Download CWG_Rev2_N-8_Oct

CWG Review 1: Spring 2015
Tier 1 Information:
1. Management Action
N-8: Promote public education programs like “be Floridian”, “rain gardens”, “nature scape”, and “Florida Yards and
Neighborhoods” to encourage eco-friendly yard and garden maintenance to help reduce the amount of nutrients and
other pollutants reaching the reefs through residential run-off.
This RMA is a combination of the following RMAs:
 N-8: Promote public education programs like “be Floridian” encourage eco-friendly yard and garden
maintenance to help reduce the amount of nutrients and other pollutants reaching the reefs through residential
run-off.
 N-87: Promote existing "rain garden" programs to relevant landowners to reduce rainwater runoff and the
chemical load of water released to sea.
2. Intended Result (Output/Outcome)
What is the end product/result of this management action?
 Increased awareness among homeowners of how their behaviors can help reduce nutrients entering the
estuaries and ocean from run-off associated with homeowner's lawn care/gardening practices.
 Improved water quality as a result of the reduction of nutrients entering the system from residential sources.
Cooperation of existing programs (e.g., Be Floridian, rain gardens, nature scape, and Florida Yards and
Neighborhoods) to distribute educational materials that link residential nutrient inputs to the reefs.
3. Duration of Activity
Is this a discrete action or a recurring activity? Explain.
 The program will need to be recurring to reach a broad and sometimes changing target audience (e.g., new
homeowners moving into the region).
4. Justification
What issue or problem will this management action address? Explain.
 Nutrients entering the estuaries and reefs from residential properties and contributing to poor water quality,
algal blooms, etc.
 Rain gardens are designed to slow rain-water run-off, allow percolation and nutrient reduction while enhancing
localized urban landscapes. By reducing stormwater runoff, pollutants are filtered by existing soils. The volume
of untreated water reaching the surface waters (e.g., estuaries) is reduced, and the level of pollutants is reduced
in whatever water does reach the estuaries.
5. Potential Pros
What are the potential advantages associated with this management action?
 It gives the public an "action item" - something they can do to help save the lagoon, reefs and ocean. The
messaging helps make the connection between backyards and the larger watershed - raises homeowner's
awareness of their impact on the marine ecosystem.
 Reduces the volume of surface water run-off; Improves the quality of the water that reaches surface water and
ground water; Helps to restore the surficial aquifer; May encourage the use of native plants and reduce lawn
areas; reduces potential nutrient and pesticide contamination of surface waters.
6. Potential Cons
What are the potential disadvantages associated with this management action?
 It can be difficult to measure the success or impact of this type of education/outreach campaign.
 Compliance is mostly voluntary.


Property owners would need to retrofit existing landscapes to dedicate land for this use.
The financial cost and level of effort required could make it challenging for some.
7. Location
County/Counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, Other?
 Ideally, this would be implemented in all the SEFCRI counties
Relevant Habitats: Coral reef, seagrass, watershed, etc.?
 Coral reefs and estuarine habitats
 Upland communities (urban and suburban), particularly built areas with high percentages of impervious areas
Specific Location: City, site name, coordinates, etc.?
 N/A – the higher the percentage of impervious surface, the more the program would be beneficial
8. Extent
Area, number, etc.
 The more programs that are included as partners, the greater the success of this program.
 Numbers of brochures to be printed will need to be decided based on where they will be distributed, how many
different brochures there are, etc.
9. Is this action spatial in nature?
 No
Do you believe this management action could be informed by the Our Florida Reefs Marine Planner Decision Support
Tool?
If yes, you will proceed to the next section on Marine Planner Information.
 No
Marine Planner Information:
N/A
Tier 2 Information:
WHY?
1. Strategic Goals & Objectives to be Achieved
Refer to the SEFCRI Coral Reef Management Goals and Objectives Reference Guide.
 FL Priorities, Goal C3, Obj 3 FDEP CRCP, Conservation Goal B, Obj 3 SEFCRI LAS LBSP issue 5 goal FDEP CRCP,
Education & Outreach, Goal C FDEP CRCP, Education & Outreach, Goal D, Obj 1
 SE Coastal Oceans Taskforce Recommendations under “Water Quality” that relate to Yards, gardens and golf
courses and Public education support this RMA.
 GOAL A1: Manage the Florida Reef Tract and Ecosystem using an ecosystem-based approach, including
zoning/marine spatial planning and other appropriate tools. Rain gardens are as far upstream in the
ecosystem as possible.
 GOAL A3: Improve understanding of status and linkages of human activities to the condition and trends of
the Florida Reef Tract and Ecosystem.
 GOAL C1. Reduce pollutant loading to south Florida coastal waters.
o Objectives 1. Minimize the impacts of reduced water quality associated with controlled freshwater
deliveries and coastal construction activities on coastal, estuarine and lagoonal habitats (i.e.,
seagrass, oyster, mangrove, hardbottom and coral reef communities). Irregularly timed, high
volume releases of fresh water into the marine and estuarine coastal systems can carry excessive
nutrient and pollutant loads and are detrimental to coastal habitats and biota. o Modify the

timing, process of delivery and water quality of storm and flood control releases to minimize
nutrient and contaminant loading as well as the rate and magnitude of water quality changes in
receiving waters.
o 2. Assess the impacts of the pollutants known to affect corals and coral reef systems (concentration,
interactive/synergistic effects of pollutants and physicochemical characters), including fresh water,
nutrients, sedimentation, turbidity, heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides on the Florida Reef
Tract and
FL Priorities Goal C2 Obj 4 Protect living shorelines and implement a program to help maintain their ecological
value and to contain runoff from uplands in areas where natural wetland buffers have been eliminated through
coastal construction activities.
2. Current Status
Is this activity currently underway, or are there planned actions related to this recommendation in southeast
Florida? If so, what are they, and what is their status.
 Educational initiatives regarding environmental stewardship have been increasing in recent years as we have
learned more about the adverse impacts on aquatic systems that result for run-off from residential properties.
The “Be Floridian” initiative began with the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program and due to its success, is now
being used as a model for counties in the Indian River Lagoon Watershed. Simultaneously, the University of
Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) has been working to increase resident’s knowledge
about environmental stewardship through its Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Homeowner Program. Although
these programs are increasing the awareness of residents that proper stewardship of their properties can have
an effect on the environment, these programs currently do not include information on how our Florida reefs can
benefit.
 Minimally. Martin County Engineering Dept and Martin County Extension Office are cooperating to encourage
property owners to build rain-gardens (created low areas planted with wetland plants) designed to capture runoff from roofs, driveways, etc. They have developed two demonstration rain gardens on public lands – one at a
public library and one associated with a stormwater retrofit location in old Palm City. The City of Stuart has
installed pervious concrete on some roads to reduce levels of run-off.
 Similarly, Palm Beach County has developed a demonstration rain garden as part of the garden complex at the
UF-IFAS Agricultural Extension office Mounts Building.
 Broward County, through their Nature Scape Program, encourages property owners to use rain barrels, rain
gardens and bio-swales, all designed to reduce direct run-off into surface waters.
 Miami-Dade’s Parks and Recreation Dept and Agricultural Extension office recommend use of rain barrels and
rain gardens.
3. Intended Benefits (Outcomes)
What potential environmental benefits or positive impacts might this management action have?
 Reduction of nutrient pollution caused by fertilizer. Decreasing nutrient loading from residential fertilizer
will eventually reduce the amount of nitrogen entering the watershed from stormwater and ground water.
This in turn will reduce algal blooms and other nutrient related eutrophication issues in the estuaries,
improve habitats for juvenile reef fishes and result in cleaner water reaching the reefs.
 Reduce rainwater run-off, restore surficial aquifer, help reduce pollution loads in ground and surface water.
 Provide small, highly-localized stormwater run-off catchment basins in areas where large municipal projects
would not be feasible.
 Homeowners with greater awareness of the impacts of nutrients from their yards on the reefs. Having
effectively reduced nutrient loading from many point sources, the shift has now moved to educating the general
public in homeowner Best Management Practices.
 Educational materials tailored for the SEFCRI region. This proposal is taking what has worked well in another
coastal watershed (Tampa Bay), is starting to be implemented in the Indian River Lagoon watershed, and
adapting it to fit the SEFCRI region.
What potential social/economic benefits or positive impacts might this management action have?



Once established, this program would help build a cadre of citizens actively engaged in protecting and
restoring the estuaries and reefs they value and rely on for quality of life.
Reduction of land areas under grass, habitat improvement, opportunity to educate & involve individual
landowners on water quality issues.
Could add a new area of focus for gardening enthusiasts (Master Gardeners, Native Plant Society chapters).
What is the likely duration of these benefits - short term or long-lasting? Explain.
 Benefits will be hard to measure and perceive but if a reduction in nutrients is achieved, the benefits will
be long-lasting.
 Long term-- if gardens are maintained
4. Indirect Costs (Outcomes)
What potential negative environmental impacts might this action have?
 Development of educational materials consumes time, money, and resources. The benefits of this program will
be hard to measure and there would need to be mass compliance to actually incur any change.
 Periodically could provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
What potential negative social/economic impacts might this action have?
 Programs that result in less fertilizer being applied could be met with resistance from the horticultural industry
and businesses who profit from the sale of these products.
 Less lawn for landscapers to maintain. Could be viewed by some as un-tidy.
What is the likely duration of these negative impacts - short term or long-lasting? Explain.
 Long term. The goal is to create an informed citizenry that understands the cumulative effect of their property
management practices. If it is successful in creating a paradigm shift that reduces fertilizer application and
implements best management practices, the short-term adverse economic effects will be offset by the longterm, higher costs for removal of nutrients though the construction and operation of surface water
management systems.
 Short-term. As word spreads of the functional value of these programs, concern/opposition should be replaced
with acceptance and promotion
5. Risk
What is the threat of adverse environmental, social, or economic effects arising from not implementing this
action?
 Recent studies have indicated that it costs public governmental entities $5,000 - $50,000 to remove one pound
of fertilizer from our environment. Anything that can be done to reduce the input will reduce long-term
management costs.
 Minimal. Extent depends upon number built--if implemented in most built-up areas, rain-gardens could have a
measurable impact on quantity of run-off & quality of ground-water.
 SEFCRI TEAM /TAC REVIEW Comments -2015: Reviewer added comment that the monetary statistic was placed
in here without a clear meaning. Is the coast to actually remove nutrients from the environment? What type of
enviro as no one is removing nutrients from the estuaries, canals, etc. Or, is this more related to the cost of the
negative impacts of the fertilizer??
6. Relevant Supporting Data
What existing science supports this recommendation? (Provide citations)
 Residential fertilizers are well-documented to be a significant source of excessive nitrogen in receiving
waters (Baker et al 2001, Driscoll et al 2003, Boyer et al 2002, Law et al 2004, Zhu et al 2004, Bowen and
Valiela 2008). In the Northeast, research estimates that fertilizer contributes up to a quarter of the total
nitrogen loads to aquatic systems (Howarth et al 1996). Florida studies show varying results but have a
strong enough correlation that Tampa Bay NEP instituted the Be Floridian program. Research by MACTEC
(2009) estimated fertilizer contributed 20% of total nitrogen loads to Wekiva Springs while Leggette,








Brashears and Graham, Inc. (2004) estimated that it contributed 79% of nutrient loads to Lake Tarpon in
Pinellas County. SEFCRI TEAM /TAC REVIEW Comments -2015: MACTEC stands for?
The west coast “Be Floridian” campaign created an engaging web site www.BeFloridian.org and Facebook page
as well as news and billboard advertisements, educational materials, and engagement activities that can easily
be revised for use in the SEFCRI region. Educational materials include information on Florida friendly lawn care
products, and fertilizer impacts to water quality.
The proposed project could target both retail businesses and homeowners. The Tampa Bay market study
demonstrated that changing behavior was most successful if the message was received in both a broadcast
format (billboards, radio PSA, Facebook, etc.) as well as at point of purchase (summer restriction reminders,
product lists, fertilizer rack cards, etc.). The project will deliver many tangible products to share region---wide
including printed materials, point of purchase sales rack cards, the multi-­­faceted and dynamic “Be Floridian”
website, and three “Be Floridian” Event Toolkits that educators throughout the watershed could use at festivals
and events. A media campaign could be conducted using the creative messaging and social media strategies
that were so effective in the Tampa Bay area to activate and energize the public as protectors of our waterways.
A "Be Floridian" program, customized to the IRL counties, was recently launched, www.befloridiannow.org .
Initial efforts could coordinate with this program to determine needed materials, etc. This could then be used as
a model for the remaining counties in the SEFCRI region.
Seagrass enhancement. The Tampa Bay NEP’s focus on nutrient pollution led to the development of the
Nitrogen Management Consortium, an innovative public-private partnership that brought together a variety of
stakeholders to address the causes of worsening water quality and loss of seagrasses in Tampa Bay. Over the
years, reductions in nutrient inputs has resulted in a resurgence in seagrasses, with an over 6,000-acre increase
over 1980s levels.
USGS began researching this concept in the early 2000s (see:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5189/PDF/SIR2005_5189.pdf
The results of EPA research on this topic can be found at
:http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/stormwater/edison_rain_garden.htm)
UF-IFAS research and recommendations are available at:
http://www.gardeningsolutions.ifas.ufl.edu/design/types-of-gardens/rain-gardens.html
Local governments and UF-IFAS have conducted enough research that they market the concept to homeowners
(see https://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/.../LA_CEU_Module_3_Rain_Gardens_April_13_ 2010.ppt)
7. Information Gaps
What uncertainties or information gaps still exist?
 Understanding the effectiveness of public awareness initiatives is a difficult undertaking, with no clearly
measureable metrics showing the degree of success.
 There needs to be a better database demonstrating the linkage between what happens in our coastal estuaries
and conditions on our nearshore reefs.
 What are specific impacts of specific nutrients on corals.
 Haven’t found any studies that directly links the implementation of this concept to the health of coastal
estuaries and reefs.
WHEN?
8. Anticipated Timeframe for Implementation
How long will this recommendation take to implement?
 0 - 2 years to un-ending. SEFCI should not take the lead in this. Instead, the idea is that SEFCRI should endorse
the on-going initiatives that are being led by federal, state, county and municipalities as having beneficial value
to the coastal estuaries and reef ecosystem. The SEFCRI action could therefore be completed in a relatively
short time period, even though the overall marketing and implementation of the concept will carry on.
9. Linkage to Other Proposed Management Actions
Is this activity linked to other proposed management recommendations?
 Yes
If so, which ones, and how are they linked? (e.g., is this activity a necessary step for other management actions to
be completed?)
 N-1, N-5, N-13, N-21, N-68, N-72, N-74, N-87, N-96
Does this activity conflict with other existing or proposed management actions?
 No
WHO?
10. Lead Agency or Organization for Implementation
What agency or organization currently has/would have authority? Refer to the Agencies and Actions Reference
Guide.
 FDEP’s CRCP Education and Outreach could design brochures and provide them to relevant existing programs.
 UF-IFAS, County Agricultural Extension Offices
 SFWMD could provide educational brochures
11. Other Agencies or Organizations
Are there any other agencies or organizations that may also support implementation? Explain.
 Nature Centers (e.g., Hobe Sound Nature Center in Martin County, Gumbo Limbo in PB County)
 Florida Yards and Neighborhoods, Florida Master Gardener, 4-H and ag clubs, etc
 Probably best implemented by relevant county government agency, local IFAS Master Gardener programs and
local chapters of the Florida Native Plant Society. County would lend 'authority' to the program; Master Garden
and FNPS could provide practical, hands-on advice.
12. Key Stakeholders
Identify those stakeholders most greatly impacted by this management action, including those from whom you
might expect a high level of support or opposition. Explain.
 Estuary and reef advocates would likely support.
 Entities that benefit from the sales of fertilizers (e.g., Scotts, Home Depot/Lowes garden centers, landscape
companies) may oppose.
 Individual property owners would have to bear the expense of creating and maintaining the areas.
 Do not foresee any entities that would be opposed to such an entirely voluntary program.
HOW?
13. Feasibility
Is there appropriate political will to support this? Explain.
 This program would need to be brought forward to the county governments and municipalities to gain support.
 The success of the program in the Tampa Bay watershed and the need to meet TMDL and BMAP targets has
engaged local governments. Shortages in funding for land acquisition, construction and operation of surface
water management retrofits make it more cost effective to prevent the pollution than to clean it up after it is in
our water bodies.
 It is a cheap, feel-good program that requires minimal public expenditure; provides individuals with a direct way
to contribute to improving their environment; will satisfy the outreach requirements of Master Gardeners and
provide an educational opportunity for Florida Native Plant Societies.
What are the potential technical challenges to implementing this action? Has it been done elsewhere?
 Measuring the success of the program in terms of 1) reaching and influencing homeowners and 2) determining
any reductions in nutrient inputs from residential properties.
 Pilot programs are currently running in all counties in the SEFCRI region. Technical challenges are being
addressed as these projects are implemented, the most substantive of which is retrofitting the program into
small-size, zero lot-line properties and waterfront tracts where the natural grade is for run-off to go directly into
the rivers and estuaries.
14. Legislative Considerations
Does the recommendation conflict with or actively support existing local, state, or federal laws or regulations?
Explain.
 Unlikely, but in some situations, may require a waiver to work in buffer/setback zones.
15. Permitting Requirements
Will any permits be required to implement this action? Explain.
 Unlikely, but in some situations, may require a waiver to work in buffer/setback zones.
16. Estimated Direct Costs
Approximately how much will this action likely cost? (Consider one-time direct costs, annual costs, and staff time,
including enforcement.)
 0 - $100,000
Will costs associated with this activity be one-time or recurring?
 One-time cost to develop materials. Ongoing costs to maintain and update outreach materials and coordinate
outreach/distribution of materials.
 Will require recurring support for advertising; development/updating and printing of supporting literature
If recurring, approximately how long will staff time and annual costs be necessary to implement the management
action?
 Sustainability may include requesting a dedicated source of funding from supporters which may include,
continued grant funds from federal or private foundations, or community donations. It is likely that after
the initial two or three years, the budget needs will be drastically reduced.
 Once template literature is developed then updating could be conducted locally at the county level.
17. Enforcement
Does this require enforcement effort?
 No
Provide an explanation if available.
 Entirely voluntary
18. Potential Funding Sources
Identify potential funding organizations/grant opportunities, etc.
 Numerous grant programs are available that promote education for pollution reduction.
 EPA, IFAS, individual counties, SFWMD, Florida Native Plant Society, Flower Wild Flower Society, several license
plate funds
19. Measurable Outcomes/Success Criteria/Milestones
How will the success of this recommendation be measured? How will you know when the intended result is
achieved?
 Success criterion 1: Numbers of homeowners reached by the program. This will be reflected in the numbers of
brochures printed and distributed, hits on websites, etc. Goal: XXXX number of brochures printed. XXX number
of hits on partner websites.
 SEFCRI TEAM /TAC REVIEW Comments -2015: Member thinks OFR should set the number of brochures printed &
hits on partner websites.
 Success criterion 2: Increase in homeowner awareness of the potential impacts of nutrients on coral reefs. A
web--­based survey that randomly surveys people throughout the SEFCRI region can be generated.
The survey can be repeated 2 years after the implementation of the program. Goal: XX% more
homeowners expressed awareness in the reefs and potential nutrient impacts. XX% of homeowners indicated
that they’ve changed their behaviors in order to benefit reef resources.

SEFCRI TEAM /TAC REVIEW Comments -2015: Quantifiable success criteria needs to be set- the XX’s are just
place holders.
Each property owner who implements the program could be asked to voluntarily provide information to the
county IFAS office, which could then compile data on a county-by-county basis. Ideally, there would be a
cumulative database established that could quantify the volume of runoff and pollutants that are being
prevented from directly entering our surface waters
SEFCRI/TAC Targeted Questions:
1. TAC - Is the recommendation likely to achieve the intended result? Explain.
Tier 1 – #2 (Intended Result - Output/Outcome)
2. TAC - Is the recommendation sufficient to address the identified issue or problem? Explain.
Tier 1 – #4 (Justification)

3. TAC - Is the recommendation technically achievable from a science or management perspective? Explain.
Tier 2 – #8 (Anticipated Timeframe for Implementation) and Tier 2 - #13 (Feasibility)

4. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - Has this been done (by SEFCRI, other agencies or organizations in the SEFCRI
region)? Explain.
Tier 2 – #2 (Current Status)

5. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - Is this recommendation a research or monitoring project?
(Recommendations should be turn-dirt management actions, not the step you take before a management action).
Explain.

6. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - If either of the following applies to this management action, provide
feedback on which information submitted by the Community Working Groups may be more appropriate, or if
entries should be merged. Explain.
a. There are different viewpoints for an individual management action (i.e. two working group members
provided separate information, as indicated by a ‘//’ marking between them).
b. Information submitted for this and other draft management actions is sufficiently similar that they might
be considered the same.

7. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - Non-agency Question: Is the recommendation technically achievable from
your stakeholder perspective? If not, do you have suggestions that would allow this to become technically
achievable from your stakeholder perspective? Explain.
Tier 1 - #5 (Potential Pros), Tier 1 - #6 (Potential Cons), Tier 2 - #3 (Intended Benefits), Tier 2 - #4 (Indirect Costs)
and Tier 2 - #12 (Key Stakeholders)

8. SEFCRI Team, PPT & Other Advisors - Agency Question: Is the recommendation technically achievable from a
management perspective? If not, do you have suggestions that would allow this to become technically achievable
from your agency's management perspective? Explain.
Tier 2 – #10 (Lead Agency or Organization for Implementation) and Tier 2 - #11 (Other Agencies or Organizations)

Comments from the Reviewers:




ST: Similar programs like this exists to certify 'native'/eco-friendly yards. Look to these programs first so as not to
reinvent the wheel. Expand if needed or perhaps just develop a wider marketing campaign for existing
programs.
Florida wide: http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/homeowners/recognitions.htm
Broward: http://www.broward.org/NaturalResources/NatureScape/Pages/Default.aspx National:
http://www.nwf.org/How-to-Help/Garden-for-Wildlife.aspx?
campaignid=WH14F1DSCXX&s_subsrc=Web_Navigation_CWH_Wildlife
- To advance public education we suggest:
o Synthesize all available online and print resource per county (some have been identified already--IFAS,
Inst. for Reg. Conserve., SFWMD "know the flow", rebate offers, etc.)
o Conduct background to decide where targeted outreach campaign would start/take place based on
areas most affected (as best we can tell from available data) by yard waste, fertilizer run-off, other LBSP.
May require spatial analysis, maps would be helpful for campaign
o Professional campaign that is multifaceted that might use billboards, news station stories/PSAs, targeted
mailing to neighborhoods for those w/o internet access,
Questions from the Reviewers:
Questions/Information Needs Highlighted by the Reviewers
1. N/A
2.
Addressed
by CWG:
☐
☐
3.
☐
4.
☐
5.
☐
6.
☐
7.
☐
Questions from the CWGs back to the Reviewers:

Keep N-8 and add N-87 will be archived. Agreed with SEFCRI proposed edits
Not Addressed by CWG
Because:
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.
☐ This does not apply.
☐ Need help addressing it.