• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Tables and figures
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Conclusions
 References
 Appendix
 Appendix A: Florida county artificial...
 Appendix B & C: General reef program...
 Appendix B & C: General reef program...
 Appendix D. Number and education...
 Appendix E: Job classifications...
 Appendix F & G. Physical conditions...
 Appendix H. Chemical - biological...
 Appendix I. Computer processing...
 Appendix J & K. Local reef monitoring...
 Appendix M. Summary of 35 Florida...
 Appendix N. Summary of statement...






Group Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant College Program ; no. 69
Title: Artificial reef evaluation capabilities of Florida counties
CITATION PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076612/00001
 Material Information
Title: Artificial reef evaluation capabilities of Florida counties
Series Title: Technical paper
Physical Description: vii, 93 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Halusky, Joseph G
Antonini, Gustavo A
Seaman, William, 1945-
Publisher: Florida Sea Grant College Program, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
Publication Date: 1993
 Subjects
Subject: Artificial reefs -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Fish habitat improvement -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 35).
Statement of Responsibility: Joseph G. Halusky, Gustavo A. Antonini and William Seaman, Jr.
General Note: "April 1993."
General Note: "Florida Department of Natural Resources Project Number R/FDNR- 4."
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076612
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 29622664

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

UF00076612 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    Tables and figures
        Unnumbered ( 6 )
        Unnumbered ( 7 )
        Unnumbered ( 8 )
        Unnumbered ( 9 )
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Methods
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Results
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Data collection, monitoring & laboratory capability
            Page 8
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
        Data management, archiving, GIS system, quality assurance (QA) & quality control (QC)
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 13
        Data distribution & reporting
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 16
        Reef assessment needs priorities
            Page 19
            Page 18
            Page 20
            Page 21
        Expectations from state agencies & academic institutions - discussion
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
    Conclusions
        Page 34
        Page 35
    References
        Page 35
    Appendix
        Page 36
    Appendix A: Florida county artificial reef assessemtn capabilities survey
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
    Appendix B & C: General reef program information
        Page 44
    Appendix B & C: General reef program information
        Page 45
    Appendix D. Number and education of reef personnel
        Page 46
    Appendix E: Job classifications of reef personnel
        Page 47
    Appendix F & G. Physical conditions observed at reef
        Page 48
        Page 49
    Appendix H. Chemical - biological conditions observed at reef and access to laboratory
        Page 50
    Appendix I. Computer processing capabilities
        Page 51
    Appendix J & K. Local reef monitoring and data management capability parameters
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    Appendix M. Summary of 35 Florida coastal county artificial reef performance assessment capability...
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    Appendix N. Summary of statement by county
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
Full Text
Apil 93T






mru
FL'(IJAS-iGAT CLEEPOGA
Cu w 4,10A
MOO







Artificial Reef Evaluation Capabilities of Florida Counties


Joseph G. Halusky, Gustavo A. Antonini
and William Seaman, Jr.



Marine Extension Agent for Nassau, Duval, St. Johns,
Putnam, Clay and Flagler Counties, FL; Professor, Department of
Geography, University of Florida, Gainesville; Associate
Director, Florida Sea Grant College Program, University
of Florida, Gainesville, respectively.








Florida Department of Natural Resources
Project Number R/FDNR-4




To order this publication write or call:
Florida Sea Grant College Program
University of Florida
P.O. Box 110409 Building 803
Gainesville, FL 32611-0409
904-392-2801




$3.00




Technical Paper No. 69


April 1993












TABLE OF CONTENTS



Introduction ............................................................ 1

M ethodology ........................................................... .1

R results .... .... .. .. .... .... .... .... ........ .... ... .... ....... .... .. .2

1. General County Program Information ........................................ 2

Years of O operation .............................................. .... 4

2. Data Collection, Monitoring & Laboratory Capability ............................. 8

Level of Operation .................................................. 8

Observation Frequency ............................................... 8

Number of Placements Monitored ....................................... 9

Personnel and Qualifications ........................................... 9

Data Sources, Methods and Ability to Use Vessels ............................ 9

Site Selection and Documentation Procedures ............................... 12

Param eters Observed ................................................. 12

Laboratory Facilities ................................................. 13

3. Data Management, Archiving, GIS System, Quality
Assurance (QA) & Quality Control (QC). .................................. 13

QA/QC Program and Standardized Reporting Forms ........................... 13

Archiving Methods & Software Used ..................................... 13

Geographic Information System (GIS) .................................... 16

4. Data Distribution & Reporting ............................................. 16

Reporting Frequency ................................................. 18


iii









Audience ...............


Dissemination


5. Reef Assessment Needs Priorities .............


Interview Summaries Needs Priorities ......


6. Expectations from State Agencies & Academic
Institutions Discussion ................


State Agencies Expectations .............


Academic Institutions Expectations .........


Additional Concerns ...................


County Capabilities, Summary and Conclusion


County Reef Program Regions ............


County Capability for Evaluating Artificial Reef


Conclusions ..............................


References Cited ..........................


A ppendices ..............................


. . . .


. . . .


. . . .





. . . .





Performance


. . . .


. . . .


. . ..


.......................


..o.....o.


. . . .


. . . .






TABLES AND FIGURES


TABLES

1. County Reef Monitoring and Assessment Range and Scale
of Operation Data Collection Frequency ................................... 6

2. Reef Data Sources and Field Methods ........................................ 7

3. Field Data Collection Formats, Quality Control, Vessel
Siting Markers .................................................... .11

4. Reef Data Archiving Capabilities Paper, Video,
Specimens & Computer ............................................... 17

5. Reporting and Dissemination of Reef Information
to Public and Officials ............................................... 19

6. County Top Three Reef Program Priorities .................................... 20

7. Weight Ranked Scores (%) for Ranking Counties' Artificial
Reef Program Priorities ................................................ 21

8. County Expectations for State Assistance for Data Management,
Data Quality and Information Sharing ................................... 23

9. County Expectations for Academic Assistance for Access,
Training and Studies ........................................ ........ 28

10. Comparison of Six Florida Geographic Regions based on
Artificial Reef Depth and Distance Offshore ................................. 32


FIGURES


1. Map of Florida Coastal Counties Surveyed and Interviewed ........................ 3

2. Years of Operation of County Reef Program .................................. 5







3. Number of Reef Staff in Coastal Counties ...................................

4. Data Storage Capabilities by Paper Files, Still Photography and Video,
Specimens and Computer Files as a Percentage of Florida's
Local Programs ................... .................................

5. Computer Processing Capability by Type of Software as a Percentage
of Local Programs ..................................................

6. Map of Coastal Counties Having Current and Potential GIS Capability ...............

7. Chart of Weighted Ranked Scores (%) for Counties' Top Artificial
Reef Program Priorities ..............................................

8. Reef Management Regions Map ..........................................


.14




. 15



24

.25



26

. 31


APPENDICES


Survey Instrum ent ...........................................

General Reef Program Information Reef Office Addresses ...............

General Reef Program Information Length and Type of Reef Building Program,
Contact Person Surveyed and Local Responsible Office ..................

Number and Education Level of Reef Personnel .......................

Job Classification(s) or Title(s) of Reef Personnel ......................

Physical Conditions Observed at Reef, Weather and Sea Conditions .........

Physical Conditions Observed at Reef, Water Descriptions ................

Chemical-Biological Conditions Observed at Reef and Access to Laboratory ...

Computer Processing Capabilities, Software and Compatibility .............

Local Reef Monitoring and Data Management Capability Parameters Required
or Required with Additional Information ..........................


......... 37

......... 44



......... 45

......... 46

......... 47

......... 48

......... 49

......... 50

......... 50



......... 52








K. Local Reef Monitoring and Data Management Capability Parameters Post
Deployment and Monitoring .....................................

L Local Reef Monitoring and Data Management Capability Parameters Lab
Access, Vessels, Computers ......................................

M. County Summary of Florida Coastal County Artificial Reef Performance Assessment
Capability Personnel, Data Management, Capabilities and Limitations .......

N. Summary of Statements by County based on Written Survey and Interviews: ......

Top Assessment Needs .........................................

Expectation form the State .......................................

A cadem ics ..................................................

Additional Concerns ...........................................


...... 53



...... 54



...... 55

...... 75

...... 76

...... 80

...... 85

...... 89














Artificial Reef Evaluation Capabilities
of Florida Counties


INTRODUCTION

Florida's coastal county artificial reef sampling and data management programs
are surveyed in this report. The survey describes the county level capability for artificial
reef documentation and performance assessment based on their needs, interests,
organizational structure and "in-situ" data collection and data management techniques.
The. primary purpose of this study is to describe what staffing, training, techniques,
organizational procedures and equipment are used by the coastal counties to establish
local reef assessment projects, if they have such an effort. This information is necessary
to help determine the feasibility of implementing standards of data quality assurance and
control for a state reef database with information provided by local reef managers.

METHODS

This material represents new information obtained from mail surveys and
personal contacts with Florida's 35 coastal counties (see Figure 1). Interviews by the
senior author with 37 persons, associated with 21 county reef programs, were held
between October 1991 and March 1992. Visits included a cross section of counties
having different levels of reef development effort. The range included a county having a
single "citizen volunteer" who administered all aspects of reef construction, fund raising,
documentation and reporting, to Sea Grant Agents, and counties having full-time "reef
coordinatorss" working with their own equipment and staff. Some cities that were
building reefs were not addressed except in the context of their county reef program.
For example, the City of Fernandina Beach, administers the Nassau County reef program
so it is described as a county program.

In October 1991 the survey (Appendix A) was mailed to all 30 of Florida's coastal
counties (Figure 1) having reef coordinators or involved citizens. The contact list was
provided in Florida Sea Grant's Pybas survey (1991), the Sea Grant Office at the
University of Florida and by Florida Department of Natural Resources Artificial Reef
Office. Follow-up phone calls or direct contact resulted in a 100% accounting for all 35
coastal counties (including the five which had no reef programs, See Figure 1). Between
January and March 1992, the field visitations by J. Halusky, who interviewed reef
managers, citizens or Sea Grant Agents in 21 counties verified the accuracy of most of
the written surveys. Personal interviews were located in southwest Florida (Lee,
Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough), south-east Florida (Dade, Broward, Palm
Beach, Martin, St. Lucie), the panhandle counties (Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa,











Artificial Reef Evaluation Capabilities
of Florida Counties


INTRODUCTION

Florida's coastal county artificial reef sampling and data management programs
are surveyed in this report. The survey describes the county level capability for artificial
reef documentation and performance assessment based on their needs, interests,
organizational structure and "in-situ" data collection and data management techniques.
The. primary purpose of this study is to describe what staffing, training, techniques,
organizational procedures and equipment are used by the coastal counties to establish
local reef assessment projects, if they have such an effort. This information is necessary
to help determine the feasibility of implementing standards of data quality assurance and
control for a state reef database with information provided by local reef managers.

METHODS

This material represents new information obtained from mail surveys and
personal contacts with Florida's 35 coastal counties (see Figure 1). Interviews by the
senior author with 37 persons, associated with 21 county reef programs, were held
between October 1991 and March 1992. Visits included a cross section of counties
having different levels of reef development effort. The range included a county having a
single "citizen volunteer" who administered all aspects of reef construction, fund raising,
documentation and reporting, to Sea Grant Agents, and counties having full-time "reef
coordinatorss" working with their own equipment and staff. Some cities that were
building reefs were not addressed except in the context of their county reef program.
For example, the City of Fernandina Beach, administers the Nassau County reef program
so it is described as a county program.

In October 1991 the survey (Appendix A) was mailed to all 30 of Florida's coastal
counties (Figure 1) having reef coordinators or involved citizens. The contact list was
provided in Florida Sea Grant's Pybas survey (1991), the Sea Grant Office at the
University of Florida and by Florida Department of Natural Resources Artificial Reef
Office. Follow-up phone calls or direct contact resulted in a 100% accounting for all 35
coastal counties (including the five which had no reef programs, See Figure 1). Between
January and March 1992, the field visitations by J. Halusky, who interviewed reef
managers, citizens or Sea Grant Agents in 21 counties verified the accuracy of most of
the written surveys. Personal interviews were located in southwest Florida (Lee,
Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough), south-east Florida (Dade, Broward, Palm
Beach, Martin, St. Lucie), the panhandle counties (Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa,








Bay, Gulf, Franklin, Wakulla, Taylor), and the north-east Florida counties (Nassau,
Duval, St. Johns). Interview results are summarized in the Appendices M and N. No
attempt was made to interview all 30 county reef managers.

Descriptions of county reef monitoring and assessment capability are based on
survey and interview responses about their ability to document the reef location and to
field sample physical, chemical and biological parameters. It is also based on
information collected, about their ability to implement techniques for data quality
control, data management and storage and how they disseminated information to
officials and the public. The organization and staffing of county reef programs was also
investigated. Appendix B through N list the contact persons surveyed, and summarize
their responses.

The seven page, 30 question survey document (Appendix A) contained 127
possible data parameters. Major pieces of information included: the key contact
personss, addresses, their agency or affiliation; whether or not they have a reef program
and a public office; how do they actually collect data from their reefs; how do they
locate them; what physical and biological data do they collect; how and where do they
file reef information; how do they report it to officials and the public; do they use
procedures for data quality assurance and control (a QA/QC program, See USEPA 1980
and USEPA 1988); do they use or have access to a GIS (Geographic Information
System) and what are their priority concerns, expectations from the state agencies, and
the academic institutions.

The original "raw data" are not included in this report. Data from the original
surveys was coded on computer spreadsheets for summary and analysis. These are
presented in Appendix B through M. Direct quotes and paraphrased statements from
interviews by the senior author are included in Appendix N. These should provide the
reader with insights about reef assessment and data management issues and concerns,
which are not apparent from the tabulated survey data.


RESULTS

Presentation of findings in this section are divided into six categories.


1. General County Program Information

A Florida map showing the general locations of permitted reefs (See Pybas, 1991)
might suggest that all but two counties (Flagler and Indian River) should have a reef
construction program. However, only 30 of the 35 counties (See Figure 1) were found to
actually have or have had, artificial reef construction activity. In some cases, such as in
Walton and Dixie counties, they have reefs off their shores which have been built by








Bay, Gulf, Franklin, Wakulla, Taylor), and the north-east Florida counties (Nassau,
Duval, St. Johns). Interview results are summarized in the Appendices M and N. No
attempt was made to interview all 30 county reef managers.

Descriptions of county reef monitoring and assessment capability are based on
survey and interview responses about their ability to document the reef location and to
field sample physical, chemical and biological parameters. It is also based on
information collected, about their ability to implement techniques for data quality
control, data management and storage and how they disseminated information to
officials and the public. The organization and staffing of county reef programs was also
investigated. Appendix B through N list the contact persons surveyed, and summarize
their responses.

The seven page, 30 question survey document (Appendix A) contained 127
possible data parameters. Major pieces of information included: the key contact
personss, addresses, their agency or affiliation; whether or not they have a reef program
and a public office; how do they actually collect data from their reefs; how do they
locate them; what physical and biological data do they collect; how and where do they
file reef information; how do they report it to officials and the public; do they use
procedures for data quality assurance and control (a QA/QC program, See USEPA 1980
and USEPA 1988); do they use or have access to a GIS (Geographic Information
System) and what are their priority concerns, expectations from the state agencies, and
the academic institutions.

The original "raw data" are not included in this report. Data from the original
surveys was coded on computer spreadsheets for summary and analysis. These are
presented in Appendix B through M. Direct quotes and paraphrased statements from
interviews by the senior author are included in Appendix N. These should provide the
reader with insights about reef assessment and data management issues and concerns,
which are not apparent from the tabulated survey data.


RESULTS

Presentation of findings in this section are divided into six categories.


1. General County Program Information

A Florida map showing the general locations of permitted reefs (See Pybas, 1991)
might suggest that all but two counties (Flagler and Indian River) should have a reef
construction program. However, only 30 of the 35 counties (See Figure 1) were found to
actually have or have had, artificial reef construction activity. In some cases, such as in
Walton and Dixie counties, they have reefs off their shores which have been built by





















Escambia
Santa Rosa
Okaloosa
Walton
Bay
Gulf
Franklin
Wakulla
Jefferson
Taylor
Dixie
Levy
Citrus
Hernando
Pasco
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Manatee


Sarasota
Charlotte
Lee
Collier
Monroe
Dade
Broward t
Palm Beach
Martin
St. Lucie
Indian River
Brevard
Volusia
Flagler
St. Johns
Duval
Nassau


* Indicates personal interview with reef representatives (see Appendix C)
ED No reef program active at time of survey.


Figure 1. Florida Coastal Counties: Artificial Reef Assessment Capabilities
Survey.








programs in adjacent counties. In the other three, Jefferson, Indian River and Flagler
counties, there is no inlet providing access to the sea, thus no reef construction activity.

Lists of the 30 county offices and contacts having reef management programs are
found in Appendix B and C. The list does not include all persons interviewed, but only
the primary county reef representative. They were asked to estimate how long their reef
program has been active, and comment on the amount or type of program involvement
they have.

The amount of program involvement was defined by three categories, or
combinations: "Special Office" counties having a designated reef office, complete with
salaried staff and space for files and office equipment; "Added Task" indicating that no
special office was designated for reef work, but that it was added as an additional duty
for some salaried staff memberss; "Volunteers" indicating that the county depended
on volunteers) working either exclusively, or in cooperation with county staff. Appendix
C lists the "Type of Program", "Contact Person and official name of the "Program Office"
involved with reef activity.

It is significant that individuals representing three (Hillsborough, Levy & Pinellas)
of the thirty counties responded that they have "Special Office's" designated for reef
work. It should be noted that the Levy County reef office, is not located in the county,
but is a special research project from the University of Florida, Department of Fisheries
and Aquaculture, which is, in-effect, the established county reef program. Dade and
Broward Counties responded that their "reef office" had other duties, even though the
majority of their responsibilities were reef related. Broward's reef program, for example,
was related to beach renourishment projects, turtle nesting, etc., having multiple roles,
and not "exclusive" to artificial reef activities. Most counties (22 of the 30, including
Broward and Dade) have offices in which reef duties are an "Added Task" with
volunteers (6) or without volunteers (16). Over three-fourths (23) of the 30 counties
indicated they receive some data from volunteers in their programs (Table 2). Some
county reef programs, (5 counties) are run solely by volunteers.

Years of operation.

Appendix C and Figure 2 summarize the length of time the counties have had a
reef building program. Charlotte, Dade, Duval, Sarasota and Wakulla have had
programs for over 20 years. Nineteen (63%) of the of the 30 counties have had
programs for 10 or more years, the remaining 11, (37%) less than 10 years. Generally,
Florida's county reef building efforts can be considered older programs. Of course, the
number of years in operation does not necessarily reflect the size or complexity of their
program, but is evidence for their ability to continue long-term construction efforts.


I





10-19
> 20


Figure 2. Years of Operation of County Reef Programs.


<5
5-9


9~i
~osSQ~~ PI














TABLE V~ REEF MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT


St. L.ucie Y
Ta y4or Y


Y
Y


Y


Y
y


Simllllk
Simple


Modri.ile


SI1nadical Ily

Se Nimuil.nually
Sporadically


2
8
6


Volusil
Wa Lku l


Y


1~:


RANGE OF OPERATION
ONLY PERMIT PR AND SOME DETAILED SITE POST- EXTENSIVE POST- LONG-TERM SCALE OF COLLECTION # OF PLACEMENTS
COUNTY REQUIRED (PR) ADDITIONAL SELECTION DEPLOYMENT I)EPLOYMIINT MONITORING OPERATION FREQUENCY MONITORED


Bay Y Y Y Y Simple Sporadically 5
Brevard Y Simple 0
Broward Y Simpke 7
Charlotte Y Simple Sporadically 3
Citrus Y Y Simple Annually 1
Collier Y Simple Semiannually 10
Dade Y Y Y Moderate Monthly 5
Dual Y Y Y Y Y Moderate Quarterly 4
Esca mbia Y Simple Sporadically 0
Franklin Y Y Y Y Moderate Monthly I
Gulf Y Y Simple Monthly 9
Ilernando Y Y Simple Annually 2
Ilillsborough Y Y Y Y Y Moderate Quarterly 6
Lee Y Y Moderate Bimonthly 1
Levy Y Y Y Y Moderate Semiannually 48
Manatee Y Simple Sporadically 5
Martin Y Y Y Y Y Moderate Monthly 2
Monroe Simple 0
Nassau Y Y Y Simple Sporadically 5
Okaloosa Simple 0
Palm each Y Y Y Y Y Moderate Semiannually 2
Pasco Y Simple Annually 2
Pincllas Y Y Y Y Moderate Monthly 12
Santa Rosa Y __Simple Sporadically I
Sarasota Y Simple Sporadically 37
St.Johns Y y Y y Simple Sp)ladically 3














TABLE 2. REEF DATA SOURCES AND PERMITTED SITE LOCATING METHOD


OTHER SOURC SS


NI DIVIDU L DOCU F


I ILJL./1Vl 1 J,.J V 1 I LI\ .I U|\tl )l O 11 I I/ IL-VI Ilt L./ '..l ,VUIIl.lI1 lII I Lfrl^4- I LY,: 1I
COUNTY SCUBA SHIP CENSUS AERIAL CONSUITANTS VOLUNIEHRS GOVT OFFICIAL CAPTAIN VOLUNTEER OTHER
Bay Y Y Y Y
Brevard Y Y Y Y Y
Broward Y Y Y
Charlotte Y Y Y Y
Citrus Y Y
Collier Y Y Y
Dade Y Y Y Y
Duval Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Escambia Y Y Y Y
Franklin Y Y Y Y
Gulf Y Y Y Y Y FMP, Cry. Reef Caordinator
Hemando Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Hillsborough Y Y
Lee Y Y Y Y Y
Levy Y Y UF Researchers
Manatee Y y Y Y Y Sea Grant Agent
Martin Y Y Y Y Y Y
Monroe Y Y Y
Nassau Y Y Y Y Y
Okaloosa Y Y
Palm Beach Y Y Y Y
Pasco Y Y Y Y Y
Pinellas Y Y Y Y Y
Santa Rosa Y Y Y Y
Sarasota Y Y Y Y Y
St. Johns Y Y Y Y Y Y
St. Lucie Y Y Y Y Y
Taylor Y Y Y Sea Grant Agent
Volusia Y Y Y
Waku Ila Y Y Y Y Y Y


EIF LD M ITHODS








2. Data Collection, Monitoring & Laboratory Capability.


Level of Operation.

Survey respondents were asked to subjectively describe the level of sophistication
of their county's assessment or monitoring program. Four responses were possible:
simple program; moderate program; sophisticated program or no response which might
indicate "no program" or an "I don't know." Table 1 "Scale of Operation" shows that
63% felt they had a "Simple" reef assessment and monitoring program, and 37% a
"Moderate" program. Interestingly, none felt they had a "Sophisticated" program. All 30
did respond positively, implying they felt they had some reef assessment capability.

Observation Frequency.

How frequently reef data were gathered was determined by Question 4 (See
Appendix A) asking if information was collected for:

Detailed Site Selection -- site selection involving an actual visit to the bottom by
divers and/or fathometer surveys by boat before deployment;

Only Permit Required Data -- information required to fulfill the reef permit
specifications;

Permit Required and Some Additional Data -- minimum permit information
required with some additional information from divers, fishermen, etc. at or
shortly after time of deployment;

Post-deployment Data -- any follow up data collected after the initial deployment
documentation, such as fish surveys, reef scatter maps;

Extensive Post Deployment Data and Long-term Post Deployment Data -- any
regular mapping, physical and/or biological sampling of the reef (more than once)
after deployment.

Table 1 summary of their responses under the heading "Range of Operations"
clearly indicated that 83% (25 out of the 30) said they collected information beyond what
was required by the permit. Forty percent (40%) indicated they had "Extensive Post
Deployment" and 20% said they had "Long-term Monitoring" operations. These were
counties who indicated they had either hired reef managers, well organized volunteers or
an intensive research program such as Levy. Levy county, incidentally, monitors the
largest number of reefs (48) of any county.

"Collection Frequency" (Table 1) reveals how often county reefs are reported to
be monitored. The variety of answers, some numeric, some just a single word response,








(Appendix A, survey question No. 4h.) were coded into six possible classes; Sporadically,
Annually, Semiannually, Quarterly, Monthly and Bimonthly. Ten (10) counties (30%)
indicated they gathered data "Sporadically" and 8 (26.6%) said they gathered information
monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly. Seven counties (23.3%) said they gathered data semi-
annually or annually. Five had no response.

Number of Placements Monitored.

Nearly two-thirds of the counties monitor less than five placements (Table 1).
Only three counties monitor more than 10 (Levy, Pinellas and Sarasota). The
respondents use of the term "monitoring" in this question should not imply their reefs
were sampled more than once, or on a regular or systematic basis, as the word often
implies. This was verified during interviews when it was discovered that "monitoring"
frequently was defined as a single visitation to a site, sometime after initial placement,
just to see if it was still there. Counties having hired reef coordinators and staff
biologists or experienced volunteer reef research teams as Duval, St. Johns, Volusia and
Wakulla indicated they "monitored" select reefs on a regular basis.

Personnel and Qualifications.

The number and qualifications of county personnel involved in reef assessment,
even if as a part-time duty, provides a good indicator of a counties interest and capability
for reef research. Figure 3 provides such a picture of Florida's local reef programs.
Slightly over 40% had only one person, and 30% of the counties had more than one
person (even if both are part time) involved. In fact, six had more than two persons, and
three of these (Pinellas, Lee, Dade) had more than four persons involved in reef
assessment. Six counties indicated they had no county staff people involved in reef
programs, at all. Yet, one of these, Levy, has a very comprehensive monitoring effort as
a result of a University of Florida research program. Appendix C and D is a table
summary of each counties reef personnel, listing their level of education and Appendix E
their job classification by title. Most are involved in county environmental offices as
engineering, planning and zoning, ports authorities, safety and recreation departments.
One senior official is the county administrator (Okaloosa) who has taken personal
interest and responsibility for the reef program.

Data Sources, Methods and Ability to use Vessels.

The most valid assessment of a county's capability for reef documentation is by
investigating their "Field Methods" and who performs them. "Field Methods" used in this
survey is defined as those procedures used to document the reef site or placement at its
geographic location. Such procedures as site selection and mapping, water sampling,
sediment sampling, biological inventory, photography and remote sensing from vessels)
and/or divers are included. Gathering field data from artificial reefs requires the ability
to work at sea, perhaps underwater, or from aircraft. It is possible to document some








aspects of reef performance strictly from the land base, by inventorying reef materials,
before transportation to the construction site, or from creel census of fish at the dock.

"Reef Data Sources" are summarized in Table 2. All counties indicated they use
field methods, including SCUBA diving, to gather information about their reefs. Four
counties (Duval, Franklin, Martin, Wakulla) indicated they have conducted creel census
at the dock. Three counties (Broward, Hernando, St. Lucie) have used aerial data from
reef sites. Eight counties indicated they have used consultants to study their reefs, but
review of the survey data and the interview notes strongly suggests that consultant data
are not the sole source of their reef database. Usually the consultants are used for
special one-of-a-kind projects.

The survey (Table 2) indicated that volunteers in 23 of the 30 counties, were used
to.gather data. Only three (North East Florida, Organization of Artificial Reefs in
Tallahassee, and Florida Oceanographic Society) "Reef Research Diver" training
programs, modeled after the Sea Grant Extension Program, have been held in Florida.
Most of the programs, who indicated they used volunteers, did not indicate their level of
training and experience in underwater research methods.

Documentation of reef placement was verified by local government officials) in
14 counties, by a vessel Captain in 7 counties and by volunteers in 10 counties. Ten
counties did not indicate who verifies reef placement. One of these, Levy, has reef
placement verified by the University of Florida research project investigators.

Another indicator of a county's ability to document field data is the use any
"Standardized Field Data Forums". In Table 3 only ten (33%) counties indicated they
used "Standard Field Data Forums" for reef data. When asked if they practiced any data
quality control efforts, thirteen (43%) indicated they had some form of quality control
program, nine (30%) recognized they had none, and eight (27%) had no answer. Follow
up interviews revealed several interpretations of the meaning of "Data Quality Control"
were made. Generally, "data quality control" was interpreted to mean "just looking over
the data, and cleaning it up before filing it." This usually meant transcribing field notes
onto a blank sheet of paper. Some counties actually summarized their data on computer
spreadsheets, computer databases or word processors, using a simple form. For a few
counties, quality control procedures consisted of review of the information for obvious
errors, followed up by verification of questionable data with the person who gathered it.

Finally, the ability to get to the reef site at sea is perhaps the most significant
factor limiting a reef assessment program. Ownership of a seaworthy vessel, assures the
ability of frequent and timely sampling of reef sites. All but one (Taylor) have access to
vessels which are either county or privately owned with time donated or chartered.
Table 3 summarizes county and/or volunteer vessel access. Thirteen counties (43%)
indicate they own vessels and can use them for reef assessment either full time or on a
limited basis. Many were small vessels, operated by the law enforcement or rescue










Table 3.
Field Data Collection Formats, Quality Control, Vessels and Siting Markers
Siting Markers: C2Center; C & C a Center & Comers; CNS u Centerline & North & South; CO = Comers; E a Ends

County Standard Format Quality Control Vessels Vessels Siting
County Volunteer Markers

Bay No No 0 1 C

Brevard No --- 1 0 C

Broward No Yes 1 0 C

Charlotte No No 1 0 C

Citrus No No 0 1 CO

Collier No No 1 0 CO

Dade No No 3 0 C & C

Duval Yes Yes 0 3 C

Escambla No Yes 0 1 C

Franklin Yes Yes 0 1 C &C

Gulf No --- 0 1 C&C

Hemando No --- 2 0 C

Hillsborough Yes No 1 0 C & C

Lee Yes Yes 1 0 C

Levy Yes Yes 0 2 C

Manatee No No 0 1 C

Martin Yes --- 0 2 CO

Monroe No --- 0 1 ---

Nassau Yes Yes 0 1 C &C

Okaloosa No --- 0 0 C

Palm Beach Yes Yes 1 0 CO

Pasco No --- 1 0 E

Pinellas Yes Yes 2 0 CNS

Santa Rosa No --- 1 0 C

Sarasota No Yes 1 0 C

St Johns No Yes 0 1 C

St Lucle No No 0 1 C&C

Taylor No No 0 0 C

Volusla Yes Yes 0 1 C

Wakula --- Yes 0 1 ---








services in the county. These were not always available for a regular monitoring
programs. In some counties, where privately owned vessels were used (50% of the
counties), they were usually larger charter fishing or diving vessels, well maintained,
equipped and authorized by U.S. Coast Guard to carry passengers, including divers.

Site Selection and Documentation Procedures.

The reef site or placement in the permitted area is usually geographically located
by using Loran C (an electronic navigation system which computes radio signal time
delays [TD's] then computes TD's to Latitude and Longitude. A more accurate GPS
(Global Positioning System of satellites) that is becoming more available, was not widely
used at the time of this survey.

Reef managers were asked if they located or marked their permitted sites by just
the center location, the location of one end, location of the four covers or some
combination. Table 3 lists by county the preferred method used. The majority (16 of
30) identified the site by marking the center of the reef. Second most used (6 of 30) was
by location of reef centers and covers. Four indicated they used corners only. Only one
used one end of the reef and one used a centerline from north to south to locate the
reef.

Parameters Observed.

The survey asked for a listing of reef data parameters collected. These results are
tabulated in Appendix F, G, and H. Generally, most indicated they collected water
description data (Visibility, Sea State, Depth, Current, Temperature) which did not
require much instrumentation, or lab analysis. Data requiring complicated field
techniques, instrumentation or lab analysis, such as Sediment Depth, Coarseness, Reef
Profile or Scatter, and Chemical Analysis, were taken by less than 10 counties.

Biological surveys (Appendix H) including Fish Counts, Visible Growth, and
Benthic Organisms were reported taken by less than one-third of the counties. Half of
the counties did report they had reef Fish Species Lists, but during interviews, most were
found to be from informal fishing reports, with no verification of species identification
and were not from actual systematic survey effort. Because so few programs use
standardized data sheets and so few have received training to identify Florida's marine
species, the reliability of this information is questionable.

Underwater photographic capability was assessed based on interview remarks.
Generally, most counties who reported using volunteer or staff SCUBA Divers felt they
had access to still camera underwater photography and a few even reported having
access to video (Figure 4 and Appendix M). Most felt underwater photography was not
a limiting factor on their ability to document reef structure.








Laboratory Facilities.


Access to local laboratories provides the ability to treat samples recovered from
the reefs. This is necessary when certain data parameters cannot be analyzed at sea.
Chemical analysis, specimen preparation, and map making require access to laboratory
procedures. Appendix H indicates only one-third of the county staff indicate they have
access to laboratories. In some counties, such as Duval and St. Johns where volunteers
are sampling reefs, they are actually using private laboratories located on university
campuses. Realistically, all 30 counties could use laboratories found within the high-
school systems biology and chemistry classes, if the school system would agree work with
such an effort.


3. Data Management, Archiving, GIS System, Quality Assurance (QA) & Quality
Control (QC).

QA/QC Program and Standardized reporting forms.

Data Management and a QA/QC program begins in the field, at the initial point
of data collection. It begins with a planned procedure and specific data parameters
identified, usually on some standardized data sheet. Table 3 reveals that 10 counties
have standardized data collection formats which serve to indicate if even the simplest
QA/QC program exists. A complete QA/QC plan, according to the Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA, 1980 and USEPA, 1988), has 16 major elements in the
written plan. These briefly include: 1. Title; 2. Contents; 3. Project Description; 4.
Organization Chart; 5. QA Objectives; 6. Sampling Procedures; 7. Sample Custody; 8.
Calibration Procedures; 9. Analytical Procedures; 10. Data Reduction; 11. Internal QC
Checks; 12. Performance Audits; 13. Preventative Maintenance; 14. Routine Precision
& Accuracy Checks; 15. Corrective Action and 16. QA reports.

Thirteen counties (See Table 3) indicated they had practiced Data Quality
Control. No county was found to have
even a basic outline of a written QA/QC plan. Only two volunteer groups, Duval
County and the OAR (Organization for Artificial Reefs) had written and some
standardization of sampling procedures, forming the beginning of a QA/QC program.
Based on interviews "Quality Control" was generally interpreted by those surveyed to
mean that some knowledgeable individual would look over the field data to assure
completeness and accuracy, before filing it. In very few cases, was their any notation
that "calibrated" field instruments (thermometers, for example) were used or if data
reduction and screening were practiced.

Archiving Methods & Software Used.

The second phase of data management is the method for storing and retrieving






















































S1 2 3 5 7

NUMBER OF REEF STAFF IN LOCAL PROGRAMS


Figure 3.


Number of Personnel


Mar
acwvazd
zzLvazd
Cuaxotwe

colliet
Dade
Duvil

rsnklin
Qult
znanUl4n
Hillbezrough
Lee
L*wy
MLnree


NasU&U
Okalooe
Palm B*ach
Ptasc






Taylor
Volusis
wakulla
ae. Jehn
sC. Luai

voluia
walull*


~WBI~BB~BB
aaa~aa~lsaarrs~a~llla~~


~LI




~as~8~a



~s~as
~s~8lr~8~e~
~s~i~ao~s~
a~l~a;lsls~sssssss~Bassssei
rs~aslaaanasmss~Bs~88aaa~B~~

8~m~8~as~ar
8a~aa~rarsla~

laas~s~ssss~ss~
rss~BBa~8~s~s~sw
sla~a~sarsnssnanssa~s~w~sssse


Islasllrra~rNNE=a


BB~lrsssrsasasss~s]8gls~lss~e~~


















.0 -
10 -







S "70






O SO
o -o --




0
4 0










26
10
0








PAPER / V3WWCL1pS STILL PH SPECIES ?
VID9o CoWVSXm
STORAGE TYPE


Figure 4. Data Storage Capabilities








the data from the data file or archives. While only one-third of the coastal counties
indicated they use "Standardized Field Data Forms", 90% maintain some type of paper
data storage file in the county (Fig. 4). These include written reports, contracts and
grant applications & awards, maps, photographs taken on the surface or underwater and
news clippings. Storage facilities usually consisted of file cabinets, or cardboard boxes of
files. One county's complete reef data file was observed, during a personal interview, to
be stored in four cardboard boxes in the place of business of a dedicated volunteer. No
standardized data management systems were found or identified, with the exception of
those counties having official reef offices, or formally trained reef research volunteer
groups who established "Archives" in locations accessible to the public.

Surprisingly, 16 counties (Table 4) reported having video tapes of their reefs, in
their files. Most were the result of special news features, made by local commercial TV
Stations and some were made by local reef researchers. Nine (9) counties reported
having "Specimens" of biological and physical samples from their reef. Fourteen counties
reported having some reef data on computer (Table 4 and Figure 4). Figure 5 and
Appendix I shows that the Computerized Data was stored either on "Wordprocessing"
(14 counties) or "Spreadsheet" (12 counties) software programs. "Data-Based
Management" software was used in Duval County. Approximately 40% indicated they
were using "IBM Compatible" Programs, and the remaining 60% either did not respond,
or did not know what computer systems were being used.
Geographic Information System Use.

Many county planning departments as well as resource management agencies are
using computerized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to portray their land use
management data. This system keys all data to a geographic location by latitude and
longitude number which significantly improves map-making ability. The survey requested
information about county GIS capability, regardless if it was available for reef data.
Figure 6 shows which counties currently use GIS for county planning, coastal information
or reef data, and which are developing this capability. Four indicated they are currently
using GIS for marine data, and 12 are developing this potential. Most reef managers,
who were interviewed, expressed great interest in using GIS for its ability to draw
accurate reef placement maps and to graphically portray complex data relationships.


4. Data Distribution & Reporting.

How a county reef program summarizes reef data, and reports it to local officials,
state agencies and the public, gives some idea about their assessment capability. Public
reports are brief descriptions of the reef, and/or "Assessments" of the reef performance,
which are sometimes needed to account for spending public funds. Reef users benefit by
receiving reef location and performance data from "credible" sources. Public relations
programs based on quality data, help sell the program to the voters.








Laboratory Facilities.


Access to local laboratories provides the ability to treat samples recovered from
the reefs. This is necessary when certain data parameters cannot be analyzed at sea.
Chemical analysis, specimen preparation, and map making require access to laboratory
procedures. Appendix H indicates only one-third of the county staff indicate they have
access to laboratories. In some counties, such as Duval and St. Johns where volunteers
are sampling reefs, they are actually using private laboratories located on university
campuses. Realistically, all 30 counties could use laboratories found within the high-
school systems biology and chemistry classes, if the school system would agree work with
such an effort.


3. Data Management, Archiving, GIS System, Quality Assurance (QA) & Quality
Control (QC).

QA/QC Program and Standardized reporting forms.

Data Management and a QA/QC program begins in the field, at the initial point
of data collection. It begins with a planned procedure and specific data parameters
identified, usually on some standardized data sheet. Table 3 reveals that 10 counties
have standardized data collection formats which serve to indicate if even the simplest
QA/QC program exists. A complete QA/QC plan, according to the Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA, 1980 and USEPA, 1988), has 16 major elements in the
written plan. These briefly include: 1. Title; 2. Contents; 3. Project Description; 4.
Organization Chart; 5. QA Objectives; 6. Sampling Procedures; 7. Sample Custody; 8.
Calibration Procedures; 9. Analytical Procedures; 10. Data Reduction; 11. Internal QC
Checks; 12. Performance Audits; 13. Preventative Maintenance; 14. Routine Precision
& Accuracy Checks; 15. Corrective Action and 16. QA reports.

Thirteen counties (See Table 3) indicated they had practiced Data Quality
Control. No county was found to have
even a basic outline of a written QA/QC plan. Only two volunteer groups, Duval
County and the OAR (Organization for Artificial Reefs) had written and some
standardization of sampling procedures, forming the beginning of a QA/QC program.
Based on interviews "Quality Control" was generally interpreted by those surveyed to
mean that some knowledgeable individual would look over the field data to assure
completeness and accuracy, before filing it. In very few cases, was their any notation
that "calibrated" field instruments (thermometers, for example) were used or if data
reduction and screening were practiced.

Archiving Methods & Software Used.

The second phase of data management is the method for storing and retrieving










TABLE 4. REEF DATA ARCHIVING CAPABILITIES


COUNTY PAPER/ NEWSCLIPS/ STILL PHOTOS VIDEO SPECIMEN COMPUTER
Bay Y Y Y
Brevard
Broward Y Y Y
Charlotte Y
Citrus Y Y
Collier Y Y
Dade Y Y Y Y
Duval Y Y Y Y
Escambia Y Y Y Y
Franklin Y Y Y Y
Gulf Y
Hernando Y Y
Hillsborough Y Y Y
Lee Y Y
Levy Y Y
Manatee Y
Martin Y Y Y Y
Monroe
Nassau Y Y
Okaloosa Y
Palm Beach Y Y Y Y
Pasco Y Y
Pinellas Y Y Y
Santa Rosa Y
Sarasota Y Y
St. Johns Y Y
St. Lucie Y Y
Taylor Y
Volusia Y Y Y Y
Wakulla









Reporting frequency.


The frequency of reporting reef data to officials, was coded into five categories:
by trip; sporadically; monthly; quarterly and annually. These are presented in Table 5.
Most county managers (10) noted that their reports were either "Sporadically" or
"Annually". Six (6) indicated they reported their data to some reef archives.

Audience.

Distribution of reef information is equally targeted to both "Officials" (Includes:
State, County, City, Table 5) and to the "public." Less than half (13 of 30 counties)
indicated they developed summary reports to local or state officials and 13 targeted the
"Public" which includes volunteers, and the media.
Dissemination.

Table 5 summarizes what "Format" reef information is distributed to the public.
The majority (23 of 30) of the counties provide public information through the mass
media of Newspaper and Radio/Television". Public Meetings, Newsletters and Exhibits
are also used to a lesser extant (15 of 30). Pamphlets were used in 16 of the 30 counties.
These latter efforts require a more formal organizational structure, then the former
where professional reporters develop the stories.


5. Reef Assessment Needs Priorities.

Reef coordinators were asked to identify and rank the three most important reef
assessment priorities in their county program (Table 6). Responses were placed into the
following priorities: funds, standards, training, data management and analysis, data
acquisition, networking, no response.

Equally scaled, numeric, class intervals were set up for the three ranked priorities:
1 = 1.00; 2 = 0.66; 3 = 0.33. The count of each priority in each rank class was
recorded. The sum of the number of counts times the rank value yielded a frequency-
ranked value weighted score, which was used to scale the most important artificial reef
program priorities.

Table 7 shows the rank of each of the top reef program priorities in the three-
tiered rating system and its relative contribution to the final weighted total score. For
example, "Funds" ranked first as the #1 Priority (33.33), second as the #2 Priority
(13.20) and fourth as the #3 Priority (3.30); its unadjusted total was 49.83; its weighted
total score was 24.92.

The weighted total column in Table 7 presents combined weighted scores as a
percent index value. It shows that "Funds" ranks the most important priority (24.92 %),


I








the data from the data file or archives. While only one-third of the coastal counties
indicated they use "Standardized Field Data Forms", 90% maintain some type of paper
data storage file in the county (Fig. 4). These include written reports, contracts and
grant applications & awards, maps, photographs taken on the surface or underwater and
news clippings. Storage facilities usually consisted of file cabinets, or cardboard boxes of
files. One county's complete reef data file was observed, during a personal interview, to
be stored in four cardboard boxes in the place of business of a dedicated volunteer. No
standardized data management systems were found or identified, with the exception of
those counties having official reef offices, or formally trained reef research volunteer
groups who established "Archives" in locations accessible to the public.

Surprisingly, 16 counties (Table 4) reported having video tapes of their reefs, in
their files. Most were the result of special news features, made by local commercial TV
Stations and some were made by local reef researchers. Nine (9) counties reported
having "Specimens" of biological and physical samples from their reef. Fourteen counties
reported having some reef data on computer (Table 4 and Figure 4). Figure 5 and
Appendix I shows that the Computerized Data was stored either on "Wordprocessing"
(14 counties) or "Spreadsheet" (12 counties) software programs. "Data-Based
Management" software was used in Duval County. Approximately 40% indicated they
were using "IBM Compatible" Programs, and the remaining 60% either did not respond,
or did not know what computer systems were being used.
Geographic Information System Use.

Many county planning departments as well as resource management agencies are
using computerized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to portray their land use
management data. This system keys all data to a geographic location by latitude and
longitude number which significantly improves map-making ability. The survey requested
information about county GIS capability, regardless if it was available for reef data.
Figure 6 shows which counties currently use GIS for county planning, coastal information
or reef data, and which are developing this capability. Four indicated they are currently
using GIS for marine data, and 12 are developing this potential. Most reef managers,
who were interviewed, expressed great interest in using GIS for its ability to draw
accurate reef placement maps and to graphically portray complex data relationships.


4. Data Distribution & Reporting.

How a county reef program summarizes reef data, and reports it to local officials,
state agencies and the public, gives some idea about their assessment capability. Public
reports are brief descriptions of the reef, and/or "Assessments" of the reef performance,
which are sometimes needed to account for spending public funds. Reef users benefit by
receiving reef location and performance data from "credible" sources. Public relations
programs based on quality data, help sell the program to the voters.














TABLE 5. REPORTING AND DISSEMINATION OF REEF INFORMATION


A IJI)INCE


FORMAT


II II--- c ---


OFFICIALS ARCIIIVIES


PUBLIC
AND MEDIA


P'AMI'l IIIEI'S


NEWSI.EITER NEWSPAPER


RADIO/ PUBLIC
TELEVISION MEETING EXHIBITS


Y Y Y Y


Brevard Y
Broward annually Y Y Y Y
Charlotte Y Y Y
Citrus Y Y
Collier annually Y Y
Dade sporadically Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Duval by trip Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Escambia Y Y
Franklin monthly Y Y Y Y Y Y
Gulf _Y Y
Hemando Y Y Y Y
Hillsborough quarterly Y Y Y Y Y
Lee annually Y Y Y Y Y Y
Levy annually Y Y Y Y
Manatee Y
Martin monthly Y Y Y Y Y Y
Monroe
Nassau sporadically Y Y
Okaloosa
Palm Beach annually Y Y Y Y Y
Pasco Y
Pinellas by trip Y Y Y Y Y
Santa Rosa Y
Sarasota Y Y Y
St. Johns Y Y Y Y Y Y
St. Lucie Y
Taylor sporadically Y Y
Vohlsia sporadically Y Y Y Y Y
Wala Ila monthly Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


COUNTY


REPORTING
FREQUENCY
sporadically









Reporting frequency.


The frequency of reporting reef data to officials, was coded into five categories:
by trip; sporadically; monthly; quarterly and annually. These are presented in Table 5.
Most county managers (10) noted that their reports were either "Sporadically" or
"Annually". Six (6) indicated they reported their data to some reef archives.

Audience.

Distribution of reef information is equally targeted to both "Officials" (Includes:
State, County, City, Table 5) and to the "public." Less than half (13 of 30 counties)
indicated they developed summary reports to local or state officials and 13 targeted the
"Public" which includes volunteers, and the media.
Dissemination.

Table 5 summarizes what "Format" reef information is distributed to the public.
The majority (23 of 30) of the counties provide public information through the mass
media of Newspaper and Radio/Television". Public Meetings, Newsletters and Exhibits
are also used to a lesser extant (15 of 30). Pamphlets were used in 16 of the 30 counties.
These latter efforts require a more formal organizational structure, then the former
where professional reporters develop the stories.


5. Reef Assessment Needs Priorities.

Reef coordinators were asked to identify and rank the three most important reef
assessment priorities in their county program (Table 6). Responses were placed into the
following priorities: funds, standards, training, data management and analysis, data
acquisition, networking, no response.

Equally scaled, numeric, class intervals were set up for the three ranked priorities:
1 = 1.00; 2 = 0.66; 3 = 0.33. The count of each priority in each rank class was
recorded. The sum of the number of counts times the rank value yielded a frequency-
ranked value weighted score, which was used to scale the most important artificial reef
program priorities.

Table 7 shows the rank of each of the top reef program priorities in the three-
tiered rating system and its relative contribution to the final weighted total score. For
example, "Funds" ranked first as the #1 Priority (33.33), second as the #2 Priority
(13.20) and fourth as the #3 Priority (3.30); its unadjusted total was 49.83; its weighted
total score was 24.92.

The weighted total column in Table 7 presents combined weighted scores as a
percent index value. It shows that "Funds" ranks the most important priority (24.92 %),


I














TABLE. LISTING OF TOP THREE REEF PROGRAM PRIORffIES
COUNTY PRIORfrlY 1
Bay Data acquisition field
Brevard Funds
Broward Data acquisition fiek
Charlotte Standands
Citrus Training
Collier Funds
Dade Data acquisition field
Duval Funds
Escambia Standards
Franklin Training
Gulf Funds
Hemando Data management & analysis
Hillsborough Standards
Lee Data acquisition field
Levy
Manatee Data management & analysis
Martin Funds
Monroe
Nassau Funds
Okaloosa Funds
Palm Beach Funds
Pasco Data acquisition field
Pinellas Standards
Santa Rosa iFnds
Sarasota Standandis
St. Johns Funds
St. Lucie Standands
Taykr Training
Vokjsia Standands
Wakulla Training


PRIORfY 2 PRI IORTY 3


Neltwrking & info.
Traiining
Data nmnagemmnt & analysis
Funds
Funds
Funds
Data management t & analysis
Data management & analysis
Networking & info.
Funds
Standards
Standards
Training
Data management & analysis


Training
Training


Funds
Data acquisition lieU
Standards
Data management & analysis
Data nainagenlait & analysis
Neltwrking & info. ch:angmc
Networking & info.
Data nlanagenlin t & analysis
Data ntIunagcincl & analysis
Slandanls
D)aIa ai miisition lickl


Training
Data management & analysis


Data acquisition field


Funds


Training
Training
Data management & analysis
Networking & info.
Networking & info.
Networking & info.
Training


Networking and info.
Networking and info. exchange


Data management & analysis
lunds
Data management & analysis
Trailing
Trailing
Networking & info.
1Fnds
Data lquisition licL
Training
D)ala managenlmat & analysis











TABLE 7. WEIGHTED RANKED SCORES (%) FOR RANKING COUNTIES' TOP ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM PRIORITIES


PRIORITIES


#1 PRIORITY
(WGT. = 1 00I


#2 PRIORITY
(WGT. = 0.66)


#3 PRIORITY
(WGT. = 0.33)


UNADJUSTED WEIGHTED TOTAL
TOTAL (WGT. = 0.50)


. .. .. .. . .. .. I \ .. . --'-. .. .. I...

Funds (1) 33.33 (2) 13.20 (4) 3.30 49.83 24.92
Standards (2) 23.33 (3) 8.80* 0.00 32.13 16.07
Training (4) 13.33 (3) 8.80* (1) 7.70 29.83 14.92
Data Mgt. & Analysis (5) 6.67 (1) 17.60 (3) 5.50 29.77 14.88
Data Acquisition (3) 16.67 (4) 4.40 2.20 23.27 11.63
Networking 0.00 (3) 8.80* (2) 6.60 15.40 7.70
No Response 6.67 4.40 7.70 18.77 9.38
Total 100.00 66.00 33.00 199.00 99.50
() Rank of Importance
* Tied


---*-----









followed by "Standards" (16.07%); 'Training" and "Data Management and Analysis" tie
for third place (14.92% and 14.88%, respectively); "Data Acquisition" is fourth (11.63%),
and "Networking" is fifth (7.70%). This is graphically shown in Figure 7.

Interview summaries Needs Priorities.

Appendix N, pages 76 to 79, is a summary of written and oral statements taken
from the surveys and interviews, in response to Question 27 (See Appendix A, page 6)
asking for a list of the "Top three artificial reef data management and reef assessment
needs." There are a total of 86 statements listed. They are included to provide the
reader with an opportunity to gain an overview of ideas which are not revealed in the
numerical analysis of needs discussed above.

It is clear the need for Funds and Standards for data sampling methods are
clearly the highest priorities. The need for networking of state and county reef programs
for information exchange was a lesser priority for the Weighted Ranked Scores but was
still an important item in the interview data.


6. Expectations from State Agencies & Academic Institutions Discussion.

State Agencies Expectations

Survey responses to Question 28 (Appendix A) are summarized in Table 8 and
are found in Appendix N, pages 80 to 84. Written comments were coded into four
classes: Funds comments regarding state sources for support; Data Management
Procedures comments regarding the establishment of an archives at the local and state
levels; Data Quality Assurance comments regarding the need for standard sampling
methods and screening of data to reduce errors and Information Sharing comments
about keeping informed about what and how other reef managers are functioning. The
greatest expectation from state agencies was for Data Quality Assurance support (18 out
of 30 counties). This would include developing standards and training for data gathering
methods, and establishing the means for agency personnel to facilitate this. Funds (13
counties) and Data Management Procedures (14 counties) were the second most
discussed items. Networking and information sharing received 10 responses.

More detailed and qualitative analysis of written and interview responses to
Question 28, in Appendix A, provides some additional insight what counties expect from
the state agencies. There were 104 statements recorded from the written surveys and the
interviews. Within the 104 statements, roughly 107 different ideas are reduced into five
major categories: (Note: The number at the end of each category is a count of the
number of comments made.)

1. Feedback of information and findings and networking this information between









TABLE 8. COUNTY EXPECTATIONS FOR STATE ASSISTANCE


FORMS OF ASSISTANCE
DATA MANAGEMENT DATA QUAUTY INFORMATION
COUNTY FUNDS PROCEDURES ASSURANCE SHARING
Bay Y Y
Brevard
Broward Y Y Y
Charlotte Y Y
Citrus Y
Collier Y Y
Dade Y Y Y Y
Duval Y Y Y Y
Escambia Y
Franklin Y Y Y
Gulf Y
Hernando Y
Hillsborough Y Y
Lee Y Y
Levy
Manatee Y Y Y
Martin Y Y Y
Monroe
Nassau Y
Okaloosa
Palm Beach Y Y
Pasco Y Y
Pinellas Y
Santa Rosa Y Y
Sarasota Y Y
St. Johns Y Y Y Y
St. Lucie Y Y Y Y
Taylor Y
Volusia Y Y
Wakulla







































o,






S-








IBM COmPuTIBLe Pro rI PUcCEasing pbitiRDfOzT


Figure 5. Computer Processing Capability




















S CURRENT

S POTENTIAL


Figure 6. Current and Potential GIS Capability.


---













(25.0%)


(15.0(5 (7









Funds v i'.. Standards r dIra-inn

Data Mgt. & Analysis Data Acquisition i Networking

Figure 7. Weighted Ranked Scores (%) for Counties' Top
Artificial Reef Program Priorities









state agencies, academic institutions and the local reef managers, volunteers and the
public. This includes organizing regular (annual or bi-annual) statewide conferences &
workshops, which move around the state regionally. Also, publishing and distributing
newsletters, research summaries and published papers were suggested. ---> 37 comments.

2. Standards for data collection methods & management of this information,
standard monitoring stations & training of county personnel & volunteers to these
standards. ---> 34 comments.

3. Funding for start-up of monitoring programs to cover costs of appropriate
equipment for data gathering, storage, reduction and reporting. Some funds for
expenses for field work, as fuel costs, chartering, consultants or volunteer expenses
and training. Many comments expressed an interest in allowing local reef
managers more flexibility in how to spend these funds, and the need to fund for
more long-term programs, not just year to year. ---> 20 comments.

4. Technical Reef Support Team from the Department of Natural Resources Reef
Office, which could regularly visit each county reef program to answer questions,
observe reef sites, review QA/QC procedures, assist with data management and
GIS system, help interpret findings and give presentations to citizen supported
activities. --- > 10 comments.

5. Guidelines for best construction practices, including materials selection, based on
reef studies in situations similar to those experienced locally. ---> 6 comments.

A number of comments relate to special interests for research projects, such as
the use of tires for reef material, oyster reefs and aquaculture projects included in
artificial reef monitoring projects, water quality (pollution) studies which relate to reef
success and placement criteria. There was concern for requiring monitoring methods
which may not be appropriate for the particular region, thus the need for a "ground
truthing" team to help resolve such problems.


Academic Institutions Expectations

Survey responses to Question 29, are summarized in Table 9 and Appendix N
pages 85 to 88. Written comments were coded into three major categories & responses;
Access to Academic Community (16 responses); Training and Conferences (9 responses)
and Studies (15 responses). Clearly, at least half of the counties expected to have access
to the academic community and that they should be engaged in basic or applied artificial
reef research studies. One third felt the academic community should develop and
participate in reef research methods training and reef conferences.


I









TABLE 9. COUNTY EXPECTATIONS FOR ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE

FORMS OF ASSISTANCE
ACCESS TO ACADEMIC TRAINING AND
COUNTY COMMUNITY CONFERENCES STUDIES

Bay Y
Brevard
Broward Y
Charlotte Y Y
Citrus Y
Collier
Dade Y Y Y
Duval Y Y Y
Escambia Y
Franklin Y Y
Gulf Y
Hernando Y
Hillsborough Y Y
Lee Y
Levy
Manatee Y Y Y
Martin Y Y
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Palm Beach Y Y Y
Pasco Y Y
Pinellas Y
Santa Rosa Y
Sarasota Y Y
St. Johns
St. Lucie Y Y Y
Taylor Y Y
Volusia Y Y_
Wakulla









More detailed and qualitative analysis of written and interview responses to
Question 29, in Appendix A, provides some additional insight what counties expect from
the academic community. There were 98 statements recorded from the written surveys
and the interviews. Within the 98 statements, roughly 111 different ideas were reduced
into three major categories: (Note: The number at the end of each category is a count of
the number of comments made.)

1. Conduct research in subject matter beyond what state agencies are able to do. ---
> 61 comments. Some topic ideas include:

Habitat research & Biological process (32 comments) Reef processes and
life history interactions; Production vs attraction; Influence zones and
"Halo effect" around reefs; Survival of juvenile fish; Trophic structures;
Definition of a model "Standard Reef"; Comparisons of natural (nearby)
reefs with artificial reefs; Optimum size for reef; Influence of inlets &
bays on reefs; Water quality effects; Reefs as filters for toxins; Estuary
reefs; Criteria for reef success; Comprehensive analysis of state reef
monitoring data; Credibility of reef program.

Reef management & construction (18 comments) Success criteria; best
construction material, design and materials evaluation; Data management
methods for management decision making.

Reef research & monitoring methods (13 comments) Studies on the best,
most effective data sampling methods used in reef research; improvement
of methods; recommendations for standards acceptable to scientists.

Economics (7 comments) Value of reefs to local and state economies;
Multi-user reefs; Reef user needs; Cost effectiveness of various reef
designs and monitoring methods; Reef value assessment methods.

2. Provide access to academic professionals, and facilities, at the local and state
levels. ---> 34 comments.

Generally, comments in this category refer to the desire for closer
working relationships with faculty, and access to campus facilities. A
frequently heard comment during the interviews was, "We (at the local
level) would be happy to provide graduate students or faculty with a
support base, and even some funds, from which to study our reefs." This
category also includes: using faculty as technical consultants for QA/QC;
organizing conferences and workshops; cooperating in seeking funds for
projects; establishing a local reference library and participating in training
programs.









3. Training and certifying local (regional) reef managers, consultants and volunteers
in standard reef assessment methods. This includes research on the best (for the
region) assessment methods. ---> 16 comments.

Additional Concerns

Responses to Question 30, in Appendix A, provides some insight what some
additional concerns may be. Survey Analysis and Interview Summary in Appendix N
pages 89 to 93. There were 98 statements recorded from the written surveys and the
interviews. Within the 98 statements, roughly 71 different ideas were reduced into five
major categories: (Note: The number at the end of each category is a count of the
number of comments made.)

1. Research on: water quality, habitat; economics, reef users and multi-user reefs;
protecting natural areas; life histories; establishing offshore "lab" of experimental
reefs for management research; identification and mapping of bottoms NOT
suitable for reef construction; live rock reefs; oyster reefs and investigation of
various materials for reefs. ---> 23 comments.

2. Need for certification of reef research technicians, especially volunteers, to sample
according to specific standard methods. State funds should support training, and
provide "start-up" money to establish local reef monitoring. ---> 14 comments.

3. Statewide coordination of reef monitoring, to include establishing regional
networks (perhaps through Regional Planning Councils) which could organize
conferences and training workshops. More public relations is needed to promote
reef programs, including the development of an awards program. When grants
are awarded, more formal publicity should be given. ---> 14 comments.

4. Regional networks of reef managers, agencies, academics and citizens groups.
These networks would organize workshops to share findings, ideas, methods and
resources. Joint meetings would focus on sharing funds and efforts for cross
county projects, which could not be achieved within the county. ---> 13 comments.

5. State reef resource team is needed to assist counties with implementing reef
monitoring, data management and analysis. Some concern was expressed for law
enforcement of SMZ's, and reef construction compliance, which could be
coordinated by the resource team.

One final note of concern was that the state reef program should "encourage"
sound reef building and monitoring methods, not "discourage" these activities by creating
more paperwork, rules and regulations and bureaucracy. Counties wanted to know what
they should do and not necessarily be told only what they should not do in a reef
management and assessment plan.


L I






























*VI 6


I Atlantic
Ocean


*2'. R1R 1


Gulf
o f
Mexico


R:R 5


SARASOTA DE so70
A RMR 2
AMLs T- GLADE$

t W El *e0



IncauR 4 -





/






MR 3







Figure 8. Reef Management Regions

31









Table 10.
Comparison fo Six Florida Geographic Regions
Based on Artificial Reef Depth and Distance Offshore


REGION REEF DEPTH (Ft.) DISTANCE OFFSHORE
1. North East Deep (60 to 130). Rarely beyond 5 to 50 miles, most 10 to 20
130. miles.
2. South East Deep (60 to 130). Some beyond Nearshore to less than 5 miles.
130.
3. South Shallow (20 to 60). Most 1 to 5 miles. Some bay
Deep (60 to 130). reefs.
Deeper than 130.
4. South West Shallow (10 to 60). 5 to 40 miles, most more than
10 mi. Some bay reefs.
5. West Shallow (10 to 60). 5 to 35 miles, most more than
10 mi.
6. Panhandle Deep (60 to 130). Rarely more 2 to 25 miles, most beyond 7
than 130. miles.









COUNTY CAPABILITIES, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


County Reef Program Regions.

The need for dividing Florida into "Reef Management Regions" became apparent
from review of survey data and interview comments with county reef managers,
volunteers, fishermen, divers and local officials. In many cases, especially southwest,
southeast, northeast and west Florida, regional networking between programs was
already in evidence. Sea Grant Agents, volunteers, local managers and reef advisory
committees were organizing regional reef conferences, coordinating construction
activities, and exchanging ideas on a regular basis. Most reef managers were very aware
what their neighbors were doing.

During the interview trips, a variety of persons were asked where they would
place dividing lines, if the state were to be "regionalized" into Reef Management
Regions. Figure 8 illustrates Florida divided into six Reef Management Regions, based
on these remarks. These six areas already had the beginnings of regional coordination
between reef managers.

There are some regional geographical similarities around Florida which provide
further justification for regionalizing the reef program. Table 10 compares six regions
with respect to reefs distance offshore and their depths. Reef depths are defined as
"Shallow" (10 to 60 ft.), "Deep" (60 to 130 ft.) and "Deeper" (beyond 130 ft.) based on the
safe limitations of depth on SCUBA divers breathing air, not mixed gas. "Shallow" diving
allows more bottom time, "Deep" diving allows less bottom time and calls for more
planning, and "Deeper" reefs may be beyond the limits of safe SCUBA diving on air,
thus calling for more advanced methods such as mixed-gas diving, or remote sensing
technologies.

The same can be said for distance of reef offshore. The greater the distance, the
more planning and the larger a vessel would required. These considerations impose
common limitations on reef monitoring projects within the same region. Regions having
deeper reefs, and greater distances offshore may need more planning, special sampling
techniques, possibly regional coordination of effort and increased funding to support reef
assessment.

County Capability for Evaluating Artificial Reef Performance

A wide range of capability for reef performance assessment was found in the
thirty counties who have active reef construction programs. Generally they ranged from
a few counties which had full or part-time staff, with equipment, boats and special
offices, to the majority, which had part-time reef coordinators who had little or no in-situ

field data sampling capability and a "file box or cabinet" for the reef data. In a few









cases, some had only volunteers who did all the work, with a county official merely
signing the paperwork. All who were surveyed and/or interviewed recognized the need
for "monitoring their reefs, and typically welcomed the idea. They felt the information
was essential for improving reef construction and increased effectiveness as fishing and
tourism attractions. Most agreed that they had little or no idea how or what data (other
than the most obvious such as reef location, materials description and date of reef "birth"
and fish lists) was necessary for appropriate "monitoring" of reef performance.
"Monitoring" as a concept was not well understood, drawing a variety of definitions.

Conclusions

1. Funding. Funds should be allocated to support reef monitoring at the local level.
Initial "start-up" monies should be provided to equip, train and establish data
collection methods and management capability at an accuracy and precision level
acceptable to the state. Following "start-up" continuous funds at a lesser level
should be provided to maintain program, continue training and implement new
procedures, when needed. Local reef officials should be able to receive funding
for long-term projects, and not just year-to-year proposals. This is especially
necessary for monitoring activities.

2. Close working relationship should be established between local reef programs and
the nearby academic institution faculty. Support for expenses of graduate
programs, and cooperation on reef research projects between local and academics
should be encouraged.

3. Standardized sampling methods, appropriate to the region, should be developed,
and provided in a training program for local reef managers, and the leadership of
supporting (volunteer) organizations.

4. Develop a simple, paper file model for a "Local" filing system, in a public office,
to insure all information about the counties reefs are quickly assembled and
preserved in an orderly fashion. Valuable historical data, which currently exists in
unprotected files under the care of dedicated citizens, are in peril if that citizen
becomes unavailable.

5. Inherent to the success of field studies of artificial reefs is the ability to work from
a safe and adequate vessel. Ideally, this should be publicly owned, so that regular
reef monitoring can be scheduled. If this is not feasible, or cost prohibitive for
the county, then support should be provided for chartering privately owned
U.S.Coast Guard Approved Vessels. If volunteers own their own vessels, some
support should be provided to reimburse them for their expenses.

6. Training in Florida marine species identification and lab preservation and storage
techniques should be provided, so that a local reference specimen collections can


I _









be made available to state officials, academics, reef managers and new trainees.

7. A standardized computer field data format for minimal data parameters, and
placement data summary templates (wordprocessing and spreadsheet software),
compatible with Microsoft or IBM compatible computers should be designed for
county reef managers. This will provide the first step towards a QA/QC program,
insuring compatibility of data from across the state.

8. A team of state agency reef research professionals should be assigned to work
with individual county programs, serving as trainer/advisors to assist with
implementing a reef assessment program, and develop a QA/QC program for
screening the data, before it is sent to the state reef database. Since it is more
difficult to account for "bad" data which gets into the database, than to eliminate
it in the first place screening should be accomplished at the local level.

9. Volunteer SCUBA divers have been used in all local Florida reef assessment
activities. Most, however, have not had training in underwater research methods.
The state agencies in cooperation with the academic institutions should fund
underwater reef science technician training to certify leaders of local volunteer
groups and county personnel who are responsible for reef research activities. This
is necessary for statewide standards for reef data quality assurance (QA).


REFERENCES CITED

USEPA 1980. Guidelines and specifications for preparing Quality Assurance project
plans. QAMS-005/80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.:
USEPA.

USEPA 1988. Guide for preparation of Quality Assurance project plans for the National
Estuarine Program. EPA 556/2-88-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.: Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.

Pybas, D.1991. Atlas of artificial reefs in Florida Fourth Edition., Florida Sea Grant
College Program, SGEB 20., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.









be made available to state officials, academics, reef managers and new trainees.

7. A standardized computer field data format for minimal data parameters, and
placement data summary templates (wordprocessing and spreadsheet software),
compatible with Microsoft or IBM compatible computers should be designed for
county reef managers. This will provide the first step towards a QA/QC program,
insuring compatibility of data from across the state.

8. A team of state agency reef research professionals should be assigned to work
with individual county programs, serving as trainer/advisors to assist with
implementing a reef assessment program, and develop a QA/QC program for
screening the data, before it is sent to the state reef database. Since it is more
difficult to account for "bad" data which gets into the database, than to eliminate
it in the first place screening should be accomplished at the local level.

9. Volunteer SCUBA divers have been used in all local Florida reef assessment
activities. Most, however, have not had training in underwater research methods.
The state agencies in cooperation with the academic institutions should fund
underwater reef science technician training to certify leaders of local volunteer
groups and county personnel who are responsible for reef research activities. This
is necessary for statewide standards for reef data quality assurance (QA).


REFERENCES CITED

USEPA 1980. Guidelines and specifications for preparing Quality Assurance project
plans. QAMS-005/80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.:
USEPA.

USEPA 1988. Guide for preparation of Quality Assurance project plans for the National
Estuarine Program. EPA 556/2-88-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.: Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.

Pybas, D.1991. Atlas of artificial reefs in Florida Fourth Edition., Florida Sea Grant
College Program, SGEB 20., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
























APPENDICES









Appendix A


FLORIDA COUNTY ARTIFICIAL REEF
ASSESSMENT CAPABILITIES
SURVEY 1992 Ver. 10/21/91

The Florida Sea Grant College is assisting the Department of Natural Resources with developing
methods for assessing artificial reefs and county reef monitoring for a statewide artificial reef database.
The ultimate goal is to provide local and state reef managers with information and tools for making valid
comparisons of reef performance to enhance your reef development efforts. Please take a few minutes
(estimated 20 to 30 minutes) to give your best estimate of the county's artificial reef data acquisition,
storage and management capabilities. This information will be used to develop recommendations for
realistic local reef assessment practices. (Please clearly print your answers.)

NOTE: This survey is NOT intended to gather information about your reefs; it is intended to describe
how your county documents and perhaps monitors artificial reef performance.

County: Date:

Your Name: Title:

Address:

City: FL Zip:

Phone: ( )- FAX No.


1. Does your county (or city) have an artificial reef building program?
YES, NO.

a. If YES, approximately how long has your county been involved with building
reefs?

b. If NO, do you anticipate your public will want to develop one?
YES, NO, DON'T KNOW, WOULD LIKE MORE
INFORMATION.

If your county has no reef construction program, you may stop here and
return this survey in the return envelope to keep us from having to follow
up with you further. If your county has a reef construction program,
please continue answering the questions on page 2 through 7.

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME !!!









Appendix A


Select the most appropriate responsess]

a. a specialized reef office. (Give official name of office and contact
person, address & phone).


b. an office which handles reef information as an additional duty. (Give
name, address and phone number of contact person).


c. no office which handles reef information.

d. a citizens group, club or not-for-profit organization which handles reef
information. (Give name, address and phone number of contact person.)


3. I would say my county has a simple, moderate or sophisticated reef
assessment or monitoring program.

4. My county artificial reef program gathers: (answer all appropriate responses)

a. no data about offshore and near shore artificial reefs.
b. only the information required by the permitting agencies.
c. the required information plus a little additional information for local use
and users.
d. detailed site selection descriptive information.
e. detailed post deployment information as placement scatter maps etc..
f. extensive post deployment information as maps, physical data and
biological assessments.
g. regularly scheduled post deployment sampling program (Long term
monitoring).
h. How frequently do you take data from reefs that you monitor?
i. How many placements do you usually monitor?

5. Are there county (or city) employees assigned to artificial reef construction and/or
monitoring duties? YES NO. (Indicate how many) Full Time,
Part Time, or None.

a. How many: Ph.D's; M.S.'s; B.S.'s; A.A's; and
trained technician's.

b. Please briefly list them by reef related job title: (use other side of this sheet









Appendix A


if needed)


6. Do you use other reef data information sources? YES, NO. These
include using hired consultants or volunteers, others? (Please
explain).


7. How is field data gathered? SCUBA diving, from instruments on
vessels, from fishing (creel) census? from airplane fly overs, other
(please explain).

Please list the primary physical, chemical and biological data parameters your
county usually gathers about its artificial reefs. (ie. Temperature, visibility, species lists,
salinity, specimens etc.)


8. Does the reef program have: a.
other county laboratory or c.


a reef laboratory, b.
no access to lab facilities.


access to some


Briefly list the kind of scientific instruments the reef program has access to.






9. Do you develop summary reports of your reefs information? YES, NO.

a. How often?

b. Who gets copies of it?

10. Do you have specific artificial reef scientific research projects underway?
YES, NO. a. Please list by title of project.





39








Appendix A


11. How is your artificial reef information shared with the public? (Regular
newsletters, news articles ???)



The next section requests specific information about how you determine your reef's locations, how you
manage reef data and if you use a Geographic Information System (GIS) in your reef management
program.

REEF LOCATION DOCUMENTATION PROCEDURES

12. What equipment is used to document reef placement location?
a. LORAN C Make & Model
b. GPS Make & Model
c. Dead Reckoning (speed, time distance, course est.)
d. Triangulation on shore points.
e. Other (Please explain).

13. How is the exact location of permitted reef identified?
a. Location of center of reef.
b. Corner(s) of reef boundaries (ie. four corners, other).

14. Who usually officially documents reef placement location?
a. Local government official.
b. Contracted barge Captain.
c. Volunteer
d. Other (Specify)

15. Does county (city) operate a vessel which can be used to document placement,
monitor and assess reefs? yes, no.
a. Name of Vessel & Port:

b. Name of Captain:
Address & Phone No.


16. List specific Hydrographic Chart Numbers used to Plot Reef Sites: [Chart, Scale
and Date of Chart(s)].



17. Describe any problems you have experienced in finding or piloting to any specific
reef locations (equipment inaccuracies, incomplete record keeping, experience &









Appendix A


training, etc.)






ARTIFICIAL REEF DATA MANAGEMENT & STORAGE

18. In WHAT FORUM are reef data stored or archived? (check all which apply) a.
paper files, b. news clippings, c. computer data base, d.
photographs, e. video tapes, f. specimen collections, g. other?
(please explain)



19. Do you have standardized data gathering sheets used by the reef surveyors?
yes, no. (Would you please enclose sample copies of any with this survey.)

20. How is reef data managed and stored?


Hand written reports and file cabinet.
Machine-readable files (What software?


c. Micro-computer (IBM compatible? Apple?)

d. Mini Computer (Name)

e. Other devices, Plotter, digitizing board, modem,
printer, other
f. Linked to a statewide network. (Specify)


g. Photographic and/or video archives.
h. Specimen reference collection ( fi
physical materials, sediments, w


sh,
ater,


invertebrates, plants,
other


21. How do you manage and monitor reef data quality assurance?









Appendix A


22. List computer software your office currently uses, which would be appropriate for
reef management activities (data management, graphics, word processing etc.)




23. List computer software by name and version, you would recommend be used for
a statewide reef data management program.


24. Describe any problems you have encountered in storing and quality control of
artificial reef data.
(Equipment, software, training, lack of standardization, funding, etc.)




GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are becoming important tools for resource management at the
county level. We wish to determine if it would be feasible, practical and useful for county and state reef
managers to integrate their reef data into a GIS system.

25. Does the county (city) have GIS planning and coastal management capabilities?
YES, NO. Briefly describe please.


a. Is there an ongoing working relationship between your reef program and the
GIS Unit? YES, NO.

b. Are you a current ARC-INFO user? YES, NO.

c. Do you use other GIS software? YES, NO. Please List:



26. Where is the GIS located?

Contact Person:
Address:

Phone No.









Appendix A


What is it normally used for?


Would you be able to use it for artificial reef data? YES, NO.


27. List your top three artificial reef data management and reef assessment needs.






28. What reef assessment program assistance would you most expect to receive from
the state reef management program?








29. What reef assessment program assistance would you most expect to receive from
the academic community with respect to your reef management efforts?








30. Do you have any further recommendations or concluding remarks or
suggestions?









Appendix B

APPENDIX B. GENERAL REEF PROGRAM INFORMATION



COUNTY ADDRESS CITY ZIP TELEPHONE


Bay 300 W. 7th Street Panama City 32401 9047844025
Brevard 2725 St. Johns St. Melbourne 32940 4076332016
Broward 6098 SW 1st Ave. Ft. Landerdale 33301 3057654013
Charlotte 6900 Florida St. Punta Gorda 33950 8136396255
Citrus P.O. Box 440 Lecanto 32661 9047462694
Collier 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples 33962 8137748454
Dade 111 NW 1st St, 1310 Miami 33128 3053753324
Duval P.K. Box 43370 Jacksonville 32203 9042680414
Escambia P.O. Box 1591 Pensacola 32597 9044365809
Franklin P.O. Box 20054 Tallahassee 32316 9044883935
Gulf P.O. Box 945 Port St. Joe 32456 9042296330
Hernando 6340 Shoal Line Blvd Spring Hill 34607 9045961406
Hillsborough 1900 9th Ave. Tampa 33605 8132727104
Lee 3410 Palm Beach Blvd Ft. Myers 33916 8133383375
Levy 7922 NW 71 St. Gainesville 32606 9043929617
Manatee 5502 33 Ave. Drive W Bradenton 34209 8137497123
Martin 890 N.E. Ocean Blvd. Stuart 34996 4072550505
Monroe P.O. Box 917 Big Pine Key 33043 3057452719
Nassau P.O. Box 668 Fernandina Bch. 32034 90427773:0
Okaloosa 1250 N. Eglin Pkway Salimar 32574 9046517105
Palm Beach 3111 Dixie Hwy. Ste. 146 W. Palm Beach 33405 4075541011
Pasco 6520 Ridge Road Port Richey 34668 8138478156
Pinellas 2800 110th Ave. N. St. Petersburg 33716 8138927720
Santa Rosa 1095 Old Bagdad Hwy. Milton 32583 9046262149
Sarasota P.O. Box 8 Sarasota 34230 8133786113
St. Johns P.O. Drawer 349 St. Augustine 32084 9048232531
St. Lucie 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce 34982 4074681511
Taylor P.O. Box 620 Perry 32347 9045846413
Volusia 440 S. Beach Street Daytona Beach 32114 9042544637
Wakulla P.K. Box 20054 Tallahassee 32316 9044883935









Appendix C


APPENDIX C GENERAL REEF PROGRAM INFORMATION


REEF BUILDING
COUNTY PERIOD


TYPE OF
PROGRAM


CONTACT
PERSON


PROGRAM
OFFICE


Bay
Brevard
Broward
Charlotte
Citrus
Collier
Dade
Duval
Escambia
Franklin
Gulf
Hernando
Hillsborough
Lee
Levy
Manatee
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Taylor
Volusia
Wakulla


Added Task + Volunteers
Added Task
Added Task
Added Task
Added Task
AddedTask
Added Task
Volunteers
Added Task
Volunteers
Volunteers
Added Task
Special Office
Added Task
Special Office
Added Task
Added Task + Volunteers
Volunteers
Added Task + Volunteers
Added Task
Added Task
Added Task
Special Office
Added Task
Added Task
Added Task + Volunteers
AddedTask
Added Task + Volunteers
Added Task + Volunteers
Volunteers


Charles Gonzaez
Charles Turner
Kenneth Banks
Will Sheftall
Thomas H. Dick
Kevin H. Dugan
Benjamin J. Mostkoff
Dennis Short
Cliff Breeland
William Horn, OAR
Bill Koran
Linda Buck
Tom Ash
Stephen Boutelle
Bill Lindberg
Dan Ramsey
Mark Perry
Curtis Kruer
Ilona Preliou
Ellen Holt
Carman Vare
Rodger Scofield
Bob Peacock
Devann Cook
Coastal Zone Div.
Gene Burns
Brad Keen
Glen Porcian
Dan O'Brien
William Horn


Planning Department
Office of Natural Res. Mgt.
Marine Resources/ONRP
FL. Coop. Extension Services
Div. of Aquatics/Solid Waste
County Administration
Dept. of Env. Resources Mgt.
Jacksonville Scubanauts, Inc.
Board of County Commissioners
Org. for Artificial Reefs
Friends of St. Joe Bay
Port Authority
Environmental Protection Comm.
Marine Sciences Division
Univ. FL. Fisheries Dept.
Parks and Recreation
Florida Oceanographic Society
FL.Keys Artificial ReefAssoc.
Economic and Community Dev.
Board of County Commissioners
Dept. Env. Res. Mgt.
Parks and Recreation Dept.
County Administration
County Safety Office
Natural Resources Department
Facilities Management
Department of Leisure Services
Airport Auth./Mosquito Control
Port Authority
Org. for Artificial Reefs


r I r 1













APPENDIXD. NUMBER AND EDUCATION OF REEF PERSONNEL
1 NUMBER I
COUNTY TOTAL IFULL-TIME PART-TIM
Bay 1 0
Brevard 0 0
Broward 2 0
Charlotte 1 0
Citrus 0 0
Collier 4 0


SGRIAI)IJATE


I EVEL OF EDUCATION
UNDERGRADUATE
1
0
0
1
0
3


Dade
Duval
Escambia
Franklin
Gulf
Hemando
Hillsborough
Lee
Ley
Manatee
Martin.
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Palm Beach
Pasoo
Pinellas
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Traylbr
Vokisia
Waku Ila


1


tE


ASSOC./TECI.
) 0
) 0
1
) 0
) 0
0
7 0
) 0
) 0



I 0
2 0
2 2
) 0
) 1


) 0
1 0
) 0
0
z 0
1 3
) 5
D 1
3 0
0) 0
1 0
1) 0
1 0
0) 1














APPENDIX E. JOB CLASSIFICATIONS OF RE:EF' PERSONNIiEL
COUNTY PERSON I PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5


County Planner


Artificial Reef Coordinator Natural Resources Specialist
Sea Grant Extension Agent


Sr. Environ. Spec. Environ. Spec. 11
Reef Coordinator Biologist
Recreation Planning & Grants


City Clerk
Reef Project Coordinator
Port Authority Liaison
Artificial Reef Coordinator Assistant Reef Coord.(vacant)
Biologist (Reef Coordinator) Biologist (Monitoring)


Brevard
Broward
Charbtte
Citrus
Collier
Dade
Duval
Escambia
Franklin
Gulf
S Hemando

Hillsborough
Lee
Levy
Manatee
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Santa Rosa
Sarasta
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Taybr
Vohlsia
Wakulla


Environmentalist
Crewleader
Ocean Operator


Cty. Environ. Super


Environ. Spec. 11
Biologist










Biologist (Monitoring)


Environ. Spec. II
Technician










Engr. Inspect I (Constr.Super) Engr. Inspect I (Constr.Super)


Crew Member Crew Member
Reef Construction Specialist Reef Construction Technician Automatic Equipment Op. IV


Cty. Coastal Zone Mgr.


City Genl. Ser. Reef Coord.


Sea Grant Extension Agent


Sea Grant Extension Agent


Project Manager Parks
Artificial Reef Coordinator


City Planner
County Administrator
Environ men talist
Parks Construction Supervisor
Program Supervisor
County Safety Director
Cty. Environ. Spec. III
County Engineer
Recreation Planner


Port Authority Coordinator
Planning Director













APPENDIX F. PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OBSERVED AT REEF


____T1 r r r


WEATHER


VISIBILITY


SEA SI'ATE I DIprTI


CURRENT TIDE


TEMPERATURE


STR ATA


Bay Y Y Y
Brevard
Broward
Charlotte Y
Citrus
Collier
Dade Y Y
Duval Y Y Y y Y Y y y
Escambia
Franklin Y Y
Gulf
Hemando
Hillsborough Y Y Y
Lee Y Y Y
Lev Yvy Y
Manatee Y
Martin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Monroc
Nassau Y y
Okaloosa
Palm Beach Y Y Y Y
Pasco
Pinellas Y Y Y Y Y Y
Santa Rosa
Saraota
St. Johns Y Y
St. Lucie Y Y y
Taybr
Volusia Y Y Y
Waklla Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


COUNTY














APPENDIX G. PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OBSERVED AT REEF
COUNTY DEPTH COARSENESS CONDITION SCATTER


Bay __ Y
Brevard
Broward
OCarlotte
Citrus
Collier
Dade Y Y
Duval Y Y Y Y
Escambia
Franklin Y Y
Gulf
Hemando
Hillsborough
Lee Y
Levy Y____________ ______________
Manatee Y Y
Martin Y Y Y Y
Monroe
Nassau Y
Okaloosa
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Santa Rosa Y
Sarasota
St. Johns Y Y Y
St. Ludcie
Taylor Y__
Volusia __ Y
Waiulla Y Y Y Y













H. CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OBSERVED AT REEF
CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL


IPH CONDUCTIVITY SALINITY


DISSOLVED
OXYGEN


FISH COUNT


SPECIES


VISIBLE
GROWTH


AND ACCESS TO LABORATORY

) Ilrr II


L1ORG ISII
ORGANISMS


ACCESS TO LABORATORY


Bay Y Y Y Y
Brevard
Broward Y
Charlotte Y
Citrus
Collier
Dade Y Y Y
Duval Y Y Y Y Y
Escambia
Franklin Y Y
Gulf Y Y Y
Hemando
Hillsborough Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Lee Y Y
Le.YY Y Y Y
Manatee Y Y
Martin Y Y Y Y Y Y
Monroe
Nassau Y
Okaloosa
Palm Beach Y Y Y
Pasco
Pincllas Y
Santa Rosa
Sarasota Y Y
St. John Y Y Y
St. Inci Y
Tayr Y


Volsia _


Waula tn Y Y I Y


YY Y


APPENDIX


COUNTY


-.~.I.I --_rl-----^-~ *- L----- --^--~ -----------~--


Y


Y










Appendix I

APPENDIX I. COMPUTER PROCESSING CAPABILITIES


IBM
COMPATIBLE


CURRENTLY USED


WORD
PROCESSING


SPREADSHEET


GIS


POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE


COUNTY


Bay Y Y Y
Brevard Y Y Y
Broward Y Y Y
Charlotte Y Y
Citrus
Collier Y
Dade Y Y Y
Duval Y Y Y Y
Escambia
Franklin Y Y Y Y
Gulf
Hernando Y
Hillsborough Y Y Y
Lee
Levy Y
Manatee Y Y
Martin Y Y Y
Monroe Y
Nassau Y Y
Okaloosa Y
Palm Beach Y Y Y Y
Pasco
Pinellas Y Y Y Y
Santa Rosa Y
Sarasota Y Y Y
St. Johns Y
St. Lucie
Taylor Y Y
Volusia Y Y
Wakulla






Appendix ;


LOCAL REEF MONITORING AND DATA MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY PARAMETERS



REGION/ REEF PROGRAM REQUIRED REQUIRED W\ DETAILED
)UNTY PROGRAM OFFICE INFO ADDITIONAL SITE INFO
REGION 1:
NORTHEAST
Nassau Y Y Y Y
Duval Y Y Y
St. Johns Y Y Y
Volusia Y Y
Brevard Y Y
REGION 2:
EAST CENTRAL
Marlin Y Y Y Y
St. Lucie Y Y Y
Palm Beach Y Y Y Y
Broward Y Y
REGION 3:
SOUTHEAST & FL. KEYS
Dade Y Y Y
Monroe Y
REGION 4:
SOUTHWEST
Pincllas Y Y Y
Ilillsborough Y Y Y Y
'natce Y Y Y
.asola Y Y Y
Ciarlotte Y Y
Lee Y Y
Collier Y Y
REGION 5:
WEST CENTRAL- _
Wakulla Y Y Y
Taylor Y Y
Levy Y Y Y
Citrus Y Y Y
Hernando Y Y Y
I'asco Y Y
REGION 6:
PANHANDLE
Escambia Y Y
Santa Rosa Y Y
Okaloosa Y
Bay Y Y Y Y
Gulf Y Y Y
Franklin Y Y Y






Appendix I


LOCAL REEF MONITORING AND DATA MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY PARAMETERS


POST DEPLOY
INFO


EXTENSIVE
POST DEPLOY


MONITORING
INFO


REPORTING I PERSONNEL I


REGION/
3UNTY


*REGION 1:
NORTHEAST
Nassau Y Y Y
Duval Y Y Y Y Y
St. Johns Y Y Y
Volusia Y Y Y Y
Brevard
REGION 2:
EAST CENTRAL
Martin Y Y Y Y
St. Lucie Y
Palm Beach Y Y Y Y Y
Broward Y Y
REGION 3:
SOUTHEAST & FL. KEYS
Dade Y Y Y
Monroe
REGION 4:
SOUTHWEST
Pinellas Y Y Y Y Y
Hillsborough Y Y Y Y Y
natee Y
.,nsota Y
Clarlotte Y
Lee Y Y Y
Collier Y Y
REGION 5:
WEST CENTRAL
Wakulla Y Y Y Y
Taylor Y Y
Levq Y Y Y Y
Citrus Y
Hernando Y
'asco Y
REGION 6:
PANHANDLE
Escambia
Santa Rosa Y
Okaloosa Y
Bay Y Y Y Y
Gulf Y
Franklin Y Y y y








LOCAL REEF MONITORING AND DATA MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY PARAMETERS


REGION/
)UNTY


FIELDSHEETS I


GIS CAPABILITY I


REGION 1:
NORTHEAST
Nassau Y Y
Duval Y Y Y
St. Johns Y
Volusia Y Y Y
Brevard Y Y
REGION 2:
EAST CENTRAL
Martin Y Y Y
St. Lucie
Palm Beach Y Y Y Y Y
lroward Y Y Y
REGION 3:
SOUTrHEAST & FL. KEYS
Dade Y Y Y Y
Monroe Y
REGION 4:
SOUTHWEST
Pinellas Y Y Y
I lillsborough Y Y Y Y
'"inalee
asota Y Y Y
Charlotte Y y
Lee Y Y Y y
Collier Y Y Y
REGION 5:
WEST CENTRAL
Wakulla
Taylor
Levy Y Y Y
Citrus
I ernando Y Y
Pasco Y
REGION 6:
PANHANDLE
Escambia Y
Santa Rosa Y
Okaloosa Y
Bay Y Y Y
Gulf
Franklin Y Y Y


--


LABACCESS VESSEL I COMPUTER I










Appendix M


Summary of 35 Florida Coastal County

Artificial Reef Performance Assessment Capability

based on written survey and interview data

between October 1991 and March 1992.










Appendix M


BAY COUNTY Survey: 3/1 7/92 Interview: 3/17/92
Notes: Survey and Interview Dan Grizzard, Operations Director for Panama City Marine Institute (PCMI),
Panama City, FL, and volunteer reef coordinator for county.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

1-part time county staff Paper files, and Site selections, post No county staff
from planning Dept. computer files. Mainly deployment mapping, involved in field work.
handles contracts & wordprocessing data and periodic monitoring Must depend solely on
grants only. (Wordstar v.6) Has with volunteers, volunteers, students
DBase II, Supercalc and staff at PCMI.

Volunteer from PCMI PCMI Director gives Have their own vessels Not funded to do reef
coordinates reef talks about reefs to at PCMI, capable of studies, but capable of
construction, and public. Writes articles, basic oceanographic providing a safe and
documentation, takes public phone calls, studies and diver consistent research
media, & civic club support. platform.
slide shows.

Some volunteer Photos and videos since Access to large labor
assistance from local 1986. Computer has force of youth and
divers and PCMI modem capability, experienced marine
students (untrained in teachers. (Technical and
science. scientific)
Co has GIS system, not Access the NMFS Lab
used for reef data, but in Panama City. Works
does have potential with with many of their staff.
extra funds.


BREVARD COUNTY Survey: 5/22/92 Interview:
Notes: Bill Mahan, Sea Grant Extension Agent

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS
1 part time in Co. Contracts & grants, and Limited site selection No trained employees
Dept. of Nat. Res handles paperwork and reef verification by or trained volunteers
Mgmt. required by FDNR volunteer diver and organized.
contractors.

Sea Grant Agent works Paper files, and hand Sea Grant agent and No regular data
with volunteer divers, written notes in Co one trained volunteer collection is made. No
and sports fishing club. DNRM office. County capable of developing a formal data sheets
Reef location volunteer training used.
pamphlets. program.

1 volunteer trained by GIS, ARC-INFO user,
Sea Grant in but not used for reef
Jacksonville data.










Appendix M

BROWARD COUNTY Survey: 11/15/91 Interview: 2/18/92
Notes: Interview with Ken Banks, P.E. Ocean Engineer, Erosion Prevention District, Office of Natural
Protection, Ft. Lauderdale.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

2-Part time staff Archives in Marine Beach erosion and Do not have an art.
1 BS, 1-tech. access to Resource Office, but reefs, monitor natural reef monitoring
total of 5 staff, when limited to just the reefs for damage from program.
needed. required by DNR, data. beach nourishment. No volunteer
Annual reports. assistance.

Nova U. Stony coral Dive log sheets, Loran Side scan sonar maps
growth rate study, 1987. maps and reef sites from consultant.
published, range maps. Sediments, transect for
Aerial Photos of reefs, fauna, water quality lab.
and has mapped all
placements on Autocad.

Press releases and good Has own county
Chamber of Commerce research vessel for 6
connections, to promote divers.
tourism.

Presently just acquiring Location surveys with
a GIS system. Will be Differential GPS and
dedicated to marine range-range microwave
data use. station.

CHARLOTTE COUNTY Survey: 12/31/91 Interview: 1/29/92
Notes: Interviewed Will Sheftall, Co Extension Director & Sea Grant Agent, Punta Gorda

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS
1-part time staff, the Archives in the Grants and Contracts, One person operation.
Sea Grant Marine Extension Office. and all coordination
Agent. Some assistance Written placement with reef builders.
from fire & rescue reports. Photos of barge
service loads taken.

Charlotte Co Dive club Paper and electronic Limited site selection,
interested in assisting files, wordprocessing, and post reef placement
with reef program, but and photo files. News agent dives, with
is untrained, articles, and public assistance from fire and
speaking programs. rescue service who
provides boat.
No GIS system in Water quality by DER
county. Co soon to in harbor, not offshore.
purchase in
Engineering.








Appendx M










Appendix M


CITRUS COUNTY Survey: 12/30/92 Interview: No
Notes: Thomas H. Dick, Director of Aquatics/Solid Waste Mgmt, Lecanto, FL

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

1-part time as Just site selection & Contracts & Grants, use No trained divers
additional duty. post deployment sheriffs office divers to available. No vessels
information only. News observe reefs, available. Must
clippings and permit depend on sheriff
files only. Dept.

No summary reports. No standardized data
No identified data forums
parameters collected.

Some news articles

,No GIS System, but Co.
is interested.

COLLIER COUNTY Survey: 11/12/91 Interview: No
Notes: Kevin Dugan, Environmental Specialist II, Naples, FL

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

4-part time, 3-MS, 1-BS Paper and Computer Limited diving. Has a No access to labs. No
Handles reef data as files. Photos. county vessel available funds for reef
additional duty. for reef monitoring, assessment.


Use volunteers Provides handouts to Contracts & Grants, No standardized data
public. Site Selections and post methods or log sheets.
deployment
documentation by a
county official.


Uses GIS system to file
reef data.










Appendix M


DADE COUNTY Survey: 12/15/92 Interview: 2/19/92
Notes: Interview with Ben Mostkoff, Artificial Reef Program Coordinator, DERM, Division Miami,
accompany him on trip to inshore reef in bay near Haulover Beach Park

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

1-Full time reef Archives on paper and Monitor beach reefs No regular long term
coordinator and 1 part electronic. VAX system, quarterly, as required monitoring of artificial
time. Access to 1-PhD, Lotus spreadsheets, by renourishment reefs, but frequent
1-MS, 7-BS Photo archives, program. Site selection, visits to them are
Wordprocessing & R- & post deployment made.
Base. usually done.


No volunteers involved Summary reports to DERM lab can sample Not funded to study
but are highly public, county and water quality but artificial reefs, only the
interested in Sea Grant DNR. Commercial normally contracts this "beach reefs".
Training Program to videos are available, out.
train volunteers to
work with county
DERM.


University of Miami Univ of Miami Three vessels available.
Studies. Spawning on Researchers. Many All reefs within 4 miles
Art.Reefs, by Dr. popular articles in dive of shore.
McGowan magazines.

County has GIS but not
used for reef data.

DIXIE COUNTY Survey: 6/9/92 Interview: Scott Andre, 6/9/92 by phone.
Notes: Scott Andre, Sea Grant Extension Agent. Dixie Co. has no artificial reef program at this time. Any
reef activity is through the Sea Grant Extension Program. Some reefs have recently been built off the coast
by the Levy county efforts of a University of Florida Research Team. See Levy Co. data summary.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS


I. 9


4. 9 4










Appendix M


DUVAL COUNTY Survey: 12/3/91 Interview: 5/7/92
Notes: Phone Interview w/ Jack S. Ruppel, City of Jacksonville, Recreation Planning and Grants
Coordinator.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS
City Staff, Pt.time; Paper Files, Reports Grants Management No field Capability in
formal reporting to the from Volunteers, Word and Local Contracts for county by county staff.
county through Processing, construction.
progress reports.
Volunteer dive team, Computer Archives at Dive Team, Bio Lab at Rely on volunteers to
Jax Scubanauts RRT UNF- DBase III+, All Jax U, Water Data, build reefs and assess
with 100 volunteers dive logs, Specimen Mapping, Fish & reefs.
trained by Fl Sea Collection at Jax. U. inverts. Sediments
Grant, since 1985. sampled, sieved.
Team well organized, Volunteers own vessel
and has own training & use private vessels
program.

Team has published New GIS, being Site selections, pre and Limited bottom time
Standard Operating installed as of 5/8/92, post deployment surveys due to depth of most
Procedures, U/W uncertain availability for and limited monitoring reefs beyond 60'.
Methods Manual, 70% reef use. of fish and benthic Weather is a significant
tested by Sea Grant SK communities. Photo & factor during the
Grant. Have own Dive video. Some are Nitrox winter months.
Control Board. certified.

Near meeting the Locations published in Regular monitoring of
AAUS standard for sci. "Hotspots" book from three locations, began
divers. Jax. RRT., "Reef 1991.
Quarterly" newsletter.










Appendix M


ESCAMBIA COUNTY Survey: 11/9/91 Beard & 12/2/91 Wood. Interview: 3/16/92
Notes: Interviewed Eilene Beard, Volunteer Chairperson, Gulf Activities for the Escambia county Marine
Recreation Committee, Pensacola FL.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

Volunteer handles all Mostly paper files kept Site selections and post No oceanographic data
reef activity for the in four cardboard boxes deployment surveys are taken. Has little or no
county. Uses county at the SCUBA Shack done by volunteers, capability for taking
budget office to Dive shop. Some Have easy access to physical or biological
administer the funds. photos. News clippings, volunteer dive boats, data. Equipment &
training limited.

Non-science trained Some computer files Can do most No systematic
divers on dive charter maintained by another photography, and some monitoring, just
boats keep a mental volunteer using a video. Uses a standard frequent dives to reefs
record of changes they database program. No data sheet for site with no documentation.
see. formal dive log records selections.
kept.

Marine recreation No GIS capability
committee is appointed available.
by Co. Commission

FLAGLER COUNTY Survey: 6/10/92 Interview:
Notes: Joe Halusky, N.E. Florida Sea Grant Extension Agent
County has no reef program, since it has no inlet access to the sea. There is interest in forming some reef
activity from a dive club in the county.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS










Appendix M


FRANKLIN COUNTY Survey: 12/3/91 Intervi(
Notes: Survey Charles Daniels, Carabelle City Clerk


ew 3/20/92
SInterview Bill Horn and John Brooks from OAR and


Scott Andre, Sea Grant.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS
1-part time city staff Archives managed by Site selections, post Co. has no vessel.
involved to handle OAR, includes paper deployment mapping, Volunteers provide
funds and work w/ files, and computer data fish surveys, vessel. Some use of
OAR. City of Carabelle County files in Sea FSU vessel.
builds own reefs, Grant office. City holds
separate from county files for their own reefs.
reefs, w/help from
OAR.
Organization of Wordperfect 5.1, Q&A Access to FSU Marine
Artificial Reefs (OAR) Database, Maps on Lab and campus faculty.
handles all aspects of Harvard Graphics. Has a site permitted
reef construction and just for research
monitoring, purposes.

Sea Grant Agent Quarterly Newsletter Access to FSU
provides input from the "Oarlines" Academic Diving
county and serves as a Program and Dive
liaison with OAR. Locker Equipment.

Appalachicola Nat. No GIS in county. Nitrox capability, but
Estuary Program has Possible access to one none trained at this
some staff which can at FSU. time.
provide data.__

GULF COUNTY Survey: 11/9/91 Interview: 3/18/92
Notes: Survey & Interview Bill Koran, Volunteer Director of City of Port St. Joe Artificial Reef Project,
Owner of Capt. Blacks Marine

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

Co. has no staff Paper files and some Limited diving No county vessel, must
involved with reef wordprocessing. No capability, volunteer depend on volunteers.
program. City Mgr. of photos. Permits & high school teacher, No dive logs are kept
Port St. Joe refers all reports to DNR and dive instructor. 4 to 8 of observational dives.
reef business to Corps of Eng. only. people assist. Contracts Estimates of visible
volunteer reef program & Grants handled growth & species
director. through city manager, made, but not
documented.

Friends of St. Joe Bay News articles and
volunteers contribute volunteer club
labor and some correspondence. No
assistance GIS system.










Appendix M


HERNANDO COUNTY Survey. 1/7/92 Interview: No
Notes: Linda Buck, Office Manager, Hernando CO Port Authority, Spring Hill

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

4-part time, assists Paper files, computer Contracts & Grants, No access to lab,
construction contractor database, news site selections w/ divers, depends on incidental
in reef construction, clippings, photos post deployment, fishing reports for fish
species list.

Hire consultants. News articles and Has own vessel through
brochures Port Authority.


No GIS capability.___

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Survey: 11/12/92 Interview: 1/31/92
Notes: Interview w/ Tom Ash, Artificial Reef Coordinator, Tampa

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS
1-Full Time, 1-Part Paper files, Contracts & Grants,
time, both w/ BS. wordprocessing, lotus Site selection, post
Funded by pollution spreadsheet, news Deployment,
recovery $, Envt'l clippings, video & still Monitoring of Bay
Protection Commission. photos, specimen Reefs, benthic grabs
collections and water quality.

Indicates no formal Citizen Input through
means for handling data CEAC (Cit. Envtl
exists at this time. Does Awareness Committee.
have standard data Do not provide data,
report form. just direction.
Est. cost of each Monitors six sites
sampling is $1100 quarterly. Has 22'
vessel.

GIS in Co. Engineers Access to Co. labs, and
Office, high interest in has some lab capability.
using for reef data.










Appendix M


JEFFERSON COUNTY Survey: 6/9/1992 Interview: 6/9/1992 phone.
Notes: Interviewed Scott Andre, Sea Grant Extension Agent. Jefferson Co. has never had an artificial reef
program.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS








LEE COUNTY Survey: 11/13/91 Interview: 1/28/92
Notes: Interviewed Steve Boutelle, Biologist, Chris Koepfer, Biologist, & Chuck Listowski, Le Co. Marine
Sciences Division, Fort Meyers.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

5-part time employees, Paper and computer Contracts & Grants, Not able to monitor
1-MS, 2-BS, 2-trained files., Lotus Site Selections, and fish on bay reefs due to
technicians. All can spreadsheet, and detailed post poor visibility. No
dive. wordprocessing. deployment, maps, standard data log
physical descriptions sheets.

Volunteers for Science Some summary reports, Can monitor monthly, Volunteers not trained,
Research (VSR) diving and maps and brochure but has no official to design their own
group of apx. 30 for the public, schedule at this time. projects, must depend
people. Volunteers able to use on input from county.
photography and video.

Lee County Fishing Have new county vessel Limited accuracy on
Reef Association, Inc. 25' can handle 6 divers. Loran C, in some
areas.

No GIS available, but
may be able to use Reg.
PI. council's. Hope to
get one in future.










Appendx M


LEVY COUNTY Survey: 5/28/92 Interview: No
Notes: Survey completed by Dr. William Lindberg, U.of Fl. Dept. of Fisheries. He is currently conducting
research on reefs built by his project grant. Most reefs in Levy Co. are the result of this project.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

Co. has no office which U. of Fl. researchers Full field data collection Co. DOES NOT have
handles reef files. Dept. of Fish. & and access to University its own reef monitoring
information. All reef Aquaculture. Computer labs. Res. team has capability.
data is handled by data, IBM compatible own vessel, dive locker
liason with U.of Fl. spreadsheets. Still and science equipment.
researchers, photos.



2 PHd.'s from U. of Fl. Research team gives Monitors 48 reef sites
and graduate students, public talks on findings. at least two times each
Co handles permits year. Water Data, fish
through U. of Florida counts, photography,
Temp.

Access to U.of Fl GIS.
Co. does not have GIS
available for reef data.

MANATEE COUNTY Survey: 1/30/92 Interview: 1/30/92
Notes: Interview with John Stevely, Sea Grant Agent, and Dan Ramsey, Project Manager for Manatee Co.
Parks & Recreation Department, Bradenton, FL.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

1-part time Co staff. Paper files, news Contracts & Grants Site No county staff dives,
Part of Recreation & clippings, photos, selections, and post w/exception of Sea
Cultural Arts Dept. wordprocessing. deployment, obs. by Sea Grant Agent.
Grant agent.

Sea Grant Agent Site selections were No new sites
done 10+ years ago. permitted.

Environmental Action Ch. of Commerce Some photo skills Must depend on
committee of Envir. subcommittee, available from untrained volunteers
volunteers sometimes supports fishing reefs, volunteers and Sea and their vessels when
assist with photos, but Grant. available.
not normally involved.
No GIS capability No vessel available.


I










Appendix M


MARTIN COUNTY Survey: 6/5/92 Interview: 6/5/92
Notes: Joe Halusky notes based on phone interview with Mark Perry, Florida Oceanographic Society, Ann
Burford, Dept. of Environmental Services and discussions with Helen Harlson-Kite of the Florida
Oceanographic Society (FOS), Stuart, FL.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

2 part time county staff, Permit files, contracts Contracts & Grants, No county staff dives
Mosquito Control and & grants, coordinates with on reef projects.
Co Envtl Services. volunteers from FOS.

23 Volunteers from Reef archives kept at Site selections, post Must depend on 23
FOS & Stuart Dive the FOS Office. deployment verification, available volunteers
Club have been trained. Volunteers trained by mapping, still & video.
the FOS, using the Sea Monitoring 2 sites each
Grant and Jax. RRT's month for water,
model. Standard data species, temp. salinity.
forms on computer. Uses standard data
forms.

Uses DBase III, Access to a lab a t FOS
Microsoft Works and Fla. Atlantic Univ.

No GIS System Capable of training own
available, volunteers, has a
training program
underway in Palm
Beach Co.

MONROE COUNTY Survey: 12/6/91 Interview:
Notes: Curtis Kruer, Florida Keys Artificial Reef Association, Inc. PO Box 917, Big Pine Key, FL 33043 305-
745-2719

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS




Volunteer reef building
association.


Pennecamp State
Underwater Park Staff



Looe Key National
Marine Sanctuary Staff










Appendix M


NASSAU COUNTY Survey: 4/15/92 Interview: 5/8/92
Notes: Phone Interview w/ Ilona Preliou, City of Fernandina Beach

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

City Staff, Pt.time; no Paper Files, Reports Grants Management No field Capability in
formal reporting to the from Volunteers, Word and Local Contracts for county.
county. Processing construction.

Volunteer dive team, Computer Archives at Dive Team, Bio Lab at No local dive team in
Jax RRT 80 volunteers UNF, Specimen Jax U, Water Data, county, but are
Collection at JU Mapping Fish & interested in getting
inverts. Volunteers own training.
vessel & use private
vessels


Local dive club "Six GIS at Reg. Plan. Site selections, pre and
Flags Dive Club" Council, not available post deployment
interested in forming a for reef use. surveys.
team, or working with
Jax. RRT.
Locations published in No regular monitoring.
"Hotspots" book from
Jax. RRT.

OKALOOSA COUNTY Survey: 11/13/91 Interview: 3/16/92
Notes: Survey and Interview Ellen Holt, Co. Administrator, along with Mike Mitchell, Co. Commissioner,
Jack Spey, Volunteer Reef Coordinator and Bill Horn, DNR.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

1-part time County Paper files in co. office Can get data from No volunteers trained
Administrator (Who organized by reef volunteer divers and for underwater data
received training from number. Maintained by fishermen. Site taking.
Fl. Sea Grant in 1989. volunteer and Co. selection and post
Admin. deployment is verified
by volunteer and county
employee.

Volunteer reef No published maps. Co. has no vessel, must Charter fishermen
coordinator. Has news clippings, and depend on volunteers, don't take divers.
some videos, taken and Charter Boat There is a dive charter
within last 3 years. Association. industry, who could
help, if expenses were
funded.

Volunteer from Destine Has GIS system, but no
Charter Boat Assoc. reef data in it. Is
available for reef data.


I I










Appendix M


PALM BEACH COUNTY Survey: 11/21/91 Interview. 2/19/92
Notes: Interviewed Carman N. Vare-Vernachio, Senior Environmentla Analyst, DERM and James S.
Vaughn, Co Environmentalist DERM (Dept. of Environmental Resources Management.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

1-full time (BS) & 1- Extensive paper and Contracts, Grants, Too few county staff,
part time county staff electronic files. Charts county funds for studies, must eventually rely on
with DERM. and maps. Some and regular (monthly) volunteers if program
special projects on monitoring of marine is to expand. Not
Manatees & Estuaries. envt's. Has county boat, enough county divers.
Access to 5 other Co. 26' for 6 divers. Good Range of vessel 45
staff when needed, lab facilities for water miles
studies.

Now training volunteers Publishes reef guides, PEP Reef Study, Pre-
through FL Ocn. Soc. and reports, fabricated Erosion
to assist with field work Protection Device,
nearshore.

Univ. of Miami Fish Univ. of Miami Data Monitoring two reefs
Study of Pyramid for two years. Photo,
Reefs. Fish & Video.
GIS available in DERM
and is used for reef
data.

PASCO COUNTY Survey: 11/14/91 Interview: No
Notes: Rodger Scofield, Parks Construction Supervisor, Port Richy

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

4-part time, (1-BS, 3- Paper files, news Contracts & Grants. No lab access. No
tech.) clippings, no data Divers provide photos, funds for research or
sheets, videos and site selections. building a data base.
Post deployment
surveys done.

Volunteers are used to Provides maps, histories Has vessel which is
get field data. Some to the public on used to assess reefs.
consultants in past were request.
used.
No summary reports.

No GIS in county.










Appendix M


PINELLAS COUNTY Survey: 12/5/91 Interview: No
Notes: Survey completed by Bob Peacock, Reef Program Supervisor, St. Petersburg

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

5-full time employees, Paper files, news Contracts & Grants,
all technicians. clippings, videos and site selections, post
specimens. Has deployment, and
standardized data monthly monitoring of
sheets, uses word all reef sites. Has
processing and lotus landing craft vessel for
spreadsheet.. reef construction.

Some volunteer Brochures and maps for Uses scuba diving and
assistance, the public, vessel instruments.
Community College News articles, radio & Mapping of reef
(H. Mathews) TV location

Co. has GIS but not
used for reef data.

SANTA ROSA COUNTY Survey: 6/5/1992 Interview: 6/5/1992 by phone
Notes: Interview by phone with Irene Kicker, County Finance Supervisor, Milton FL. She manages the reef
grants program, and noted that the responsibility for the program has recently been passed to DeVann Cook,
County Safety Director.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

1-part time as an Handles contracts and Access to Civil Defense Divers not trained in
additional duty. grants only. Vessel. underwater science,
only search & rescue.

Some assistance from Maintains records
Civil Defense Divers required by the state
and some volunteer DNR only.
divers and fishermen.

Paper files and news
clippings. No computer
files.

Has GIS, used for land
use planning in Co.
Engineers office.


I










Appendix M


SARASOTA COUNTY Survey: 12/2/91 Interview: 1/27/92
Notes: Interview with Belinda Perry, Environmental Supervisor, Sarasota Co. Natural Resources Depart.,
Sarasota (New reef coordinator Mike Solum, who works for Belinda.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

4-part time, 1-MS, 3-BS Paper files and word Contracts & Grants, Not budgeted for
(3 are divers.). City has processing Wordperfect Use volunteer divers routine reef work. No
a reef coordinator, part 5.1. Has DBaseIII+, and fishermen for data complete species list or
time. City & Co. work SAS, News Clippings, input. Water Quality specimens, and depend
together on bay reefs. Photo Archives lab, still & video on untrained citizens to
ID.

Artificial Reef Annual reef brochure Site selections and post Does not do a scatter
Committee, Volunteer w/boater registrations. deployment. Inventories map of a placement.
materials before
placement. Some spot
checked after placed.

Mote Marine Lab Epifaunal seasonality Has 20' vessel for 4
contract study, 1986-87. divers.
Co. has GIS in planning
Dept. but is not used
for reef data. Would
need own computer.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY Survey: 2/1/92 Interview: 5/7/92
Notes: Phone interview with Gene Burns, Director of Facilities Management, County Reef Grants
Coordinator, in the County Engineers Office.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

Part time county Paper file reports from Contracts and Grants, No field capability in
employee, volunteer dive team. Word processing and county, must depend
Publish locations on some electronic data on Sheriffs Patrol boat
free map, and in storage. and volunteers to view
Jax.RRT's "Hotspots" reef placement.

St. Johns Reef Data archives at the Underwater Small number of
Research Team, with 8 Whitney Marine Res. observation, mapping, volunteers. Limited
volunteers, trained by Lab, Marineland. water data, sediments, availability of boats.
Fl Sea Grant in 1983. fish and benthic
communities.

Sea Grant Agent able Still photo and video Offshore beyond 5 Most reefs deeper than
to dive and train files at Whitney Lab. miles, and in depth 60 feet, and beyond 5
volunteers. Site selection & post range from 60 to 130 miles offshore. Limited
deployment verification. feet. bottom times.










Appendix M


PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS
GIS system in county Still Photo & Video
planning, may be
available for reef data,
if funded.

ST. LUCIE COUNTY Survey: 11/26/91 Interview: 2/20/92
Notes: Interview Robert Cutcher, Sea Grant Agent; Brad Keen, Recreation Planner, Div. of Leisure Services,
& reef grants coordinator; & J.S. "Stan" Blum, Fort Pierce Sport Fishing Club.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

Part time county staff Permit files, reef Grants & Contracts, No post deployment
with Sea Grant Agent. locations, in county Site selection, by assessment, other than
office, volunteer fishermen and from vessel. Diving
some divers, limited to Agent and
untrained volunteer.

Sea Grant Agent Maintains some reef Site selection and No systematic
working with volunteers data information in Sea limited mapping. monitoring plan. No
in fishing club. Grant office. funds from county for
assessment. Only DNR
S.

Ft. Pierce Sport Fishing Files on reef locations. Club handles private
Club Anecdotal Information. donations.

Co. has GIS but not
used for reef data.

TAYLOR COUNTY Survey: 3/20/92 Interview: 3/20/92
Notes: Scott Andre, Sea Grant Extension Agent

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

1-part time Co. staff, Paper files, news OAR volunteers able to No in-county persons
handles paperwork clippings, photos, and develop species list, site involved with diving.
only. reports from OAR, and selection surveys and
Sea Grant Agent. deployment maps

Sea Grant Agent assists No computer files in OAR uses standard dive No in-county vessels.
with site selection and county. Reports from logs. But files are in Must depend on
deployment OAR are on computer. Tallahassee. volunteers.
documentation. Wordperfect, DBase
III+, Lotus

OAR volunteers assist.

No GIS capability in
county.










Appendix M


VOLUSIA COUNTY Survey: 12/5/91


Interview: No


Notes: Dan O'Brien, Port Authority Coordinator, Daytona Beach

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS

Part time reef Paper and electronic Contracts & Grants No county staff in field
coordinator. Some Co. archives on Port office. management, Co & capability for
employees help during File cabinet and word State provides funds for assessment.
placement. processing. reef construction.
Volunteer reef research Files maintained by Site selections, No. of volunteers is
team of 10, trained by staff and volunteers, mapping, sediments, limited. Availability of
Fl Sea Grant in 1980. Using Loran Software fish & benthics. boats dependent on
for reef map locations. volunteers.

Halifax Sport Fishing Film and Video files. Construction by
Club & Halifax Reef Publish a map through volunteer and county
Inc. provides reef Halifax Fishing Club. cooperation. Some
construction assistance, funds available from
county to support
volunteers expenses.

Sea Grant Agent can GIS used by county for
provide diver training, planning, but no
and does work with connection to reef data.
Port.

WAKULLA COUNTY Survey: 12/26/92 Interview: 3/20/92
Notes: Survey Ed Mills, Co. Planning Director. Interview Bill Horn and John Brooks from OAR and Scott
Andre, Sea Grant.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS
1-part time county staff Archives managed by Site selections, post Co. has no vessel.
involved to handle OAR, includes paper deployment mapping, Volunteers provide
funds and work w/ files, and computer data fish surveys, vessel. Some use of
OAR. FSU vessel.

Organization of Wordperfect 5.1, Q&A Access to FSU Marine
Artificial Reefs (OAR) Database, Maps on Lab and campus faculty.
handles all aspects of Harvard Graphics. Has a site permitted
reef construction and just for research
monitoring, purposes.
Sea Grant Agent Quarterly Newsletter Access to FSU
provides some training "Oarlines" Academic Diving
and liaison with FSU. Program and Dive
Locker Equipment.

Mola Marine No GIS in county. Nitrox capability, but
Consultants, Paul Possible access to one none trained at this
Johnson at FSU. time.









Appendix M


WALTON COUNTY Survey: 6/9/1992 Interview: 6/9/1992 by phone.
Notes: Scott Andre, Sea Grant Extension Agent. County has no inlet and no reef program at this time.

PERSONNEL DATA MGMT CAPABILITIES LIMITATIONS










Appendix N


Summary of Statements by County

Based on Written Survey & Interviews

Top Assessment Needs
Expectations from the State
Expectations from the Academics
Additional Concerns










Appendix N


TOP ASSESSMENT NEEDS:

Bay
1. Standard forms and data gathering methods needed. Should establish data management through the use
of IBM compatible "menu driven" programs.
2. Access to reef data from other programs.
3. Assistance with training volunteers and leaders of volunteer groups.

Brevard
1. Funds.
2. Staff.
3. Long range management plan.

Broward
1. We need a reef monitoring program, first priority need.
2. Various scientific studies needed. Need to study deep and shallow reefs, and the connection to the inshore
habitats. Most studies dependent on divers, not remote sensing.

Charlotte
1. Need standardized methods which "fit" the local environment.
2. Funds and full time county biologist needed to document reefs.
3. Need assistance to validate "other reef sites".

Citrus
1. Just some guidance or a model program for a county of our size.
2. Funds.

Collier
1. Funds, funds, funds.

Dade
1. Documentation of function of artificial reefs, with emphasis on production/productivity vs aggregation
argument. Then get on with management strategies.
2. Documentation of effectiveness/longevity/stability of various artificial reef materials.
3. Basic data collection on sequential events of epibenthic fouling and fish/crustacean utilization &
settlement at reef site.
4. Document "Habitat Resource" and Manage Fishing pressure. Reef should enhance fishery "resource' not
just the "fish".

Duval
1. Funds to support staff and for equipment to maintain data. Feels that county could come up with a 50%
match to state funds.
2. Hardware and software.
3. Software Training.

Escambia
1. Simply establish a program with a dedicated county employee or Sea Grant employee that works on
nothing but reefs. (Note: does not understand Sea Grants actual role here! comment by Joe Halusky)
2. Standardize procedure for data collection.










Appendix N


3. Establish a statewide network to share what other counties are doing.

Franklin
1. Additional volunteers and reliable vessels.
2. Permanent location for archives and laboratory.
3. Additional equipment (ie. U/W sleds, scooters, video, cameras, GPS units, vessels).
4. Guidelines for ways to determine how productive reefs are.
5. Wants state to make monitoring methods more effective by determining the "proper" monitoring methods.
6. State should provide tech. assistance by translating "academic" research information into easy to
understand form. Interpretation of technical language for implementation and application.

Gulf
1. List of approved materials that are ranked by environmental productivity(ie. marine growth, fish holding
ability, ageing and deterioration-- not politically motivated.
2. Funds. Reef builders need a steady budget ($10,000 to $20,000/year) to get consistency in reef building
and monitoring. SHOULD NOT HAVE TO NEGOTIATE EACH YEAR! We cannot survive with annual
bidding, especially when contract $ are made available for a limited time and during the worst time of the
year for the weather, especially in the northern gulf.
3. A Monitoring program needs special equipment, standardized formats, access to a large dependable group
of divers such as OAR, and someone salaried (part time) at the local level to handle the paperwork.

Hernando
1. State wide reef management data exchange and standardized reef assessment information.
2. Would like to see newsletter statewide with information exchange.

Hillsborough
1. Standardization of methods, sampling and data management.
2. Manpower.
3. Scientifically valid methodology.
4. Better communication with other programs.
5. Get the academic and regulatory agencies together to sort out what needs to be done.

Lee
1. Global Positioning System.
2. Computer mapping capabilities.
3. Increased trained manpower, from volunteers.

Manatee
1. Need data management guidelines.
2. Need to organize and train volunteers.
3. Need to network with others involved in reef work, locally.

Martin
1. Funds to assist with staffing, training volunteers and for data collection expenses. Need county support in
matching funds. Funds to support building a data collection and management system.
2. Continued training of volunteer divers to gather data in the field.
3. Liaison with the scientific and academic community.

Nassau










Appendix N


1. Funds to support volunteers expenses, and volunteer training.
2. Funds for part time person on staff funded to coordinate grants, and handle data.

Okaloosa
1. Funds for seed money to support getting county started. Should include funds for training volunteers,
equipment and expenses for sustaining their involvement. $20,000 for the first year, and some reduced
amount each year after to continue the program, and motivate volunteers to keep going.
2. Develop methods for gathering data and networking it with other counties.

Palm Beach
1. Need additional funding to get full capability up and running. Then less funds once full capabilities are
realized. Need to maintain funds for "Long term" studies, not year to year projects.
2. Need standard assessment criteria.
3. Need standard data management program that is networked across the state.

Pasco
1. Data collection (Personnel, procedures, equipment).
2. Data storage (computer programs).
3. Funding.

Pinellas
1. Assessing reef effectiveness.
2. Evaluating our vast data bank of survey data.
3. Cooperative analysis.

Sarasota
1. Criteria on what, how and why we should be monitoring reefs. These need to be practical and should be
accomplished on the local level with minimal funding and equipment.
2. Standardize data collection in a form which can be exchanged with other reef programs or scientific
institutions.
3. Workshops on utilizing/training volunteer divers to monitor reef sites.

St. Johns
1. Full time program vs and annually funded project approach. Feels counties need to be able to plan long
term monitoring of reefs, over many years, and not be confined to an annual project proposal process.
2. Reef monitoring using local resources (volunteers, staff or consultants) for data collection, with evaluation
by professionals in the marine environment (state agencies and academic institutions).
3. Public awareness of programs.

St. Lucie
1. Come up with a reef assessment plan or policy, guidelines, standards and methods.
2. Need to define the "MINIMUM" data required for assessment.
3. Funds ($25k to $50K) for hardware, software for a data archives for "physical" data. This should include
funds for field sampling: water samplers, still and video photography, boat and diving expenses, as well as
office equipment etc.
4. More Ships and other reef materials.

Santa Rosa
1. Funds for equipment and staffing.










Appendix N


2. Information on standards and methods.
3. Training of staff and volunteers.

Taylor
1. People (Volunteers to run a program.
2. Standard methods/technology to conduct management/assessment.
3. Boats and facility on coast to serve this function.


Volusia
1. Profile, growth, species from coordinator's view.
2. Boat, Lab, add staff from volunteer's view.

Wakulla
1. Additional volunteers and reliable vessels.
2. Permanent location for archives and laboratory.
3. Additional equipment (ie. U/W sleds, scooters, video, cameras, GPS units, vessels).
4. Guidelines for ways to determine how productive reefs are.
5. Wants state to make monitoring methods more effective by determining the "proper" monitoring methods.
6. State should provide tech. assistance by translating "academic" research information into easy to
understand form. Interpretation of technical language for implementation and application.










Appendix N


EXPECTATIONS FROM STATE:

Bay
1. Funding -- for GPS system, and microcomputer dedicated to reef data processing. Also need specialized
data gathering equipment which is calibrated and standardized. Need fuel and expense money to support
volunteers. They shouldn't have to pay for everything.
2. Consistency of treatment between communities, fair treatment with respect to who gets funded. Get
politics out of the process.
3. Information sharing -- keeping people informed.
4. State agencies should help to "market" the reef program through positive actions and pro-active publicity.
They should do press releases across the whole state to show how the tax money, and license money is
benefitting the people.
5. Send $$$ to the local reef programs, then don't meddle with how locals need to spend it. Keep paperwork
down. Give locals some credit for their professionalism for making the best decisions which fir their local
situation. Don't support those who don't know what they are doing.

Brevard
1. Funds to produce detailed maps.

Broward
1. Management and assessment guidelines and a data network.
2. Funding for something other than just "sinking ships".
3. Computer bulletin board updated regularly, and electronic mail messages, studies, grants and opportunities
to exchange information with others.
4. Ability to share data, especially with adjacent counties.
5. State should take a regional approach for establishing monitoring programs, to account for wide
differences in Florida marine environments.

Charlotte
1. Guidelines and standard reporting procedures.
2. DNR Lab studies on fish habitats to assess fishery needs, and stock assessment.

Citrus
1. Training for the type of assessment needed.

Collier
1. Standardized procedures and the funding to carry them out.

Dade
1. "Tell us what to do, and we'll find the means to do it." If state demands we need to do something, we can
get the local government to find the funds to do it.
2. Top priority of the reef management program should be to address the issue of production vs aggregation
question, and at the same time to develop a state management plan for the fishery resources of all existing
state artificial reefs. There needs to be a plan, which would be authored by the Marine Fisheries
Commission, to establish SMZ status for all artificial reefs in state waters.
3. Would not want to be required to do anything "esoteric" just limit parameters to the minimum needed by
to make management decisions.
4. Name of program should be "DNR Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program" not Artificial FISHING Reef
Program. Reefs are being built to enhance productivity of all marine species, and not JUST those which


I I










Appendi N


have "Fishery" value.
5. Monitoring goal should focus on reef productivity, i.e. spawning and to enhance habitat.
6. Should be considered as a form of mitigation (Ref. CA Study at the 5th Intl Conference.)

Duval
1. GIS Mapping assistance, funds (seed money to get things started) & software to support.
2. Standardization of the data required and report formats, and some assistance with interpreting with data
from other areas of the state.
3. Allow reef construction grants to use a portion of the funds to help fund establishing a monitoring
program, and purchase a computer for desktop GIS capability, in the reef coordinators office.

Escambia
1. Make permits easy and to be CONSISTENT between counties.
2. Assistance in establishing a reef program parallel to the Alabama program. "NOAA-Panama City Lab
statistics shows it is working!"
3. Encourage the citizen to do it right, and don't be discouraging. With to many rules and discouragements
put in the way, the citizens will continue to build reefs anyway, even if it is wrong.
4. Permit a large permitted area where small boaters are allowed to place "approved reef materials."
5. Training for volunteers.
6. Access to statewide findings.
7. A standard computerized data handling network.

Franklin
1. Standardized methods.
2. Funds for training, monitoring activities, and support team expenses as transportation, materials,
instruments.
3. Continuing education through meetings, seminars, etc.
4. Statewide newsletters and publications.
5. Coordinate between volunteers and the research efforts in the state.
6. Need to assess "Oyster" reefs with the building of fishing reefs.
7. Need a list of experienced reef building contractors.
8. Provide a "model" specification for monitoring bid contracts.

Gulf
1. Funds for equipment, consultants, manpower, expenses.
2. Technical data on proper materials.
3. Feedback from other reef programs, to tell me what to look for, and what works.
4. Put information on a computer network which I at the local level can access.

Hernando
1. Standardized reef assessment information and guidelines for data collection.
2. Exchange of information regarding placement, monitoring and problems.

Hillsborough
1. Standardization and methodology for management and assessment of reefs.
2. Would like to see feedback form state agencies in the monitoring effort. These should include personal
visits from DNR biologists.
3. Would like "overview summaries" of reef programs from other parts of the state.
4. Design a data template, compatible with computer systems and GIS.










Appendix N


Lee
1. Recommendations for standard (primary and alternate) methods and techniques for reef data acquisition,
processing and networking.
2. Revision of the rules regarding "kinds of materials" allowed.
3. Allow reef funds to be used to but instrumentation such as cameras, data storage equipment. If state
requires data, then they should help to finance acquiring and storing it.
4. The data precision required vs the counties willingness to buy, should be considered by the state. don't
require the counties to gather data that would be more costly, than needed for its intended use.
5. the state should regionalize the reef assessment methods. The effects of depth, distance offshore, visibility
and consistence of the weather should be factored in to the methods recommended.
6. Reef design recommendations which are based on design parameters which results in reefs which mimic
the areas natural reef communities.
7. Design for a "standard" reef monitoring station to be able to compare reefs with those in other parts of
the state.

Manatee
1. Determine appropriate assessment methods, standardize to lowest common denominator, but keep them
"open ended" i.e. don't "lock-in" on just one method, and thus avoid the ability to adjust to local conditions.
Need to regionalize assessment strategies.
2. Training in data collection and management methods. Need to conduct a seminar on the data that needs
to be collected.
3. Not all data parameters may be needed. State need to determine under what circumstances certain data
needs to be taken. Example: Dissolved oxygen may not need to be taken in open ocean conditions, but in a
bay situation, it may be extremely important.

Martin
1. State agencies should bring the county, state and academic reef people together more often on a region.
and statewide basis. We need feedback information from others building reefs in similar environments, and
a regular reef conference each year or two, to share reef building and monitoring techniques, and scientific
findings.
2. Provide information on the types of reef material which is best. What habitat designs work best in the
different regions of the state??
3. More coordination of reef programs on a regional basis. Regions defined by the type of reef habitats
found there.

Nassau
1. Standardization of data needed.
2. Network with others.
3. Construction guidelines.

Okaloosa
1. Guidelines about what data to collect.
2. Training of the data gatherers.
3. Funding of the data management activities, at least on a cost sharing basis.
4. Feedback form the state, in the form of "Executive Summaries", suggestions but not mandates. DNR
should let the locals make some decisions based on their experience and data they collect. There's no point
in collecting data just for the state. We should have the authority to be able to use the data to make
decisions, without interference from the state. The state is too diverse for a broad brush plan. This is
especially true of the materials selection question. What may work in some parts of the state, may not work










Appendix N


in some others. Let the locals use their data to decide some things.
5. Guidelines for testing new reef material.

Palm Beach
1. Funding and data management assistance. Start-up funds for reef data dedicated equipment..
2. Network computer with electronic mail accessible to county managers for data sharing.
3. Quarterly newsletter to keep managers and volunteers up to data on what works and doesn't work. Get
counties to write stories for it.
4. Need a state level person to design a data template and software for uniformity of input. "We're project
driver, not "data" driven.
5. Add incentives for "Constructed" reefs.
6. Allow counties to have more flexibility for using funds for monitoring/assessment activities. Have two
categories of grants, one for construction, the other for assessment. Use for purchase of assessment
equipment, cameras, computers, GPS system, and some staff support.
7. Need to pull all studies (including gray literature) together from all the counties.
8. Need a reef data electronic data and mail bulletin board. Facilitate on-line discussions etc.

Pasco
1. Either funding or providing the personnel to perform regular reef studies and assessments.

Pinellas
1. Developing reef usefulness data. That is, developing criteria for assessing cost effectiveness of artificial
reefs.

St. Johns
1. Guidelines to assessment and monitoring.
2. Funding (for monitoring, training, equipment, and data management).
3. Annual Reef Seminars.

St. Lucie
1. Guidelines, technical support such as satellite imagery for inshore and nearshore reef areas.
2. Professional visitations from DNR biologists.
3. Workshops to convey State wants and needs... regular annual workshops, to help train new people and
share between local reef managers.
4. Concern for when funds are available from the state. Construction contracts are time constrained.. forces
people to build reefs when weather is least suitable! Need to cut the red tape.. for handling contracts and
grants.. need to be able to rollover funds, without penalty, to allow for good weather or making long term
arrangement with vendor's.

Santa Rosa
1. Funds for equipment, data gathering expenses.
2. Guidelines and standards for data sampling.

Sarasota
1. State approved assessment program which the local program could adopt and incorporate into its own
plan.
2. Funding, training and staff inspectors (for quality control).
3. Annual reef conference (workshop) to exchange information.
4. Need to determine local variations between placements, on a regional basis to build reef construction










Appendix N


guidelines.

Taylor
1. Funds.

Volusia
1. Standard Forms & Software
2. Training Manual

Wakulla
1. Standardized methods.
2. Funds for training, monitoring activities, and support team expenses as transportation, materials,
instruments.
3. Continuing education through meetings, seminars, etc.
4. Statewide newsletters and publications.
5. Coordinate between volunteers and the research efforts in the state.
6. Need to assess "Oyster" reefs with the building of fishing reefs.
7. Need a list of experienced reef building contractors.
8. Provide a "model" specification for monitoring bid contracts.










Appendix N


EXPECTATIONS FROM ACADEMICS:


Bay
1. Get involved with the local reef monitoring programs.
2. We can properly gather (with training) the reef data, but we need the scientific community to analyze it
and give it scientific credibility.
3. Give us feedback so we know we aren't wasting our time collecting useless data.
4. Academics should provide feedback on reef data quality assurance.
5. Academics should look to the locals for assistance with their projects. We can provide the platform from
which to work.
6. Would like to see more professors and graduate students funded to do habitat studies, as we have with S.
Bartone at UWF.

Brevard
1. Committee support and technical expertise.

Broward
1. Reef research projects that are funded outside of county government. County can provide boat
and a research platform, some diver time, and limited data analysis. Can deploy study reefs. Would like to
see more graduate students involved.
2. Research projects we would like to see: (A.) Benthic infauna "influence zones" correlated with fish
community; (B.) Baseline fish population on natural reefs for comparison with natural reefs; (C.) Trophic
structures on reef fish, and seasonality; (D.) seeding reefs with hatchling juveniles (headstart program and
fish tagging study.
3. Aggressively seek funds for reef research.
4. Build a "model" standard reef as a basis for comparison with other areas.

Charlotte
1. Basic research studies on reef process.
2. Training volunteers in acceptable underwater methods.

Citrus
1. Interpretation of the assessment data.
2. Recommendations for improvement.

Dade
1. Unbiased studies designed to determine the function of artificial reefs, i.e. the productivity/aggregation
issue. This would support our efforts to manage our reef sites.
2. We will provide a platform for basic research, but we will not do it!

Duval
1. Economic and reef user data analysis, to be used to gain support from local and state officials.
2. Training of volunteers by Sea Grant Extension.

Escambia
1. Studies of the life cycles and how they are expressed in local environments.
2. Need more studies in the estuaries, and the effects of pollution on fish populations on the reefs. Feel this
is our No.1 problems facing the reefs.




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

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