreational boating, recreation/tourism facility siting analyses, carrying capacity ) 3. Public access to coastal waterways (e.g., beach access, marina slips, boat launch locations, public to private conversion, land trusts) 4. Development of economic and environmental sustainability goals and indicators that measure progress towards their attainment (e.g., carrying capacity, reduced regulatory and permitting channel maintenance costs, total acreage of public recreation/conservation land)

PAGE 55

5. Non point source pollution (e.g., boat discharges and boat maintenance, marina operations, shoreline landscape/yard maintenance) 6. Restoration and maintenance of aquatic habitat (e.g., seagrass, mangrove) 7. Assessment of environmental impacts on coastal waterways (e.g., channel maintenance, runoff derived shoaling and pollution, shoreline landscape/yard maintenance, waterfront development) 8. Public education (e.g., science-based knowledge) to enhance meaningful participation in the creation, implementation, and monitoring of coastal policy 9. Preserving historical and cultural resources (e.g., working waterfronts) 10. Protected/endangered species management (e.g., manatees, coral reefs) 11. Information to support management and decisionmaking (e.g., GIS spatial data, aerial and satellite imagery, local/regional impact assessments) 12. Balancing multiple uses of coastal waterways (e.g., recreational and commercial boating, protected species, habitat protection) 2. Please note that the issues listed in Question 1 are repeated for this Question.

PAGE 56

For each issue (e.g., Non-point source pollution) that you ranked as a HIGH priority in Question 1, what specif ic aspect (e.g., BOAT DISCHARGES or MARINA OPERATIONS or SHORELINE LANDSCAPE/ YARD MAINTENANCE) should Florida Sea Grant make its HIGHEST research, extensio n, and education priority over the next 5-10 years? Enter the aspect in the text box located to the right of the appropriate issue below. ( TIP: In Internet Explorer, you can use your mouse to select or highlight an aspe ct and then drag and drop it into the text box. Or, you can select the aspect, co py it, and then paste it into the box .) The list of aspects associat ed with each issue is NOT all inclusive. If your HIGHEST priority aspect is not listed, then en ter it in the text box located to the right of the appropriate issue and explain why the aspect is important. ( TIP: Use your word processor or text editor to type your respon se and then copy and paste it into the text box. There is a 200 character limit .) 1. Comprehensive, science -based, regional waterway planning and management to improve navigation and safety (e.g., CHANNEL MAINTENANCE or SIGNAGE or BOAT TRAFFIC ) 2. Coastal recreation/tourism planning and development (e.g., PROTECTION OF NATURAL HABITATS or ARTIFICIAL REEFS or RECREATIONAL BOATING or RECREATION/TOURISM FACILITY SITING ANALYSES or CARRYING CAPACITY ) 3. Public access to coastal waterways (e.g., BEACH ACCESS or MARINA SLIPS or BOAT LAUNCH LOCATIONS or PUBLIC TO PRIVATE CONVERSION or LAND TRUSTS ) 4. Development of economic and environmental sustainability goals and indica tors that measure progress towards their attainment (e.g., CARRYING CAPACITY or REDUCED REGULATORY AND PERMITTING CHANNEL MAINTENANCE COSTS or TOTAL ACREAGE OF PUBLIC RECREATION/CONSERVATION LAND ) 5. Non point source pollution (e.g., BOAT DISCHARGES AND BOAT MAINTENANCE or MARINA OPERATIONS or SHORELINE LANDSCAPE/ YARD MAINTENANCE ) 6. Restoration and maintenance of aquatic habitat (e.g., SEAGRASS or MANGROVE ) 7. Assessment of environmental impacts on coastal waterways (e.g., CHANNEL MAINTENANCE or RUNOFF DERIVED SHOALING AND POLLUTION or SHORELINE LANDSCAPE/ YARD MAINTENANCE or WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT ) 8. Public education (e.g., science-based knowledge) to enhance meaningful participation in the creation, implementation, and monitoring of coastal policy 9. Preserving historical and cultural resources (e.g., WORKING WATERFRONTS ) 10. Protected/endangered species management (e.g., MANATEES or CORAL REEFS ) 11. Information to support management and decisionmaking (e.g., GIS SPATIAL DATA or AERIAL AND

PAGE 57

SATELLITE IMAGERY or LOCAL/REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ) 12. Balancing multiple uses of coastal waterways (e.g., RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL BOATING or PROTECTED SPECIES or HABITAT PROTECTION) In Questions 3, 4, and 5 below, please discuss up to three economic and environmental sustainability issues that are a HIGH priority to you and your organization, but were not listed in Questi on 1. The issues and aspects that you discuss should be ones that affect waterdependent coastal communities and businesses and ones that you believe that Florida Sea Grant should make a research, extension, or education priority over the next 5-10 years. ENTER ONE ISSUE PER QUESTION. 3. My First Issue (d iscuss only one issue) 4. My Second Issue (discuss only one issue) 5. My Third Issue (discuss only one issue) 6. Which of the 12 issues that you prioritized in Q uestion 1 or that you added in Questions 3, 4, and 5 would you rank as the single MOST IMPORTANT issue that

PAGE 58

must be addressed over the next 5-10 years? 123456789101112 My First Issue My Second Issue My Third Issue 7. Please elaborate on what you cons ider the best strategy, action plan, and necessary resources (e.g., mone y) required to address the MOST IMPORTANT issue affecting water-dependent coastal communities and businesses that you identified in Question 6. Each year Florida Sea Grant awards about 1 million dollars to fund research projects that address issues within its 10 major goal areas. In Questions 8, 9, and 10 below briefly describe up to th ree specific research topics that you recommend Florida Sea Grant fund to help resolve high priority issues within the goal area titled Water-Dependent Coastal Communities and Businesses. ENTER ONE RESEARCH TOPIC PER QUESTION. 8. First Research Topic (e nter only one research topic) 9. Second Research Topic (enter only one research topic)

PAGE 59

10. Third Research Topic (e nter only one research topic) 11. Please rate the importance of the following tools and techniques for addressing/resolving issues that affe ct water-dependent coastal communities and businesses. Not Important Low Importance Medium Importance High Importance Partnerships or partnership building Technical training or professional development (e.g., content specific, process skills, technolo g y tools) Decision support tools (e.g., geographic information systems, remote sensing imagery) Topical conferences/workshops Environmental/Science education (e.g., in-service training for managers, policymakers, teachers, etc.) Science-based facilitation to enhance public involvement in coastal policy/management discussions On-line information search tools (e.g., data, training, funding) Science-based models (e.g., social and environmental carryin g capacity, risk vulnerability, supply/demand projections) In Questions 12, 13, and 14 below, please list up to three other tools or techniques not listed in Question 11 that you feel are important for addressing issues that affect water-dependent coas tal communities and businesses. ENTER ONE TOOL/TECHNIQUE PER QUESTION.

PAGE 60

12. First tool or technique (e nter only one tool or technique) 13. Second tool or technique (e nter only one tool or technique) 14. Third tool or technique (e nter only one tool or technique) 15. The role of Sea Grant extension is to disseminate information that helps clients and stakeholders address/resolv e issues that affe ct water-dependent coastal communities and bu sinesses. Please rank how likely YOU are to make use of information offered in the following formats? Least Likely Somewhat Likely Likely Very Likely Extremely Likely No Opinion Extension fact sheets E-mail discussion groups (list servers) Radio Electronic newsletters

PAGE 61

Scientific j ournals Books Technical documents, government reports, proceedings Audio tapes CD-ROMs Newspapers Video tapes Posters Professional meetings Demonstrations or exhibitions Trade publications Journal articles Conferences and seminars Geographic Information Systems Distance learning Web sites Television Electronic Journals (Ej ournals) and magazines (Ezines) One-on-One contact Workshops and training 16. What other formats or methods do you suggest that Florida Sea Grant use to disseminate information to clients and stakeholders?

PAGE 62

Format/Method: Format/Method: Format/Method: 17. How would you categorize the organization where you are employed or with which you are affiliated? Higher education Regional planning agency Private consulting Non-governmental organization Municipal agency County agency Marine industry K-12 education State agency Federal agency Other (please specify) 18. What is the name of your organiza tion, work unit, or place of employment? 19. What is your title or position within your organization or work unit? 20. Please provide the following information. What is the 5-digit ZIP code of your residence? What is the 5-di g it ZIP code of your place o f employment? 21. How do you envision that your organization can best use the services and information that are available from Florida Sea Grant ?

PAGE 63

22. Please take this op portunity to provide any fina l comments or suggestions regarding the topics raised in this survey about water dependent coastal communities and businesses. 23. Would you like to receive a copy of the survey results? Yes No 24. May we contact you if we need to follow-up on any of your responses? Yes No YOU HAVE COMPLE TED THE SURVEY Florida Sea Grant thanks you for your a ssistance during our strategic planning process. If you have any questions or if you want to provide additional feedback, then please E-mail Robert Swett (raswett@ifas.ufl.edu). Done >>

PAGE 64

54

PAGE 65

55Appendix 4. Types of Organizations and Organizational Roles of Survey Respondents24 State Agency or Organization with Statewide Responsibility (Aquatic Preserve Manager, Area Supervisor, Bureau Chief, Chief Economist, Director, Communications Director, County Extension Director, Environmental Administrato r, Environmental Consultant, Environmental Specialist, Environmental Supervisor, Marine Extension Agent, Marine Fisheries Biologist, Marine Research Associate, Program Administra tor, Program Manager, Project Coordinator, Section Leader, Rules Administrator): Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Law Enforcement, Florida Fi sh and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florid a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida Department of E nvironmental Protection Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida Legislature (Office of Program Polic y Analysis and Government Accountability) Florida Sea Grant Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas Florida Department of Environmental Protection Higher Education (Adjunct faculty, Assistant Director, Associate in Law, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Director of Programs, Ex ecutive Director, Instructor, Professor, Program Biologist, Educational De veloper, Director): Florida Atlantic University, Catanese Center Florida Atlantic University, Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions Florida Gulf Coast University Florida Natural Resources Leadership Institute Florida State University Florida State University, Department of Oceanography Hillsborough Community College New College of Florida Nova Southeastern University Nova Southeastern Univer sity, Oceanographic Center University of Florida University of Florida, Center for Precollegiate Education and Training University of Florida, Levin College of Law University of Miami University of Miami, RSMAS 24 To ensure confidentiality, only generic information is provided on the types of organizations and the organizational roles (in parentheses) of respondents.

PAGE 66

56 University of South Florida University of South Florida, Florida Ce nter for Community Design and Research University of West Florida Municipal/County Agency (Environmental Projects Manager, Marine Resources Program Manager, Extension Director, GIS Specialist, Scie nce Coordinator, Environmental Specialist III, GIS Analyst, Reef Specialist, Smart Growth Program Director, Natural Resources Director, Staff Liaison, Marine Safety Program Co ordinator, Inlet/Port District Manager, Engineering Manager, Natural Resources Program Supervisor, Director of Leisure Services City Engineer): Aquatic Services Department Coastal Resources Department County Extension Department of Planning and Environmental Protection Department of Public Safety Engineering Department Inlet & Port District/Authority Leisure Services Marine Advisory Committee Natural Resources Department Port Authority Reef Construction Program Reef Research Team Smart Growth Department Watershed Management Department Regional Planning Agency or Organiza tion with Regional Responsibility (Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Communications Manager, Comprehensive Planning Director, Director, Engineer, Executive Director, Environmental Speci alist, Manager, Park Biologist, Principal Planner, Public Outreach Coordinator, Regional Planner, Research Coordinator, Resource Management Coordinator, Scientist, Senior Environmental Specialist, Special Projects Director): Apalachee Regional Planning Council Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Charlotte Harbor State Park Florida Inland Navigation District Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Jupiter Inlet District Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program St. Johns River Water Management District

PAGE 67

57 Tampa Bay Estuary Program Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council West Florida Regional Planning Council Non-Governmental Organizations (Assistant Vice President, Chief Scientist, Director, Environmental Scientist, Executive Director, Ex pedition Leader, Government Affairs Chair, Instructor, Marine Educator, Marine Wildlife Program Manager, Outreach Director, Policy Director, President, Program Coordinator, Public Programs Coordinator, Re search Director, Staff Biologist, Staff Scientist, Webmaster): Audubon of Florida Boat Owners Association of the United States Charlotte Marine Research Team Earth 911 Inwater Research Group Mote Marine Laboratory Reef Research Team Save the Manatee Club Southeastern Fisheries Association Standing Watch Tampa Bay Watch The Ocean Conservancy Volunteer Scientific Research Municipal and County Elected Officials (Commissioner, Council Member, Mayor, ViceMayor, Mayor): Bay County Commission Brevard County City of Atlantic Beach City of Daytona Beach City of Dunedin City of Key West City of Miami Beach Okaloosa County Town of Jupiter Town of Melbourne Beach Marine Industry (Captain, Director, Executive Director, General Manager, Owner, President): Boat Works (Inc.) Charter Boat Company Directed Shark Fisheries Guided Tours Company Marine Industries A ssociation of Florida MarineMax Research Group

PAGE 68

58 Royal Caribbean Cruises Titusville Municipal Marina Federal (District Conservationist, Information T echnology Manager, Science Coordinator): USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Administration (NOAA) NOAA Coastal Services Center U.S. Geological Survey Private Consulting (Director, President, Senior Scientist): Coastal Engineering Environmental Services Marketing K-12 Education (Associate Director, Educator, Teacher, Science Department Chairman): Charlotte County Public Schools Durant High School Florida Space Grant Consortium Forest Lakes Elementary School Manatee County Schools Print Media (Environmental Reporter, Outdoors Editor, President): Due to the limited number of respondents in th is category, the partic ipating organizations are unidentified to preserve confidentiality.