The Evaluation of the

*South Florida*

*Restoration Science Forum*

May 17-19, 1999

Embassy Suites

Boca Raton, Florida

Held by the

Science Coordination Team of the Working Group for the

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

Table of Contents

Conveyance Letter

Evaluation

Introduction - Overview of Evaluation Materials 1

Overall Response 2

Program Design and Content 2

Utilization of Forum Web Site 3

> Forum Planning and Organization 3
>
> Forum Logistics 4
>
> Future Symposiums / Forums 4
>
> Overall Findings and Recommendations 5
>
> Recommendations for Future Endeavors 5

Review and Follow-up Team Membership 8

Attachments

Comments from Honored Guests 9

Professional Critiques

> Perspectives on the Forum 14

Symposium Evaluation 19

Lessons Learned 24

Participant Surveys

Surveys (N=21) on interactive touch screens during the forum 25

> Surveys (N=14) collected at the end of the forum 30
>
> Surveys (N=9) by selected evaluators after the forum 33

Supporter Acknowledgements by the Forum Developer / Coordinator 46

\"Best Ideas\" for Managers and Scientists (from facilitated teams) 47

\"The Idea List\" for Managers and Scientists (from brainstorming) 55

August 26, 1999

Col. Terrence (Rock) Salt

Executive Director, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

Florida International University

OE Building, Room 148

Miami, FL 33199

Dear Rock,

Enclosed is the evaluation of the South Florida Restoration Science
Forum held May 17-19, 1999 in Boca Raton, Florida. I hope this
evaluation serves to reconfirm that the forum was an innovative and
valuable source of information exchange between participants; that the
efforts of those staff persons who worked so hard on the project should
be recognized and commended; and that the forum has provided us with a
baseline of information, technological tools and subject areas from
which further exchanges (both large and small) should emanate.

For the record, I am attaching the numerous assessments and products
from the forum at the close of the evaluation: These include the \"Best
Ideas\" list generated from the breakout sessions; the tabulations of
the evaluation survey I sent out; the summary table of the
\"touchscreen\" surveys; an excellent critique by Mr. Ressegieu of the
Museum of Science and Discovery (MODS); web site materials including
comments by \"honored guests\" at the forum, recognition of support, and
the web site itself; a summary of \"findings\" by Dr. Len Berry; a
\"Lessons Learned\" list by Dr. Stu Langton; and a summary of the
evaluation forms filled out at the forum.

> Sincerely,

Bonnie Kranzer, Ph.D., AICP, Executive Director

> Governor's Commission for the Everglades

Enclosures

cc\'s: Nick Aumen Allison DeFoor, Gov\'s Office

Len Berry, CES John Marshall, Marshal Foundation

> Julio Calle, DERM Mellisa Meeker, EPA
>
> Kathy Copeland, SFWMD Chip Merriam, SFWMD
>
> Linda Dahl, NPS Bob Mooney, USGS
>
> Tom Fontaine, SFWMD John Outland, DEP
>
> Linda Friar, SFERTF Mary Plumb, SFERTF
>
> Sally Garson, SFERTF Jim Ressegieu, MODS
>
> Aaron Higer, USGS Peter Rosendahl, Flo-Sun, Inc.
>
> Bob Jones, FCRC Ray Scott, Florida House of Representatives
>
> Stuart Langton, CES Rick Smith, Gov\'s Office

Greg Diehl, Gov\'s Commission Bill Hinsley, Gov\'s Commission

**South Florida Restoration Science Forum Evaluation**

[Introduction - Overview of Evaluation Materials]{.underline}

The South Florida Restoration Science Forum was held May 17-19, 1999 in
Boca Raton, Florida. Over 500 individuals participated. The main goal of
the forum was to highlight the connection between science and the
restoration and management process of the South Florida ecosystem.
Seeking to promote this linkage between scientists and management, the
forum brought together scientists and decision-makers to mutually inform
and discuss each other's needs in the overall restoration efforts.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection provided many
contributions to the forum including one of special note - the provision
of two interactive \"touchscreen\" survey monitors for use at the forum.
Though seldom used (N=23) because of their location, this survey
mechanism should be considered for evaluating future events. In
addition, evaluation forms were also provided to participants as part of
their registration packets. Few were returned however (N=14) because of
the \"open\" nature of the event and the failure of facilitators to
remind participants to complete them.

Immediately following the forum, a review and follow-up team met to
formalize an evaluation. The team met with the purpose of evaluating the
forum in two ways. First, to summarize the lessons learned based upon
observations and comments received from those who participated and
second, to propose the next steps, context for, and content of, future
symposiums and the use of such activities for the POSST, SCT, WG, and
Task Force.

To accomplish this evaluation task, a survey package was devised by the
evaluation team and sent to the WG, POSST, SCT, and Evaluation Team.
This package contained a cover letter, the survey form, the forum "Best
Ideas" list compiled from the breakout sessions, and summary of the
"touchscreen evaluations" obtained during the forum. The survey was
divided into four subject areas: 1) Program Design and Content, 2) Forum
Logistics, 3) Lessons Learned and 4) Future Symposiums/Forums. It was
made up of 33 questions, 17 general opinion questions requiring circling
an answer and 16 questions requiring short answers.

[^1]

The survey package was electronically mailed to potential responders
(evaluation team, WG members, SCT and POSST members) June 25, 1999 (over
1 month past the forum). Due to a low response rate, a reminder e-mail
was sent out July 20, 1999. In all, eight (8) surveys were completed and
returned (a poor response rate). This evaluation summary utilizes those
responses (N=8), the "touchscreen" survey (N=23) administered at the
forum, a summary of \"findings\" by Len Berry, \"Lessons Learned\" from
Stu Langton, an overview of surveys filled out at the forum (N=14), a
critique by the MODS, and the "Best Ideas" list (all attached). In
addition comments and commentaries found on the forum web site:
<http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/supporters.html> ,
<http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/evaluations.html> (N=9), and
<http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/presentations/berry.html> were also
considered in this evaluation.

In retrospect, the evaluation component of the forum was sporadic at
best, poorly planned, poorly executed and uncoordinated. Though well
intended, it appeared that numerous survey tools were developed
independently, administered during and after the forum, with only the
post evaluation having been run through the evaluation committee
process. Because the evaluation team was assigned the task of evaluation
barely a week before the forum took place, there was no time to confer
ahead of time and much of the resultant task has been a tedious, time
consuming and frustrating exercise in trying to \"discover\" and collect
the various evaluation fragments that exist, and to sift through these
instruments to craft a fair and objective evaluation. The decision to do
an evaluation so late in the process and the failure thus to appoint an
evaluation team up front has greatly hindered this process. Readers
should be cautioned that this evaluation is based therefore on a small
sample size, numerous survey instruments with differing foci, and a
modicum of subjectivity and reliance on other evaluation team members\'
perceptions and summaries.

[Overall Response]{.underline}

A review of all evaluation materials points to a resounding success for
the Science Forum. Highlights of \"liked items\" included the
interaction with other scientists; the opportunity to gain, in one
central location, a broad understanding of the many restoration
projects; the quality of information from the poster sessions and
panels; and the dynamic attributes and potential of the forum on a
long-standing web site. The overall comments were positive, if not
jubilant in some instances. Many persons I spoke to commented on the
abundance of extremely positive comments by the participants. Indeed,
review of the transcripts of the final closing session also reflects an
extremely positive, well done attitude. Forum planners were commended
for the breadth and depth of materials presented, the innovative web
site approach, the blend of technical poster sessions intermixed with
the panel discussions, and the unique display protocols - including the
\"intimate\" nature of using each hotel room for single displays.
Positive responses as to the forum\'s longevity on the web site,
likelihood of revisiting the site and the need to continue a similar
effort on a yearly basis were also well represented. Almost all
respondents were in favor of promoting either a follow-up forum on
issues identified at the Science Forum (some cited ASR, mercury, and
phosphorus), or repeating a general informative event and targeting
additional non-technical audiences.

[Program Design and Content]{.underline}

The majority of respondents who filled out evaluations agreed that the
forum's design and content contributed to the forum\'s effectiveness.
Content items \"most liked\" were the poster sessions and the diversity
of displays on South Florida restoration projects. A major product of
the meeting was indeed the generation of a wealth of poster material,
which dramatically illustrated the wide range of scientific work
underway. The quality of information from the forum\'s expanded poster
format provided a clear and consistent means of presentation for most
participants. For the most part, the diversity of project displays
contributed to the overall learning during the forum.

One suggestion was to house the poster session in one large room rather
than separate small rooms and allow more time for poster viewing and
interaction between participants.

\"Least liked\" forum content items were the "insufficient involvement
by managers and target audience" and the complexity of displays for
non-scientists. With the broad range of participants being scientists,
managers, and the public, there was some confusion as to the intended
audience of the forum. Audience targeting is an area that may need
further refining in future forums. This process could involve more
clearly defining the target audience and specifically targeting content
and format to this group. One suggestion was to get more involvement
from schools and the general public or having different themes for
different forums.

One of the primary purposes of the forum was explore and improve the
science/management linkages in S. Florida restoration initiatives.
Toward this end, the break out sessions contributed a wide range of
recommendations. In reviewing those recommendations, Dr. Len Berry
characterized seven as particularly noteworthy (see
<http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/prresentations/berry.html> )

[Utilization of Forum Web site]{.underline}

Prior to, during, and after the forum, a web site had been created
<http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf> to continuously inform and provide a site
for dialogue on all aspects of the Science Forum. The creation of this
site and its potential for long-term information dissemination,
dialogue, data storage and retrieval and communication herald a valuable
and potent parallel track embarked upon by this Science Forum.

The South Florida Restoration Science Forum web site, provided a solid
foundation for the forum. Before the forum, it provided guidance to
display developers and registration information to those wanting to
participate. After the forum, it continues to display and disseminate
the information that was collaboratively created. The creation of the
web site was instrumental to the forum\'s success and to the forum\'s
continued role in the restoration effort. This is one of many aspects of
the forum that will be transferable to future events both here and
elsewhere.

[Forum Planning and Organization]{.underline}

The planning and organization of a forum such as this required an
extensive workload. A forum steering committee was formulated just a few
months prior to the forum, to provide guidance and support. Through that
effort a number of tasks were assigned to numerous individuals. In
retrospect, a small handful of individuals assumed the lion\'s share of
the responsibility to see that things got done. Recognition of these
individual\'s extraordinary efforts should not go unnoticed. Overall the
effort resulted in a magnificent job given the limited time and manpower
available. There are a number of \"lessons learned\" and
\"observations\" some explicitly provided by members of the evaluation
team (Langton and Ressegieu (attached)), which point directly to having
more time, and more systematic planning, organization, and clarity of
individual roles and assignments, clarity of objectives and evaluation
measures, increased focus on funding, scheduling, and public
outreach/advertising activities-particularly targeted audiences.
Improved orientation and grouping of subject matter in the poster
displays also requires further delineation in the future.

[Forum Logistics]{.underline}

Overall, forum participants felt that logistics were handled well. Aside
from minor hotel staff confusion and last minute arrangement changes,
the logistics of putting on a first year forum were handled with
remarkable ability. Respondents agreed that registration was easy and
simple to understand, registration materials gave a good overview, the
organization/agenda followed an informative sequence, and the forum was
well organized. While there was some confusion about the web site, most
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the web site assisted in
registration or learning about the forum. As well, most respondents were
indifferent as to how well the forum was advertised. One logistical
comment that could aid in fostering communication during the forum was
to make names on nametags larger.

The use of the \"living room\" sections of the guest suites for
exhibition purposes provided significant cost savings to the event since
the rooms were already being used for individual lodging needs. This
also allowed the organizations to contribute in relation to their size:
smaller agencies paid for only several display rooms while the USGS and
others had numerous rooms. We can approximate that the facility costs
for this forum were only one third of what the costs would have been,
especially with the need for numerous electrical and data lines wired
into a large display area. This \"sleeping above the shop\" approach to
display areas is worthy of consideration in planning future events.

Logistical planning at the forum could be improved. Comments sent in by
Mr. Ressegieu outline a tactical approach that can assist the viewer,
get oriented, organize, approach, enter and understand each particular
exhibit (see Ressegieu - attached) and provide a means of later
communication between viewer and exhibitor. Attention to these details
will enhance future events of this kind.

[Future Symposiums/Forums]{.underline}

In reviewing ideas for future forums, participants agreed that the forum
should be continued perhaps on a yearly basis. A common idea was to give
the forum a more specific goal. Taking this into account, several
respondents gave ideas for redesigning or expanding the forum\'s
organization. Ideas for future forum themes included peer review of the
Restudy, public outreach, strategic planning, science/manager
communication, technical subjects such as ASR, mercury, etc., and
dealing with other issues that arose from the initial forum. Specific
attention could be paid to using the forum as a means of public outreach
and education about the restoration process. Inclusion of more NGO's,
more emphasis on communication, and attendance by more people from both
the local government and general public were suggested to help this
process. It was also suggested that the forum could be a tool to inform
people at all interest levels of the need for ecosystem restoration by
reformatting presentations to address managers and policy-makers one day
and the general public the next. Respondents noted that an additional
and increased leadership role upon the part of the WG, SCT, and POSST
would enable the forum to be used as a powerful public outreach tool for
these groups while addressing the desired content, themes and target
audience.

[Overall Findings and Recommendations]{.underline}

The South Florida Restoration Science Forum brought together an amazing
amount of scientific and ecosystem management information. The transfer
of this information through a dynamic web site, poster sessions and
panel presentations provided even the most educated participants with
additional insight into on-going restoration efforts in South Florida.
Most participants agreed that this forum served its purpose of
highlighting the connection between science and management. While
everyone did not agree that the format, content or means of creating
this forum were perfect, many participants learned what a vital role
communication plays in both scientific and management restoration roles.
Although the forum was unable to address all the issues between
scientists and management; as suggested by participants, the creation of
specific follow up sessions and workshops addressing the needs and
issues arising from this type of forum may serve useful in continuing
two-way communication between managers and scientists. Expanding the
role of the social scientist needs to be an important part of this
on-going discussion.

The next step in making this forum a success is to capitalize on what we
learn from this year's proceedings and design future forums to continue
the interaction between scientists, managers, and the public.
Continuation of the web site as a communication tool and hosting a
conference on a yearly basis was a prime expectation and desire of
participants. Developing specific themes that address desired linkages
and critical issues would be helpful. In this regard future forums will
be judged successful if they foster an open exchange of ideas and result
in improved communication linkages between scientists, managers, and the
people of South Florida.

[Recommendations for Future Endeavors]{.underline}

The following recommendations are provided to assist the Working Group
and Task Force in following up on the Science Forum and to assist those
entities in devising, developing, implementing, and maximizing the
benefits from future symposiums/forums.

1.  Graciously thank the individuals responsible for the success of the
    forum, namely: Aaron Higer, Bob Mooney, Nick Aumen, the Center for
    Environmental Studies (Len Berry and Doreen DiCarlo) and Heather
    Henkel (web site assistance and developer of web sites).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Disseminate and/or post all products from the forum for utilization
    by interested organizations. In particular \"best ideas\" list
    should be elevated, since it lists the specific suggestions of both
    managers and scientists.

3.  Ensure longevity and utilization of the web site as an informative
    and valuable tool for information dissemination, dialogue,
    communication and technical expertise.

4.  \"Maintain the Momentum\" by hosting a forum or symposium on an
    annual or two-year basis - the subject or objectives of which should
    go through intensive development and review by all Working Group and
    Task Force members.

5.  Utilize at least a 9-month planning cycle prior to the next
    symposium \"event\". Planning and organization with a lesser time
    allotment should be highly discouraged. Given the need for such a
    long planning period, we may want to re-think an \"annual\" theme
    and focus on a more realistic 2-year time frame.

6.  Organize and solidify funding for future events within the first
    month of planning. Certainty of funding, both sources and amounts,
    can add variability to the planning and organization phases, if
    contract dollars can substitute for volunteer man-power on behalf of
    Working Group members and their related organizations. This
    flexibility should be explored.

7.  Utilize a \"steering committee\" approach to planning future
    forums/symposiums. The steering committee must at minimum, address
    clarity of charges and event objectives, specific responsibilities,
    funding strategy, logistics, staffing issues, and evaluation
    responsibilities.

8.  Continue to utilize and explore creative use of location and space
    for hosting future events. The example of using participant hotel
    rooms depicts a creative, cost-effective means of cost-savings and
    overall efficiency.

9.  The steering committee responsible for the planning and organization
    of future events should ensure that tools and products resulting
    from future events can be rapidly assimilated into on-going SCT,
    POSST or other Working Group/Task Force activities. The intent here
    is to aim for a multi fold benefit: accomplish the
    informational/communication needs as identified as event objectives
    and devise means of accomplishing tasks of the Working Group through
    the implementation of the actual event. (Example, the Integrated
    Strategic Plan is an on-going activity. A potential future event
    should follow-through needs identified from the Science Forum,
    should move the ISP forward, and should benefit on-going projects of
    the SCT and/or POSST). We can no longer afford uni-dimensional
    planning.

10. Future events, through the planning and organizational activities,
    must identify the intended audiences up front and make a concerted
    effort to ensure that these intended audiences are contacted. The
    identification of the intended audience must be carefully devised in
    concert with, and consistent with, the development of the objectives
    for the future event. They must always be tied at the hip.

11. The organization and planning for future events should address
    improvements in on-site logistics and think through the holistic
    experience of the event so that participants can maximize
    information flow and comprehension. Comments provided to the author
    by Mr. Ressegieu (attached) detail these opportunities for
    improvement.

[Attachments:]{.underline}

Web site locations:

Web site - <http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf>

Web site - <http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/evaluations.html>

Web site - <http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/supporters.html>

Web site - <http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/presentations/berry.html>

Ressegieu -eval

Best ideas list

Langton - lessonslearned

Survey - touchscreen

Survey - forum.eval.sum

Survey - postforum.narrative

Survey - postforum.tab

List - forum.eval.team

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Science Forum

**Review and Follow-up Team Membership List**

Len Berry, Florida Center for Environmental Studies

Julio Calle, Miami - Dade County, Dept. of Environmental Resources
Management

Kathy Copeland, South Florida Water Management District

Linda Dahl, National Park Service

Tom Fontaine, South Florida Water Management District

Linda Friar, S. Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Executive
Director\'s Office

Sally Garson, S. Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Executive
Director\'s Office

Aaron Higer, U.S. Geological Survey

Bob Jones, Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium

Bonnie Kranzer \*, Governor\'s Commission for the Everglades

Stuart Langton, Florida Center for Environmental Studies

John Marshall, Arthur R. Marshal Foundation

Mellisa Meeker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John Outland, Florida Department of Environment Protection

Mary Plumb, S. Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Executive
Director\'s Office

Jim Ressegieu, Museum of Discovery and Science

Peter Rosendahl, Flo-Sun, Inc.

Ray Scott, Florida House of Representatives

\* denotes chair

Comments Provided by Honored Guest
(<http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/evaluations.html> )

South Florida Restoration Science Forum

May 17-19, 1999

Embassy Suites Boca Raton

\"The material presented in this forum should go a long way to
demonstrate that the coordination team and integration of the science
supporting South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and its links to managers
and policy makers is precedented. Nevertheless it is still a half-full
glass and much remains to be done.\"

Bradford E. Brown

Director

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA

(Working Group Member)

\"The South Florida Restoration Science Forum was an overwhelming
success! The South Florida ecosystem that runs from the Kissimmee River
to the coral reefs off the Florida Keys is one of the most complex
systems in the world, but as a result of the science forum I understand
more about how it functions. If there was ever any question about the
connectivity of the ecology, hydrology, and geology of the ecosystem let
it suffice to say, the forum provided the answers to many of the complex
questions in my mind.

As a resource manager, I now feel more fully equipped to make sound
management decisions based upon the available science as it was
presented at the 1999 forum.\"

Billy D. Causey,

Sanctuary Superintendent

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

NOAA

(Working Group Member)

\"The forum was very well put together. For those of you who were not
there, please allow me to describe it. It was held at the Embassy Suites
Hotel in Boca Raton. The entire lobby and first three floors (including
guest rooms) were filled with exhibits. Each room had a research theme.
You could visit and learn about nearly every facet of scientific
research (from Panther tracking to looking at Periphyton algae through a

microscope). Actual researchers were on hand in each room to answer
questions of the managers. In my opinion, the very fact that the
researchers were able to directly interface with the managers (one on
one) accomplished the goal of improving the linkage between science and
resource management.\"

Truman Eugene (Gene) Duncan

Water Resources Director

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

(Working Group Member)

\"It is with great pleasure that we express our congratulations for a
job well done. Our members who attended this activity were most
impressed with the amount and quality of the work demonstrated by the
various groups and individuals doing research on Everglades Restoration.
We do wish that more people had taken advantage of this excellent event.
Again, congratulations for a job well done.\"

Manley Fuller

President

Florida Wildlife Federation

\"My girl scouts all agreed that two hours just wasn\'t enough time to
see the exhibits. The forum had lots of information concerning the
environment and environmental issues that they were concerned about.
They were pleasantly surprised to see so many women exhibitors. It is
very important for the girls to be exposed to women in careers. This was
an excellent opportunity for them to be able to interact with
professional scientists who were also women.

The girl scouts enjoyed all the exhibits. They especially enjoyed the
exhibits where they:

> heard the invasive history of the exotic Asian Swamp Eel and were able
> to see and touch live eels;
>
> saw computer tracking images of the panther and learned how important
> the public lands and green belt policies are for preserving the
> panthers and other endangered species; and
>
> built a park and created a forest fire by using a computer model and
> discovered that that there are many factors are involved managing and
> protecting natural resources.

I commend all the exhibitors for their patience and their willingness to
share their scientific knowledge in a way that teenagers and
non-scientists were able to understand and get a lot out of it. My girl
scouts took a lot away with them.

They all would like the opportunity to attend another forum. The Palm
Glades Girl Scout Council also asks that IT be informed of such forums
so that others can gain from such valuable developmental
opportunities.\"

Girl Scouts

Marilyn Thayer

Leader, Cadet Troop 891,

Palm Glades Girl Scout Council

\"The Forum underscores the commitment of the USGS to provide
integrated, high-quality scientific information to resource managers who
are working to resolve the complex problems of the Everglades.
Scientific information has a vital role in restoration. It is the
foundation of understanding upon which management decisions are based.
Scientific understanding enables managers to predict the response of the

system to management alternatives. The foundation of scientific
understanding also provides the basis for decisions on performance
standards which are the yardstick for measuring restoration success.

As important as science is to the restoration, science that isn\'t
communicated to decision-makers has limited usefulness. The forum helped
to transmit and communicate the science that has resulted from the
efforts of all of the science activities to managers. It was a
manifestation of the close collaboration that exists among the many
agencies of the South Florida Restoration Task Force, Working Group and
Science Coordination Team. The success of interagency efforts like this
takes the dedication of many individuals and organizations. Cooperation
and collaboration among agencies and between scientists and managers
were readily apparent in the poster rooms, the selection of topics, and
in the panel discussions. The USGS was grateful for the presence of
members of the South Florida resource management community. Their
feedback to scientists about the uncertainties that confront them
everyday, and the special problems they face in restoring south Florida
over the long term is important in determining the scientific program
for the future.\"

Dr. Bonnie A. McGregor

Associate Director for Programs

U. S. Geological Survey

\"The format of the meeting, while certainly unique, provided the
participants an opportunity to gain considerable insight into the
scientific as well as the management aspects of the entire South Florida
restoration effort. Such a dual approach lays the foundation for
enhanced communication among all those involved in the monumental effort
and should generate continued dialogue and a better approach toward

meeting the challenges that lie ahead in South Florida. It was a
pleasure to observe scientists and managers in such good
communication.\"

Wanda C Meeks

Regional Hydrologist

U. S. Geological Survey

South Region, Norcross, Georgia

\"The conference was the best three days I\'ve spent in South Florida in
along time. The discussions were productive, educational and informative
and will assist me greatly in performing my duties as the Jacksonville
District Engineer.

Additionally, being able to talk directly with the scientists about
issues and challenges that confront all of us was worth every penny
spent. Next time, I will have more of my staff present and I will
encourage scientists and engineers from around the entire Corps of
Engineers to participate. It was a great forum (much better than I
expected) and one that should be repeated annually. Hopefully some doors
were opened

here between the managers and the scientists that again will never close
again.\"

COL Joe R. Miller

District Engineer

Jacksonville District

Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of the Army

(Working Group Member)

\"It was impressive to see the magnitude of studies and research going
on within the Everglades Ecosystem and having all that information
located at the Embassy Suites for three days. Although some of the
exhibits were in separate rooms I would hope that there are no walls
restricting communication between all the efforts. All the science needs
to be heard.\"

Fred Rapach

Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department

(Working Group Member)

\"Forums such as this are vital communication mechanisms, not just for
keeping managers and scientists informed of each others projects and
progress, but also for getting (and keeping) the public sector involved.
Schools, universities, museums and science centers can be major assets
in helping to spread the news of a project as massive as restoration of
the Everglades and the science involved.

As we stated in our evaluation report - hat\'s off and salutes to the
organizers of the conference for a job very well done and thanks for
allowing us to be a part of it.\"

Jim Ressegieu

Collections Management Coordinator

Museum of Discovery and Science

\"This type of a forum has never been done down here before on this
scale. I think it has been an outstanding effort. I am amazed and
excited, not only about the information being boiled down into the
posters, but that the posters are now going to be on the Internet and
the posters will be continuously available and able to be kept current.
We should keep it going if not every year then every other year because
we need this.\"

Richard G. (Dick) Ring

Superintendent

Everglades National Park

(Working Group Member)

Perspectives on the First South Florida Restoration Science Forum

(<http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/presentations/berry.html>)

South Florida Restoration Science Forum

May 17 - 19, 1999

Embassy Suites Boca Raton

Dr. Leonard Berry

Director

Florida Center for Environmental Studies

State University System

The prime purpose of the forum was to explore the linkages between
science and management in the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem
and to formulate processes which might improve the effective use of
science in management and the effective contribution of science to
management. A major product of the meeting was the generation of a
wealth of poster material, which dramatically illustrated the wide range
of scientific work under way. The discussions took this work into
account but explored ways in which the integration of science and
management could be improved. Seven major recommendations came from the
breakout group discussions and they are worth restating here.

1.  Most effective progress is made when scientists and managers jointly
    set visions, goals, objectives, timetables and financial plans and
    work together through this agenda

2.  Communications between scientists and managers and equally between
    scientists is vital and time for the effective communication needs
    to be built into the timetable

3.  Scientists need to allocate time to synthesize scientific data in
    ways that can be effectively used by managers. Some communication
    specialists could be helpful here.

4.  Science plans should link together in a spatial context

5.  Managers needs and wants for specific scientific data should be
    articulated and advertised widely. Annual planning and problem
    solving workshops for scientists and managers are necessary to
    synthesize and identify major gaps in science to meet management
    needs

6.  Managers in many cases need to put more effort into understanding
    science

7.  Managers need to continue to communicate to law makers, policy
    makers and the public with regard to the need to support science to
    provide effective management decisions.

The meeting was regarded by most as a good start, but that the process
of two-way communication between managers and scientists needs to be
continued in these kinds of sessions and in more specialized workshops.
The role of the social scientist needs to be an important part of the
on-going discussion.

South Florida Restoration Science Forum

May 17 - 19, 1999

Embassy Suites Boca Raton

Wednesday, May 19

\"Perspectives on the South Florida Restoration Science Forum\"

(Edited Transcript)

Presented by: Dr. Leonard Berry

Director

Florida Center for Environmental Studies

State University System

\[Stuart Langton\] \"I want to introduce a colleague. Len Berry is the
Director for the Florida Center for Environmental Studies where I am
involved as a senior fellow to interact with the Task Force and to try
to build connections with the state university system. Len has been a
great person to work with, and he\'s a well-known geographer in his
field. We were colleagues that never quite connected in Boston, but
we\'ve connected here. Len has been observing the forum as we\'ve gone
forward. He has some comments for us on his observations.\"

\[Len Berry\] \"Well thank you Stu for giving me a task that\'s almost
impossible. I went back and looked at the purpose of this meeting and it
said strategies for successful linking of science management, I think
we\'ve talked a lot, but we haven\'t quite got to strategies. We\'ve got
thoughts and ideas, we\'ve got pieces, but someone somewhere is going to
have to turn around and say how do we really put these together into
strategies?\"

\"As I wandered around the rooms upstairs Monday and yesterday, I put my
academic hat on. I thought, What kind of degree would you give for all
this information? I\'m sure you could get a degree if you took all that
displayed information and put it into various academic formats. Of
course, it had to be a degree in environmental sciences; a broad based
degree that covered most of the biological, chemical, and physical
sciences; and you\'d be a very well qualified person. What I\'d like to
see next year is some additional sets of materials that would qualify
you to be an MBA - a masters degree in business administration. (At
Florida Atlantic University we\'re just beginning such a program in
environmental management.)\"

\"Next year I\'d like to see some posters that managers devised showing
what their management job was and how they fitted science into it.
Because then I think we\'d begin to get some iterations of scientist\'s
view of management and manager\'s view of science. When I talked to
people in some of these rooms, where the arrows between the science and
management action were very clear, and I asked them how does this work?
One person said I wish I knew; another said we\'re beginning the science
that\'s going to get there. So a lot of things work, but there\'s a lot
that we still need to be working on, and we need those strategies and
ideas.\"

\"Listening to the various contributions here, I began to think a little
about the different kinds of science we\'re engaged in and some of the
kinds of science we should be in but are not.\"

\"It\'s pretty obvious that if we think we have a phosphorus problem and
we think that it\'s just that problem, there\'s a fairly straight line
of looking at the problem, examining when the cattails started to grow
then fixing it or thinking we\'re fixing it. It\'s a little more
complicated with mercury, but the kind of thing. You\'ve got what you
think is a chemical problem, It\'s in the water and you can do some
science that\'s partly experimental, partly field testing, and,
afterwards, you hope to come up with solutions. If you\'re working for
the Water Management District or the Corps or if you have contracts with
them, the fit between what you find and what you put in action isn\'t so
difficult. Though, obviously it is not as simple as that and we\'ve made
tremendous strides in being able to fit the science, management, and the
action together.\"

\"It\'s not a hugely complex process, but when you look at some of the
other bits of science, some of which we do and some of which we haven\'t
yet done, we\'re beginning to look at ecosystems structures and how
ecosystems work.\"

\"How will the ecosystem of the Kissimmee River respond to the new
meanders that are being put back in is not a one-on-one relationship
thing; it\'s a very complex set of interactions and which also involves
a very complex set of managers. I think that in most of our minds here,
the managers are you \-- the district, the Corps, the park, and so on.
However, I know we\'ve got farmers out there thinking they\'re managers,
and we have county commissioners out there that think they\'re managers.
I think we have some environmental activists out there that think
they\'re managers, and the Avon Bombing Range is managed by the Air
Force. We\'ve got lots of managers out there, more than the ones we
normally think of. We\'ve also have lots very complex systems out there
other than the ones that make it easy, or relatively easy, to put
science into action.\"

\"I think part of our long-range strategies to deal with this set of
communication issues includes how are we really making sure that the
broader group of managers with its different levels of mangers will get
the right kind of information. This probably needs more than Nick
\[Aumen\] putting some of his time into this exercise. It needs a
process. One that we need to invent and deal with if it\'s not there. We
need to think about the broader range of science that we need to be
engaging in this process. There\'s a lot of university conducted science
going on that\'s not directly funded by any of the agencies represented
in this room, or even directly applicable to the South Florida
Restoration. Some of it is, but somehow there needs to be a distillation
process that will bring that science into a forum like this one. The
Center for Environmental Studies can be part of that effort.\"

\"There is another area of science that has not been mentioned much here
that I\'d like to make a point for. As we begin the restoration, there
is a huge experiment that is taking place which we have touched on it,
but I want to make it explicit. This experiment is a very complex one.
Take the Kissimmee watershed: How does that ecosystem respond to what
we\'re doing to it? What do we need to measure to make sure we\'ve got
the essence of that response? I think there\'s just a little danger that
having done the science up to this point, we think the monitoring is
rather a routine task, and we don\'t give it the right emphasis. As
several people just said, including Col. Miller in particular, we need
to learn from what we\'re doing so that 10 years from now we\'re not
doing the same thing. Having very active feedback that is a very
important part of science, and although it may not be an exciting part
of science, it is critical.\"

\"I know there are some gaps in what we\'re doing. Some gaps exist just
because there isn\'t the funding, and we need to address these gaps in
funding for science issues up front. I think some science gaps are there
because we\'re not focusing on them yet. There are two science gaps that
I\'ll mention now, but I know that everyone has their candidates. One
gap pertains to what I\'d call the Landscape Level of analysis. We do a
lot of very specific detail and in hydrology we can put models together,
and we can put data together to give us a real good sense of what\'s
happening right now. We can look at the chemical and physical flows
through a hydrological system pretty well, but when we\'re looking at
the biological system and the ecological system and the hydrology all
together, I think we don\'t really have good patterns of analysis yet.
The other science gap is one that some of us have discussed before, but
we haven\'t yet seriously addressed. It\'s the role of the behavioral
sciences in the restoration work. Some people get very shy about work on
the behavioral science because that can be very fuzzy. On the other hand
we are not only restoring the ecosystem for itself, but also for
ourselves. Understanding peoples\' reactions to the restoration and to
the impact of the growth of Florida on the restoration is going to be
critical. I am pleading for there to be a better focus on that kind of
research as we proceed and to treat it as scientific research because
that\'s the way it has to be done\' and it needs to be part of this
forum.\"

\"In conclusion, I want to say three or four things that are pretty
obvious. Research is going to continue to increase in importance. It\'s
really a key component of everything we do over the next 20 years.
Planning that research and getting a vision for it is very important.
Research will be done very differently in 10 or 15 years from now. Some
from this group need to be creating a vision of a research agenda as
differing stages of the restoration occur. The whole cyclic process of
monitoring and feedback is critical. There needs to be deliberate
structures created for that to happen. It won\'t happen automatically.
Structures must enable a variety of pieces of that monitoring to get
shared between scientists, managers, and policymakers and such
communication is critical.\"

\"This has been a wonderful forum for communication; not all of the
people who need this communication were here, and we need to continue to
work on getting those people included. I could talk for days about the
importance of this kind of meeting. The information that is shared both
here and soon on the Internet is important. The translation of that
information for the different audiences is something deserving
exploration. One of the best outputs of this meeting is that what\'s
here will not disappear when the

meeting ends. It will continue as an ongoing process that will be added
to and built upon.\"

\"That\'s all I\'m going to say, but I want to make a couple of
acknowledgments. The graphics that were displayed upstairs and that will
be displayed on the Internet are world class quality, and the science
behind them is world class quality. I want to thank particularly all of
the scientists and graphic artists. There has been a lot of thanks for
the panelists and for everyone else, but we also owe thanks to the
facilitators who did a tremendous job of pulling this information
together: some through the Center for Environmental Studies and the rest
from South Florida Water Management District. There\'s been a lot of leg
work getting this stuff done \-- more than most conferences \-- and the
people that did it are very deserving of lots of thanks. Thank you.\"

\[Stuart Langton\] \"Thank you Len for very thoughtful comments. This
has been a great journey and we\'re now bringing the boat back to the
captain, Richard Harvey, who is the chairman of the working group to
provide the closing remarks for the forum.\"

\[end\]

SOUTH FLORIDA RESTORATION SCIENCE FORUM

Symposium Evaluation

Submitted by

Jim Ressegieu,

Collections Mgmt. Coordinator,

Museum of Discovery & Science

5/24/99

Museum of Discovery & Science staff were invited to the first South
Florida Restoration Science Forum held from May 17-19, 1999 to evaluate
the forum based on observations and comments from participants. Museum
staff in attendance were as follows:

Sherwood "Woody" Wilkes, Director of Science & Technology

Dr. Jody Berman, Biological Scientist

Melody Bell-Wilkes, Life Sciences Manager

Jim Ressegieu, Collections Management Coordinator / exhibit evaluator

After the conference the above Museum staff met to discuss their
findings. The following is a summary of our observations and
recommendations. There is no order of preference with regard to the way
the observations or recommendations are stated.

-   Considering that the Forum was put together in a very short
    timeframe, it was a tremendous success. Hats are off to the
    organizers for a job well done. It is hoped that this will be a
    regular event and with that in mind, planning for the next forum,
    including a comprehensive marketing plan, should start now.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Schedules and event agendas need to be confirmed as far in advance
    as possible. Last minute changes can play havoc with busy schedules
    and the result could affect participation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Orientation signage needs to be improved. Touch screen computers
    were supposed to be used for evaluation, but they weren't in
    evidence.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Orientation (knowing where things are and when things will happen)
    is critical to visitor comfort. In the museum field, visitor comfort
    equates to better learning potential. As far as the conference is
    concerned, visitor comfort equates to better participation.

-   One example was with the "SOFIA" presentations. Their first session
    had maybe 10 viewers. With something as important and so useful as
    the South Florida Information Access, [everyone]{.underline} should
    be aware of its presence.

# Observations Based on the Science Poster Exhibits

-   A general observation was that a number of agencies were involved in
    similar research. For future forums, an interesting tactic might be
    to group similar areas of endeavor (ex. All research on mercury)
    together into slightly larger areas instead of separating each
    poster display into separate rooms.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   May foster better communication among agencies and possibly
    encourage or enhance pre-conference collaboration among those
    present.

-   In addition to grouping similar research into one area, there should
    be other opportunities for the scientists to meet one another and to
    get to know each other's research better. Perhaps some sort of
    evening reception or informal function associated with the Forum.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Each project having its own room did add a sense of intimacy which
    may have helped some scientists open up more when discussing their
    research. This may very well have a positive effect with regard to
    strengthening ties between managers and scientists, but we're not
    sure it would be as effective with the public.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Several middle school teachers, a few university professors as well
    as members of the public present at the Forum. It is fair to assume
    that in the future, others will follow. With this in mind, each
    agency should prepare an information piece about who it is and what
    its role is in the restoration process. There are a lot of agencies
    involved with a project of this magnitude and an overview of who the
    players are will help put things in perspective for the public. In
    addition, each scientist and/or presenter should prepare a one or
    two page synthesis, **[in layman terms]{.underline}**, of their
    research and its relevance to the restoration project that can be
    given out to visitors.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Each scientist and/or presenter should have a way for the visitor to
    request information: some place to leave a business card or sign up
    to have information forwarded. Some scientists did this, but not
    all. Communication is the key and the more people that know what
    research is going on, the better.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Each exhibit room should have a list of relevant web sites and
    contact information.

-   If all of the relevant web sites could be centralized or catalogued
    then a sense of cooperation could be fostered. In addition, checking
    through this master list might allow for elimination of some of the
    redundant information and possibly coordinate joint research
    efforts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The "question" posted on the door to each poster session, that gave
    the visitor an introduction to what that scientist's research
    entailed was engaging. It proved very helpful and effective with the
    small room format. It could probably be adapted for use in a larger
    room format.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The poster and exhibit graphics were professional and consistent.
    The choice of graphs that the scientists used was also quite good.
    From a display or exhibit standpoint, however, there was too much
    verbiage which will quickly lose even the technically inclined.
    Using the logic behind the cliché "a picture is worth a thousand
    words," the modeling examples as well as the composite graphics were
    outstanding and did more to highlight the research/poster projects
    than words ever could.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Use the right-hand bias to your advantage.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Generally speaking, people have a tendency to turn to their right
    when confronted with a choice of directions in which to turn. To
    maximize the effectiveness of the science poster exhibits, one might
    want to position an "overview" room adjacent to the entrance to the
    exhibits: making it the first thing the visitor sees. From there,
    place the exhibits such that the visitor is automatically sequenced
    to take advantage of this natural bias. The group on the third floor
    that did panther research overcame the right-hand bias by laying
    down panther tracks on the floor. This caused people to go left,
    thus benefiting all of the exhibitors at that end of the hall.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The constant use of acronyms (ASR, STA, etc.) became confusing. Its
    alright for those in the know who use the terms everyday, but as the
    public becomes more and more involved with the process, these terms
    will have to be defined. One might want to consider publishing or
    supplying a vocabulary sheet as part of the registration package.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The "Participant List" included with the registration packet should
    include addresses along with the agency or institution affiliation.

# Observations Based on the Questionnaire

-   All terms in a question need to be defined. That said, when "rating"
    anything, be conscious of the wording and try to stay away from
    words like "average." It is a relative term: what is average to one
    person may not be average to someone else.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Balance the degrees of separation in a response. Leave at least 5
    degrees of separation (in this case between "below average" to
    "above average") so as not to place too much of a bias one way or
    the other.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Don't ask two questions in one (ex. The first question in the
    questionnaire asks one to rate courtesy and helpfulness which are
    two entirely different things. If necessary, ask a question about
    each).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Designing a questionnaire is not as easy as it looks. Its very
    important to "wordsmith" questions so that it is perfectly clear to
    the respondent what information is being sought. One way to help
    with that process is to make sure all who are interested in the
    results are part of the design process (buy-in). Evaluation results
    are not always positive. Thus, it is often hard to get support or
    effect change unless this group "ownership" stage has been
    established. No one person can design a truly valid questionnaire.
    Reasons for all questions must be established.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All of these questions need to reflect answers that can be measured
    or give substantial information to direct some sort of change or
    action.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Using question #9 in the program content section as an example:
    **Opportunities for informal interactions with participants.** The
    way it is set up now the question is asking the respondent to rate
    the opportunities with "average" being the qualifier. The problem
    here is we don't know what, in this case, average means: average
    relative to what? What is the question really trying to address? Is
    it trying to find out if the respondent thought (a) there were an
    average number of opportunities for informal meetings or (b) if they
    thought the quality of the opportunities was average?

# Suggestions for Future Forums

-   From the science point of view, three issues seemed to really stand
    out at this year's forum: (1) phosphorous, (2) mercury, and (3)
    Aquifer Storage and Recovery.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Perhaps a colloquium with project related or issue related workshops
    for scientists and managers. These could be set up on a pre or post
    conference basis, bringing scientists and managers together to work
    jointly on a subject from start to finish. Foster decision making
    based on sound science and help bridge professional culture gaps.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A possible subject or sub-theme for a future forum might be
    "Strategies for Reaching the Public."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Marathon working group meetings at the end of a conference can be
    exhausting. For example, in the museum field, working and
    sub-committee sessions are scheduled before, during and after the
    conferences in order to try to accommodate as many of the
    participants as possible.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The science needs to reach special targeted audiences.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Encourage more Universities to attend. The students are our future
    scientists and policy makers. This forum would be perfect for many
    university professors and their students. In addition, it might
    encourage universities to see the merit of adding business and
    political science courses to their environmental science degrees.

-   Schedule future Forums to occur around the same time as the
    Everglades Coalition meetings. This may encourage Forum attendance
    by other interested parties with a stake in the project and may
    foster better communication among all stake holders.

-   Ultimately, the public as well as other local and regional stake
    holders need to become informed. As this happens, all of the work
    going on by both scientists and managers will have to be brought
    from the highly technical "science-speak" level to a level that is
    both understandable and made relevant to everyone's daily lives.

-   As the attendance becomes more diverse, Forum organizers might want
    to consider structuring the Forum to include one day devoted to the
    scientists, one or two days devoted to the scientists and the
    managers, and one or two days set aside for the public.

LESSONS LEARNED from Stuart Langton, May 23, 1999

South Florida Restoration Science Forum

May 17-19, 1999

Embassy Suites

Boca Raton, Florida

In sum, I thought the Forum was good. In no particular order of
priority, the lessons I learned are as follows:

1\. Make sure who is in charge of what at outset

2.  Start planning at least 9 months in advance

3\. Clarify purpose, goals, desired outcomes and audiences first

4.  Get early buy in from Working Group

5.  Appoint planning committee, clarify their role, clarify what they
    are willing to do early.

6.  Select skilled group, like CES, to manage all logistics and help
    with planning. Involve them very early in planning.

7.  Design program to match objectives, then prepare budget -- early.

8.  Get budget support, commitment, etc., early.

9.  Select meeting place to suit objectives and budget.

10. Use the internet to advertise, but use other outreach methods as
    well such as mailings, telephoning, ads in newsletters, etc.

11. Charge a registration fee to cover some costs and to assure people
    are serious about attending.

12. On registration form have people indicate sessions they plan to
    attend.

13. Determine public relations approach early and appoint coordiator.

14. Recruit volunteers, in addition to planning committee and contracted
    help, for specific task.

15. Develop clear plan and task descriptions (same should be done for
    committee and contractor).

16. Give detailed instructions to exhibitors re times to put up and take
    down exhibits.

17. Clarify who introduces whom and who starts and closes each session.

18. Organize thoroughly, but be prepared to be adaptive and flexible.

19. Make sure to appoint staff willing to work as hard as Bob Mooney and
    Doreen DiCarlo did.

1999 South Florida Restoration Science Forum

May 17-19, 1999

Embassy Suites, Boca Raton, Florida

Interactive Touchscreen Participant Survey

Provided by Willie Puz, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Each of the following question appeared one at a time on the screen. (In
retrospect, the questions should have been numbered 1 of 9, 2 of 9...
since some of the respondents quit and others chose not to start because
the length of the survey was not shown.)

1\. The EXPO display ROOMS are very informative, well prepared and well
presented.

Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree

Neutral

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don\'t Know

2\. The ENTRANCE EXHIBITS are very informative and well prepared.

Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree

Neutral

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don\'t Know

3\. The PRESENTATION/PANEL DISCUSSIONS are pertinent, well developed and
well presented.

Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree

Neutral

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don\'t Know

4\. THE FACILITATED CONSENSUS BUILDING AND ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS ARE
pertinent, well developed and well presented.

Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree

Neutral

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don\'t Know

5\. Please rate the forum registration and set up.

Excellent

Good

Average

Poor

Very Poor

Don\'t Know

6\. You are a:

Scientist

Manager

Interested Citizen

Other

7\. How often should the forum be held?

Annually

Biennially

Less Often

Never

8\. Will you visit the forum site on the Internet to keep abreast of
information on the science work being done?

Yes

Not Sure

9\. What is your OVERALL SATISFACTION with the Science Forum?

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Neutral

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Participant Surveys (on interactive touch screens at the forum)

South Florida Restoration Science Forum

May 17 - 19, 1999

Embassy Suites

Boca Raton, Florida

Equipment and results provided by:

Willie Puz

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

1.  The EXPO display ROOMS are very informative, well prepared and well
    presented.

Count Percentage

Strongly Agree 18 78.26%

Somewhat Agree 4 17.39%

Neutral 0 0%

Somewhat Disagree 0 0%

Strongly Disagree 1 4.35%

Don\'t Know 0 0%

TOTALS 23 100%

2.  The ENTRANCE EXHIBITS are very informative and well prepared

Count Percentage

Strongly Agree 14 66.67%

Somewhat Agree 6 28.57%

Neutral 0 0%

Somewhat Disagree 0 0%

Strongly Disagree 1 4.76%

Don\'t Know 0 0%

TOTALS 21 100%

3.  The PRESENTATION/PANEL DISCUSSIONS are pertinent, well developed and
    well presented

Count Percentage

Strongly Agree 12 57.14%

Somewhat Agree 0 0%

Neutral 2 9.52%

Somewhat Disagree 1 4.76%

Strongly Disagree 1 4.76%

Don\'t Know 5 23.81%

TOTALS 21 100%

4.  THE FACILITATED CONSENSUS BUILDING AND ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS ARE
    pertinent, well developed and well presented.

Count Percentage

Strongly Agree 7 35.00%

Somewhat Agree 5 25.00%

Neutral 0 0%

Somewhat Disagree 0 0%

Strongly Disagree 0 0%

Don\'t Know 8 40.00%

TOTALS 20 100%

5.  Please rate the forum registration and set up.

Count Percentage

Excellent 12 63.16%

Good 3 15.79%

Average 3 15.79%

Poor 1 5.26%

Very Poor 0 0%

Don\'t Know 0 0%

TOTALS 19 100%

6.  You are a:

Count Percentage

Scientist 6 31.58%

Manager 3 15.79%

Interested Citizen 2 10.53%

Other 8 42.11%

TOTAL 19 100%

7.  How often should the forum be held?

Count Percentage

Annually 11 61.11%

Biennially 6 33.33%

Less Often 1 5.56%

Never 0 0%

TOTAL 18 100%

8.  Will you visit the forum site on the Internet to keep abreast of
    information on the science work being done?

Count Percentage

Yes 17 94.44%

Not Sure 1 5.56%

Not Sure 0 0%

TOTAL 18 100%

9.  What is your OVERALL SATISFACTION with the Science Forum?

Count Percentage

Very Satisfied 12 66.67%

Somewhat Satisfied 5 27.78%

Neutral 0 0%

Somewhat Dissatisfied 1 5.56%

Very Dissatisfied 0 0%

TOTALS 18 100%

![](media/image2.wmf)

**MISCELLANEOUS**

23) Did any of your family or friends accompany you?

> Yes No If yes, how many? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

24) What is your affiliation?

>  Federal Agency  State Agency  County/City Agency

 Business  University  Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**SUGGESTIONS**

25\) Was the forum an acceptable traveling distance? Yes No

26\) Which location would you prefer?

 Florida Keys  Central Florida  Gainesville  West Coast

 South Florida  Northern Florida  East Coast  Panhandle

27\) How did you travel to this forum?  Fly Drive  Other:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

28\) This forum should be:

 Re-designed  Continued as is  Expanded

29\) If this forum is held again, will you attend?  Yes  No 
Undecided

*If there is anything we have not covered that you would like to comment
on, please do so in the space below.*

32) Additional comments/suggestions:

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***Please Return This Form to the Registration Desk or mail it to:***

***Doreen DiCarlo, Center for Environmental Studies***

***Florida Atlantic University 3970 RCA Boulevard Suite 7401***

***Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410***

***We appreciate your participation in our survey.***

Participant Surveys (turned in at the forum)

Review by the Center for Environmental Studies

August 4, 1999 (Email message)

To: Leonard Berry, Ph.D., Director

From: J. Ross Wilcox, Ph.D., Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA

Subject: Summary of questionnaires from South Florida Restoration
Science Forum

As you requested, I have reviewed the questionnaires returned from
participants of the South Florida Restoration Science Forum conducted
May 17-19 at the Embassy Suites in Boca Raton, FL. This summary is based
on 14 responses.

The respondents were happy with the hotel, the surroundings, and the
food. When another forum such as this is planned, a hotel similar in
quality and accessibility needs to be selected.

The respondents had strong opinions that there is a continuing need for
information exchange on Everglades issues. However, opinions diverged
widely as to how best to disseminate this information. Many felt that
the poster board session on Monday was very valuable, but the
effectiveness was lost by each exhibit being housed in a small suite on
multiple floors. Many thought that a large exhibit room with all
exhibits was a better venue. Some thought that the plenary sessions were
too large and formal for good information exchange.

Several respondents said there were too many submeetings of managers
going so that they could not attend the main meetings. One person
suggested more free time for people to talk and to have these
submeetings.

The whole format of the workshop needs to be rethought. The suggestion
at this time is to meet with the sponsors (i.e. the \"customer\") and to
determine what their needs and wants are for the next meeting. Then the
workshop can be designed to meet these needs and wants.

Surveys by Working Group-related members after the Forum

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group Members

Science Coordination Team Members

Public Outreach and Steering Support Team Members

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Science Forum Evaluation Members

FROM: Bonnie Kranzer, Executive Director

Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida

DATE: June 22, 1999

SUBJECT: South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Science Forum Evaluation
Form

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Enclosed please find an evaluation form for the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Science Forum held in Boca Raton May 17-19, 1999. The
evaluation was created by a Science Forum Review and Follow-up Team
chaired by myself and comprised of 18 individuals (See attached
membership list). This team will compile completed evaluation forms and
review them with a focus on two objectives: (1) summarize the lessons
learned (extent to which the forum did/didn't accomplished its mission),
and (2) ascertain the current and future roles of such forums for Task
Force, Working Group, SCT, and POSST needs.

We would particularly like your comments and ideas to assist the
Evaluation Team in this mission. Output from this and future forums
should provide useful tools, assessment techniques, and information for
the Task Force, Working Group, SCT, POSST and the public. It is our hope
that this evaluation will serve as a tool in planning future
forum/symposiums content, context and audience.

To aid in filling out the evaluation form, also enclosed is a tabulation
of evaluation surveys from forum participants and presenters and a copy
of the "Best Ideas" list compiled from comments received during the
Forum. Please read these attachments since they summarize the
participant\'s views of the Science Forum.

Completed evaluations should be faxed to the Governors Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida, attention Bill Hinsley; or e-mailed to
[whinsley@sfwmd.gov](mailto:Roberto.torres@sfwmd.gov). In order to
complete our compilation of these evaluation forms, we ask that you
return your completed survey no later than July 2, 1999.

Thanks in advance for your timely response and assistance.

Attachments

**1999 Science Forum Evaluation Form**

Name (optional) Organization (optional) [\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Phone or e-mail (optional)

*Rank of 1 - 5; 1 - strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3- indifferent,
4-agree, 5-strongly agree.*

*N/A for no experience/contact with the item or \"not applicable\".
Please circle one.*

E.  **Program Design and Content**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  The forum\'s organization (poster sessions, speakers, panel
    discussions, etc.)

contributed to content assimilation. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

2.  The poster sessions overall, were useful and informative. 1 2 3 4 5
    N/A

3.  Poster session information was relevant, applicable and timely for
    my needs. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

4.  Poster session information was thorough, accurate, reliable and
    valid. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

5.  Poster session info was presented in ways that enhanced
    comprehension. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

6.  The speakers and panelists overall, were useful and informative. 1 2
    3 4 5 N/A

7.  Speaker and panelist info was relevant, applicable and timely for my
    needs. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

8.  Speaker and panelist info was thorough, accurate, reliable and
    valid. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

9.  Speaker and panelist info was presented in ways that enhanced
    comprehension. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

10. Poster session formats (exhibits/handouts/briefings) were
    informative overall. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

11. What did you like best about the \"content\" of the forum?

12\. What did you like least about the forum \"content\"?

13\. The manager-scientist theme was useful for learning. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

14 What is the most significant thing(s) you learned at the forum?

15\. Comments pertaining to forum content:

**II. Forum Logistics**

16\. The forum was well advertised. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

17\. The forum\'s registration process was easy and simple to
understand. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

18\. The registration materials provided a good overview of what to
expect. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

19\. Forum organization/agenda followed a logical/informative sequence.
1 2 3 4 5 N/A

20\. Forum planning was well organized. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

21\. Use of web site assisted in registration/learning about forum. 1 2
3 4 5 N/A

22. Comments pertaining to forum logistics:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. **Lessons Learned**

23\. Is there anything that should have been done differently at the
forum?

24. Is there anything that should be done differently in future
    symposiums?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
25. What did you like best about the forum?

26\. What did you like least about the forum?

IV. **Future Symposiums/forums**

27\. Should this forum be repeated? If so, *(1) re-designed, (2)
continued as is, or (3) expanded. (circle one)*

28. What are your suggestions about future forums/symposiums?

29. How and for what purposes should the Working Group sponsor future
    symposiums?

30. What role(s) should future symposiums play for the Working Group or
    its Issue groups or Teams (POSST, SCT, etc.).

31\. What linkage, if any, should future symposiums have to the Science
Forum?

32\. Can you suggest a sequence of themes or functions future symposiums
could address?

33\. Miscellaneous Comments/Suggestions:

**E-mail or fax responses to: Bonnie Kranzer c/o Bill Hinsley, Gov\'s
Commission**

**At: 305-669-6974 (fax), 305-669-6975 (phone), e-mail c/o
[whinsley@sfwmd.gov](mailto:Rtorres@sfwmd.gov)**.

Attachments: (1) tabulation of evaluation surveys from participants

\(2\) List of \"Best Ideas\" from facilitated sessions.

1999 South Florida Restoration Science Forum

Post Forum Surveys from Working Group-related Evaluators - Results

Survey Compiled by Bill Hinsley (Updated 08/05/99)

(Note: The responses were only to Questions 1 through 10, 13, and 16
through 21.)

1\. The forum\'s organization (poster sessions, speakers, panel
discussions, etc.) contributed to content assimilation.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 0 0.00%

Agree 5 62.50%

Strongly Agree 3 37.50%

No Experience/Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTALS 8 100%

2\. The poster sessions overall, were useful and informative.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 1 12.50%

Agree 3 37.50%

Strongly Agree 4 50.00%

No Experience/Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTALS 8 100%

3\. Poster session information was relevant, applicable and timely for
my needs.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 0 0.00%

Agree 3 37.50%

Strongly Agree 4 50.00%

No Experience/Not Appl. 1 12.50%

TOTALS 8 100%

4\. Poster session information was thorough, accurate, reliable and
valid.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 1 12.50%

Agree 4 50.00%

Strongly Agree 2 25.00%

No Experience/ Not Appl. 1 12.50%

TOTALS 8 100%

5\. Poster session info was presented in ways that enhanced
comprehension.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 1 12.50%

Indifferent 0 0.00%

Agree 5 62.50%

Strongly Agree 2 25.00%

No Experience/Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTALS 8 100%

6\. The speakers and panelists overall, were useful and informative.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 2 25.00%

Agree 5 62.50%

Strongly Agree 1 12.50%

No Experience/Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTAL 8 100%

7\. Speaker and panelist info was relevant, applicable and timely for my
needs.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 1 11.11%

Agree 6 66.67%

Strongly Agree 1 11.11%

No Experience/Not Appl. 1 11.11%

TOTAL 9 100%

8\. Speaker and panelist info was thorough, accurate, reliable and
valid.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 1 12.50%

Agree 6 75.00%

Strongly Agree 0 0.00%

No Experience/Not Appl. 1 12.50%

TOTAL 8 100%

9\. Speaker and panelist info was presented in ways that enhanced
comprehension.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 1 12.50%

Indifferent 3 37.50%

Agree 3 37.50%

Strongly Agree 1 12.50%

No Experience/ Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTALS 8 100%

10\. Poster session formats (exhibits/handouts/briefings) were
informative overall.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 1 14.29%

Agree 4 57.14%

Strongly Agree 2 28.57%

No Experience/Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTALS 7 100%

13\. The manager-scientist theme was useful for learning.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 2 25.00%

Agree 3 37.50%

Strongly Agree 3 37.50%

No Experience/ Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTALS 8 100%

16 The forum was well advertised.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 1 12.50%

Indifferent 4 50.00%

Agree 1 12.50%

Strongly Agree 1 12.50%

No Experience/Not Appl. 1 12.50%

TOTALS 8 100%

17\. The forum\'s registration process was easy and simple to
understand.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 1 12.50%

Agree 6 75.00%

Strongly Agree 1 12.50%

No Experience/Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTALS 8 100%

18. The registration materials provided a good overview of what to
    expect.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 1 12.50%

Indifferent 3 37.50%

Agree 4 50.00%

Strongly Agree 0 0.00%

No Experience/ Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTALS 8 100%

19. Forum organization/agenda followed a logical/informative sequence.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 1 12.50%

Indifferent 2 25.00%

Agree 4 50.00%

Strongly Agree 1 12.50%

No Experience/Not Appl. 0 0.00%

TOTALS 8 100%

20\. Forum planning was well organized.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 2 22.22%

Agree 5 55.56%

Strongly Agree 1 11.11%

No Experience/Not Appl. 1 11.11%

TOTALS 9 100%

21\. Use of web site assisted in registration/learning about forum.

Count Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Disagree 0 0.00%

Indifferent 0 0.00%

Agree 3 37.50%

Strongly Agree 3 37.50%

No Experience/Not Appl. 2 25.00%

TOTALS 8 100%

**1999 South Florida Restoration Science Forum**

**Forum Evaluation Results**

Short Answer Responses

**Survey Compiled by Bill Hinsley (Updated 08/06/99)**

**I. Program Design and Content**

11\. What did you like best about the \"content\" of the forum?

-   Displays & handouts available; scientists there to answer questions

-   I most appreciated the diversity of displays on various south
    Florida restoration projects. The layout which utilized major topic
    areas with more specific sub-topics under each was very
    understandable. I found the "overview" rooms (9 topic rooms) most
    helpful for a broad, general understanding of restoration issues.

-   Quality of information.

-   The large number of display themes presented in the hotel rooms and
    on the first floor.

-   Inclusive of many organizations/agencies.

-   The expanded poster format.

-   Wide variety of organizations participating; clear, consistent
    presentation format.

12\. What did you like least about the forum \"content\"?

-   Insufficient involvement by managers, the target audience.

-   The content of several of the posters in the "overview" rooms was
    too complex for the non-scientist. It would've been more helpful if
    these rooms really stuck to the basics, and followed a very similar
    format/layout (I know this was the intention).

-   There is not any item I liked the least about the forum. An area of
    improvement would be to get a larger number of people to attend
    especially local government and the general public.

-   Too "heady" for the general public.

-   Too much politics/government backstabbing on the second morning.

-   Mostly an insiders meeting, "preaching to the choir."

14\. What is the most significant thing(s) you learned at the forum?

-   Secretary Babbitt's view of where the Restudy was going (into
    controversy for six months); Secretary of the Interior Babbitt's
    view that the Science Forum was a good thing. Rock Salt's accolades
    for the Science Sub-group work plan back in 1993, and other
    independent remarks in this regard.

-   The most significant thing I learned was about the huge diversity of
    projects which all contribute to the overall restoration effort. I
    also learned some interesting details about phosphorus and other
    nutrients that I did not know before.

-   I was able to increase my knowledge on many science-related topics
    relative to ecosystem restoration.

-   That communication was such a major problem.

-   Managers don't really understand the science underpinnings. They
    don't realize how strong they are.

-   So many details we can't believe we didn't know before; how little
    communication has occurred before this.

15\. Comments pertaining to forum content:

-   Not enough NGO's participating, to tell the world what things they
    were doing and where their investments were headed relative to
    science activities.

-   None other than to keep content even MORE basic and general if your
    audience is truly the lay person and manager.

-   Need more linkages.

-   Outstanding.

-   Wasted time on second morning.

-   Needed more scientific and/or academic presentations.

**Forum Logistics**

22\. Comments pertaining to forum logistics

-   Make names on nametags bigger.

-   From an outsider's perspective, the forum appeared to be well
    orchestrated. I did not notice any major problems or issues, other
    than some confusion with hotel staff about assigned rooms.

-   Need more targeting to get desired attendees.

-   Well coordinated effort.

-   Need to set agendas early and stick to them.

-   I am easily confused by the web and was perpetually confused about
    Bob Mooney's instruction about how to get into, how to register,
    etc. It may on the other-hand, been great for everyone else.

-   A lot of last minute arrangements but it ran quite well.

# Lessons Learned

23\. Is there anything that should have been done differently at the
forum?

-   It's hard to train managers to be scientists; that's why they are
    managers.

-   I think the audience for the forum could have been more broadly
    defined. This may have allowed advertising and promoting the
    wonderful information contained in the forum to more people. For a
    first attempt, however, the forum was excellent overall. I do not
    think the first floor displays (general agency displays) contributed
    to the Forum. In fact, several people commented to me that they
    thought these displays constituted the entire forum! The agency
    displays, though glossy and interesting, often did not directly
    state how they connected to the restoration effort. Even the USACE
    Restudy display needed to make the connection between the Restudy
    and the overall restoration effort. In the future, I would suggest
    using this area to highlight very specific projects and events, and
    leave the more generic agency displays to another floor.

-   Longer lead-time. Broader involvement in planning.

-   We could have done a better job on the media relations in advance of
    the forum including press packages etc.

-   We should not have scrapped the original second morning session for
    what we got.

-   Have management present displays.

24 Is there anything that should be done differently in future
symposiums?

-   Get more schools involved. Also the public.

-   Again, I would encourage clearly defining the audience and
    specifically targeting content and format for this group. I do think
    the general public could learn a lot from this type of event in the
    future. The time that presenters were expected to be present in
    their individual rooms was too long.

-   More targeting.

-   Allow more time for display rooms to be open with the scientists
    available for interaction with attendees.

-   Better up front organization & PR.

-   Each forum will have a different theme -- so many things will be
    different.

-   Make palatable to scientists in academia; bring management and
    elected officials.

25 What did you like best about the forum?

-   Interaction with other scientists.

-   I most liked the opportunity to gain a broad-brush understanding of
    many restoration projects in one central location, and in lay
    person's terms (most of the time).

-   Quality of information.

-   The large number of scientific exhibits and the use of separate
    hotel rooms for the displays.

-   Poster sessions.

-   The poster format.

-   Opportunity to network and exchange ideas with other scientists.

26\. What did you like least about the forum?

-   Managers would give a speech in prep for a panel, then disappear,
    and were to wrapped up in crisis management as usual, due to
    insufficient use of science for "out of the crisis."

-   The individual rooms format was intimidating to me, personally. I
    would much prefer to approach a poster or exhibit display contained
    in a large room, and engage the presenter in that forum, versus
    entering a small room and potentially being the only person present.

-   Too long.

-   Need for more time to view displays.

-   Schedule changes.

-   Few visitors considering time invested.

II. **Future Symposiums/forums**

27\. Should this forum be repeated? If so, *(1) re-designed, (2)
continued as is, or (3) expanded. (circle one)*

-   Redesigned (2)

-   Continued as is (2)

-   Expanded (3)

-   YES, absolutely. In a slightly re-designed format.

28\. What are your suggestions about future forums/symposiums?

-   Use volunteers effectively. Have a team evaluate the forum
    real-time. Schedule a "hot wash-up" at the end of the forum. One
    month (+) later...let's see, what I have forgotten?

-   Each yearly one should have a specific goal.

-   A very valuable tool to educate managers, scientists and policy
    makers.

-   Deal with some of the major issues that came out of this forum.

-   Build a long-range approach -- select themes for next several years.

-   Use a field site where the ecosystem is a tangible backdrop; add
    science to attract academics.

29\. How and for what purposes should the Working Group sponsor future
symposiums?

-   Same Deal: Target management until they get it right.

-   I believe the WG should sponsor future forums for the primary
    purpose of public outreach and education on the restoration process.
    The WG is responsible for overseeing all aspects of Everglades
    restoration, and this includes informing and involving managers,
    decision-makers, politicians, and the general public.

-   There are numerous purposes that are laudable. Priorities should be
    set each year within strategic goals.

-   WG sponsored forums need to be held as a tool to inform people at
    all levels of interest on the need for ecosystem restoration.

-   Retreats on specific regional/conceptual issues.

30\. What role(s) should future symposiums play for the Working Group or
its Issue groups or Teams (POSST, SCT, etc.).

-   Their mission role. Leadership is sorely needed. Someone needs to
    make a statement about free speech, and open debate in a "forum."

-   Depending on the Forum content, target audiences, and format, any or
    all of the WG issue groups and subgroups should be involved in
    organizing and sponsoring such a forum. This past forum's
    sponsorship by the SCT was appropriate given the forum content and
    audiences.

-   They can be excellent not need to be looked at as a whole.

-   POSST needs to take more of a lead in organizing the media relations
    with the lead agencies, get more involvement from principle players
    who have PR staff. Joint efforts similar to this forum of teams is a
    good approach, i.e. POSST and SCT working together.

-   Would bring out points that need to be put before the public and
    other large audiences -- outreach if you will.

-   Should be part of our overall goal of informing WG and public about
    science base for restoration.

-   Send clear substantiation to management of divisions based on
    science.

31\. What linkage, if any, should future symposiums have to the Science
Forum?

-   Again, before linkages are decided, the primary goals, audiences,
    and format of any symposia must be identified. Only then can the
    linkage to the Science Forum be determined. Perhaps the science
    forum could be re-formatted to address managers and policy-makers
    one day (as it did this year) and the general public the next.

-   Should be linked strategically.

-   Linkage may be a good idea, but needs to be thought through.

-   More linkage; better integration.

32\. Can you suggest a sequence of themes or functions future symposiums
could address?

-   Peer Review of the Restudy, assuming it has gotten underway.

-   Requires a team approach.

-   Public Outreach (including public education, media involvement,
    etc.), Strategic Planning, Science/Manager.

-   Deal with some of the major issues that came out of this forum.

-   Needs to be a team effort.

33\. Miscellaneous Comments/Suggestions

-   How to get feedback to the breakout groups, on what was done with
    the discussion session ideas?

-   It would be very helpful for scientists to better understand which
    management decisions represent Critical Projects in the
    implementation process, and knowledge/data gaps potentially
    impacting those decision points & the timing thereof. Managers
    should address these matters at future meetings, e.g. ASR.

-   A very successful and beneficial forum. Many very positive comments
    from attendees

-   This forum established the fact that communication skills needed
    improving by everyone. Now its time to establish symposia that can
    put that into practice.

Supporter Acknowledgements by the Forum Developer / Coordinator

I want to extend a special thanks to everyone who participated in the
South Florida Restoration Forum on May 17-19, 1999, at the Embassy
Suites in Boca Raton, Florida. The event made it possible to set up this
forum web site. In addition, I want to highlight the aspects of the
event:

It was a massive, collaborative, first time effort by hundreds of
scientific investigators to display their work in a format that was
meaningful to both scientists and non-scientists. Both the event and the
online forum have been developed mostly through electronic means with
few meetings and minimal effort by all but a few of the individuals
involved.

The effort that was put into developing the information and displays for
the forum is continuing to provide further benefits through its ongoing
display on this web site which is another rare accomplishment for an
event anywhere. This is being done mostly through an extraordinary
effort by webmaster Heather Henkel.

More than 500 scientists, resource managers, executives, and others
participated in the forum by either displaying, exhibiting, presenting,
discussing, and/or hosting displays in the front half of their guest
suites for others who lived nearby. This provided a tremendous cost
savings and provided recognition of the great team spirit. This is all
part of the restoration effort.

The forum was greatly enhanced through last minute assistance from the
Florida Center for Environmental Studies and its student workers from
Florida Atlantic University, and by the onsite assistance of volunteers
from the Loxahatchee Natural History Association as arranged by the
Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. This
demonstrated the outstanding abilities of individuals in those
organizations.

I want to give special recognition to: volunteers Dolores Tennant, Jay
Litt, Jay Goldman, Bill Loery, Bert Zimmerman, Ruth Cogswell, Jerry
Weiss, Bill Harms, Walter Goldstein and Serena Rinker for their
invaluable services; student workers Anne Simons, Jenny Christopher,
Dara Cole, Matthew Crane, Sophia Kokoros, Jordan Muss, Scott Park, Josh
Patterson, Patricia Rieter, Ada Santamaria, Mandy Selix, Eric Tamila,
and Louisa Kerwin for their truly amazing efforts; and Doreen DiCarlo of
the Florida Center for Environmental Studies who did an outstanding job,
especially with the informal evening reception.

Many thanks to all!

Bob Mooney

<http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/supporters.html>

THE SOUTH FLORIDA RESTORATION SCIENCE FORUM

ON THE POWERFUL LINKAGES BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT

May 17-19,1999

Boca Raton, Florida

"BEST IDEAS"

HOW CAN MANAGERS AND SCIENTISTS BE MOST SUPPORTIVE OF EACH OTHERS NEEDS
AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND WORK TOGETHER EFFECTIVELY?

At the conclusion of the second day of the Forum, participants completed
a form which solicited their best ideas for managers, for scientists and
for both which were stimulated by the day's panels and presentations.
These were compiled and organized over night and presented on Wednesday
morning as a handout and a basis for identifying in small group sessions
the "best ideas" for Restoration managers and scientists to work
together.

On the last morning of the South Florida Restoration Science Forum the
participants heard an opening presentation by Rock Salt offering remarks
on the historical and current context and importance of the dialogue
among managers and scientists on working effectively together to advance
the goals and vision of Everglades restoration and South Florida
sustainability. Following this, the participants broke into six small
discussion groups balanced with managers and scientists and were asked
to identify the best ideas and strategies for how managers and
scientists can work more effectively together. These ideas were then
presented to a panel of scientists and managers for their review,
comments and suggestions regarding how to implement these suggestions.
The Science Coordinating Team of the Everglades Restoration Task Force
and Working Group, which sponsored and help organize the forum, will
review the Forum results with an eye towards implementing some of the
best ideas identified.

Below are the lists of the highest ranked ideas generated by the six
small groups and shared with and discussed by the panel in the
Conference's final plenary session. Following these are each small
break-out group's ranked list of "best ideas" culled from the
participant "idea list" and from the group's own discussions.

"THE BEST IDEA LIST"

#1 RANKED IDEAS FROM SIX SMALL BREAK-OUT GROUPS

-   Scientists and managers should jointly set vision, goals, objectives
    and financial plans

-   Manage should communicate expectations and priorities with the
    public

-   Develop region based science plans- roadmaps

-   COMMUNICATION/COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION-between and among
    scientists to identify clear objectives, goals, jointly evaluate and
    synthesize results.

-   Synthesis\--Scientists need to pull all the pieces together for the
    managers. There are many complex related issues being addressed by
    the scientists but not much synthesis of the data. Some one(s) need
    to draw the common thread through the issues, show how one
    management option may impact another etc. (e.g. hire writers, etc.)

-   Centralize and identify manager needs/wants for specific scientific
    data and advertise these outside their agency, e.g. put needs onto a
    PMC or Restudy Web Page. Articulate research needs on an annual
    basis. Hold annual planning and problem solving workshops for
    manager and scientists to synthesize and identify major gaps in
    science (e.g. Restudy, SERA etc.)Share objectives with each other.

-   Managers need to continue to (and more so) communicate to law
    makers, plus staff and policy makers to support \$\$ for research/
    science to support management decisions.

-   Managers need to put effort into understanding science

#2 RANKED IDEAS FROM SIX SMALL BREAK-OUT GROUPS

-   Scientists need to pull all the pieces together for the managers.
    There are many complex related issues being addressed by the
    scientists but not much synthesis of the data. Some one(s) need to
    draw the common thread through the issues, show how one management
    option may impact another etc.\*

-   Scientists and managers need to work better together and separately
    to communicate with the public

-   Identify ultimate goals and set clear objectives for all projects at
    all scales and provide consideration for alternative directions if
    answers are not as expected (This only works if managers are willing
    to accept negative information.)

-   Use and fund information specialists (with new funds) to work with
    scientists in synthesizing results to benefit science, management
    and public awareness.

-   Peer review for science research and peer review of management
    decisions.

-   Establish scientific standards and protocols and performance
    measures for managers

-   Managers need to understand that science provides answers in
    probabilities and risks not absolutes and research often generates
    new research. Scientists need to frame advice in a risk format, i.e.
    likelihood of success within specific timeframes

**Break-Out Group #1** (Facilitator: Bonnie Kranzer / Sally Garson)

1)  Centralize and identify manager needs/wants for specific scientific
    data and advertise these outside their agency, e.g. put needs onto a
    PMC or Restudy Web Page. Articulate research needs on an annual
    basis. Hold annual planning and problem solving workshops for
    manager and scientists to synthesize and identify major gaps in
    science (e.g. Restudy, SERA etc.)Share objectives with each other.

2)  Synthesis\--Scientists need to pull all the pieces together for the
    managers. There are many complex related issues being addressed by
    the scientists but not much synthesis of the data. Some one(s) need
    to draw the common thread through the issues, show how one
    management option may impact another etc. (e.g. hire writers, etc.)

3)  Peer review for science research and peer review of management
    decisions.

4)  Establish scientific standards and protocols and performance
    measures for managers

5)  Simplify funding and budget process and explore more connections
    between researchers and granting agencies. Granting agencies should
    become more aware of research issues and needs.

6)  Making sure old information is not lost in bridging gaps (e.g.
    Science Sub-group Report)

7)  Managers often overlook the basis of all scientific investigation is
    questioning. Often times science findings in one area may lead to
    more questions and more complex questions about that topic. Managers
    should understand that science isn't always cut and dry

8)  Resist temptation to use science for political agenda

9)  Scientists need to be aware and involved beyond their own work and
    agency

10) Its necessary for scientists to present all of the science, not just
    that supporting the issue you are trying to address

11) We need more experimental cause/effect research rather than less. In
    complex systems simple, easy to understand (or single factor
    correlative) explanations are likely to be wrong. In the case of P
    and Cattails, the simple explanations seems to have been correct,
    but it is dangerous to base management policy on such simple
    correlations without the cause/effect research to back it up.
    Support of empirical data collection is preferred, especially if
    work may be contested.

**Break-Out Group #2** (Facilitators: Tim Bechtel & Rob Sosnowski)

1)  Centralize and identify manager needs/wants for specific scientific
    data and advertise these outside their agency, e.g. put needs onto a
    PMC or Restudy Web Page. Articulate research needs on an annual
    basis. Hold annual planning and problem solving workshops for
    manager and scientists to synthesize and identify major gaps in
    science (e.g. Restudy,

2)  Scientists need to pull all the pieces together for the managers.
    There are many complex related issues being addressed by the
    scientists but not much synthesis of the data. Some one(s) need to
    draw the common thread through the issues, show how one management
    option may impact another etc.

3)  Scientists need to focus on using lay-person terminology and
    avoiding scientific jargon in their discussions with presentations
    to managers and the public

4)  Both groups need to work better together and separately to
    communicate with the public.

5)  Scientists and managers need to work better together and separately
    to communicate with the public.

6)  Communicate with each other before during and after and communicate
    outside

7)  Anticipate, define, receive (interpretations) and act

8)  Meet on informal basis and talk at various levels

9)  Questions that need to be constantly revisited by all relevant
    parties

10) Don't get lost in the work, too details- need appropriate level of
    research.

11) Long term planning agreed upon by managers and scientists.

**Break-Out Group #3** (Faciltator: Stuart Langton)

1)  **Scientists and managers should jointly set goals, objectives and
    vision including funding (managers need to say what they want and
    scientists need to say what they can and can't do)**

2)  **Provide support and assistance to help scientists synthesize,
    apply and translate and communicate ("gray hairs")**

3)  Basis for action is sound science/management principle

4)  Scientists need to be willing to give "best professional opinion"

5)  Managers should meet with scientists to learn and understand their
    models and tools, etc. Managers need to be accessible and attend
    meetings with scientists

6)  Do not do data dump synthesize information for managers and public

7)  Scientists should meet regularly with policy makers

8)  Managers need to support scientists and that support needs to be
    communicated...build trust...decision making

**Break-Out Group #4** (Facilitator: Bob Jones)

1)  Communicate, communicate, communicate- improve it among and between
    managers and scientists especially in identifying goals, objectives
    and jointly evaluating results

2)  Need to develop region based science plans as a roadmap

3)  **Use new funds to have information specialists to work with
    scientists to synthesize results for scientists, managers and the
    public.**

4)  Encourage on going/constant partnerships with scientists, managers
    and affected interests in a defined ecological "place" to identify
    clear, goals, objectives to be achieved.

5)  Managers need more involvement in identifying effects/implications
    of research on management role, plans and processes.

6)  Provide a forum for scientists to initiate interactive discussions
    with managers on public resource management goals and objectives

7)  Consider the big picture---ecosystem restoration

8)  Scientists need to define up front what products research will offer
    to managers.

**Break-Out Group #5** (Facilitators: Lynn Mason & Ed Terszak)

1)  **Managers need to put effort into understanding science**

2)  **Scientists and managers need to work better together and
    separately to communicate with the public**

3)  **Identify ultimate goals and set clear objectives**

4)  Scientists need to pull the pieces together

5)  Separate good from bad with goal of reaching a consensus

6)  Managers should understand science isn't "cut and dry:

7)  Communication with managers should be jargon free

8)  Multi formats for public understanding

9)  Cause and effect research needed

10) Managers need to continue to communicate to law makers.

**Break-Out Group #6** (Facilitators: Susan Coughanour & Julio Fanjul)

1)  Managers need to continue to (and more so) communicate to law
    makers, plus staff and policy makers to support \$\$ for research/
    science to support management decisions.

2)  Managers need to understand that science provides answers in
    probabilities and risks not absolutes and research often generates
    new research. Scientists need to frame advice in a risk format, i.e.
    likelihood of success within specific timeframes.

3)  Identify ultimate goals and set clear objectives for all projects at
    all scales and provide consideration for alternative directions if
    answers are not as expected (This only works if managers are willing
    to accept negative information.)

4)  Include time for public communication in planning processes;
    recognize different levels/types of public.

5)  Articulate research needs on annual basis and confront managers when
    bad management is followed. State results in a risk formula;

6)  Managers should understand that science isn't always "cut and dry"

7)  Develop oversight and interagency committee to address or set
    standards, QA/QC technical issues. Peer review needs to occur at the
    design level as well.

8)  There needs to be FULL data disclosure (scientists' effectiveness
    are hurt by adversarial relationships caused by litigation).

9)  Listen to feed back- change scientists behavior vs. demanding that
    management change

10) Be aware of long term implications of actions. Short term gains, may
    result in long term shortfalls. Does current science support long
    term outcomes?

11) Have a common system for defining any agenda or a system for
    research planning

12) Communicate expectation priorities to scientists

13) Need to recognize that agricultural research has benefits for
    natural system and that vice/versa

14) We need more experimental cause/effect research rather than less. In
    complex systems simple, easy to understand (or single factor
    correlative) explanations are likely to be wrong. In the case of
    Phosphorus and Cattails, the simple explanations seems to have been
    correct, but it is dangerous to base management policy on such
    simple correlation without the cause/effect research to back it up.

15) Modeling needs to be supported by adequate and sufficient field work
    and should be subject to peer review.

16) Identify information gaps that if known, would help them meet their
    management goals and objectives

17) Controversy can be positive- increases public awareness

18) Present all science, not just the science that supports the desired
    outcome (pros and cons)

South Florida Restoration Science Forum

May 17-19, 1999

Embassy Suites

Boca Raton, Florida

["THE IDEA LIST"]{.underline}

**This list was compiled from forms completed by participants at the
Forum before closing on Tuesday evening.**

I. SUGGESTIONS FOR MANAGERS

A.  **Relationship with Scientists**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  You need sound science to succeed---act like it

2.  Managers often overlook that the basis of all scientific
    investigation is questioning. Oftentimes scientific findings in one
    area may lead to more questions and more complex questions about
    that topic. This process ensures that good science continues to
    happen while weeding out fringe studies. This fundamental process of
    conducting science investigations should be considered by managers.

3.  In connection with the above, identify funding assistance, whether
    in their own house or others

4.  Managers should not fire scientists who are whistle blowers

5.  Visit your scientific sites and get to know what they are doing.
    Don't wait for final research to be completed and publicized.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Communication with Scientists/Researchers**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  I.d. ultimate goals and set clear objectives for all projects at all
    scales and provide consideration for alternative directions if
    answers are not as expected (This only works if managers are willing
    to accept negative information.)

2.  Managers should specify content how they want information and/or
    products and why/when communicated

3.  Centralize and identify manager needs/wants for specific scientific
    data and advertise these outside their agency, e.g. put needs onto a
    PMC or Restudy Web Page

4.  Communicate expectation priorities to scientists

5.  Managers should understand that science isn't always "cut and dry"

6.  Regarding "when", do not use the line, "If I needed the information
    tomorrow I would ask for it tomorrow."

7.  Share sub-level information- non science reality such as fisherman's
    reluctance to support water-way changes

8.  Become personally involved with a technical group

9.  Work with scientific groups and agencies to help them understand
    what you need- including articulating the specific questions you
    need to have answered.

10. Get involved in the major scientific disagreements between different
    groups- don 't let the problems fester and cause division.

11. Make the groups do QA/QC and respond to outside criticism until the
    problems are resolved

12. When scientists create opportunities for managers to see and hear
    the scientific information, the managers should avail themselves of
    those opportunities.

# Communication with the Public

1.  Bring info to low level public comprehension bit-by- bit

2.  An example of translating for lay audiences\--SFWMD GB gets info
    from staff that is understandable

**D. Focus and Types of Research Needed**

1.  We need more experimental cause/effect research rather than less. In
    complex systems simple, easy to understand (or single factor
    correlative) explanations are likely to be wrong. In the case of P
    and Cattails, the simple explanations seems to have been correct,
    but it is dangerous to base management policy on such simple
    correlations without the cause/effect research to back it up.

2.  Support of empirical data collection is preferred, especially if
    work may be contested.

3.  Support for agriculture practice changes-but not black and white-
    (its good to reduce phosphorous but shouldn't get off easy)

4.  Consider impartial science on issues, try to remove political bias.

5.  Resist temptation to use science for political agendas.

6.  Resist temptation to use science for political agendas.

7.  Be aware of long term implications of actions. Short term gains, may
    result in long term shortfalls. Does current science support long
    term outcomes?

8.  Foster use of numerical analyses

9.  Get involved in modeling and push results in direction of data
    desired by management.

10. I.d. information gaps that if known, would help them meet their
    management goals and objectives

11. Provide scientists the opportunity to do some science that is not
    necessarily applied to a management issue---that is, allow for some
    basic research.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
F.  **Establish Standards/Protocols**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Develop oversight or interagency committee to address or set
    standards, QA/QC technical issues.

2.  When done later in the "process" usually means a "re-do"

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
G.  **Request for Proposals**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Develop question- specific RFPs, while supporting independent
    research efforts

**G. Financial Support for Research**

1.  Managers need to continue (and more so) communicate to lawmakers the
    need to support, in terms of \$\$, research/ science to support
    management decisions.

2.  How can scientists get the funding to do thorough, effective
    research on important issues without litigation.

> Other

1.  Managers should give e-mail address to subordinates and encourage
    them to communicate

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Managers should respond briefly to subordinates.

3.  Access technical information available on WEB

4.  Clearly define 1-5 year plans of operations

#### II. SUGGESTIONS FOR SCIENTISTS

A.  **SWAG**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Think! Learn to anticipate! Learn to look to the future and take a
    wild swag (scientific wild-\*ss guess) as to the types of info
    decision makers may need.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Synthesize Research Information**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Scientists need to pull all the pieces together for the managers.
    There are many complex related issues being addressed by the
    scientists but not much synthesis of the data. Some one(s) need to
    draw the common thread through the issues, show how one management
    option may impact another etc.

2.  Grace time to synthesize publications and...

3.  Need a procedure for synthesis of information. What was done, why it
    was done---what were the important results- what do they mean to the
    managers.

# Synthesis is critical to understanding issues. Improve mechanism to synthesize data/publications.

4.  Write more informative synthesis materials and fact sheets

# Research Needs 

1.  Articulate research needs on an annual basis

2.  Scientists should be bold enough to directly confront managers when
    bad science is followed.

3.  Scientists should be unafraid to blow the whistle on managers who
    ignore their warnings on bad practices.

# D. Focus of Research

1.  Explore multiple scientific explanations- bird/fish water level
    link- maybe other explanations besides available food in bird/fish
    population link.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  What if cattail phosphorous uptake works like body chemistry
    adjustments

3.  If Fort Lauderdale t. air does have measured effect on mercury with
    east wind, why not limit Ft. L emissions or put up a big fan back
    east

4.  Consider the total picture---specific science on a separate issue
    may not apply to the whole issue

5.  Flooding of agricultural land issue use \-- Lake Apopka as a case
    study and compare with levels of pesticides and number of samples
    found in the soils in Talisman.

6.  Is science dated?

7.  Need to explain the term "politics of science."

8.  Build the credibility- remove sacred cows.

**E. Communications with the Managers and the Public-Clear, Jargon
Free**

1.  Develop research results in one to two page popular style releases
    for public and management use

2.  Scientists need to focus on using lay-person terminology and
    avoiding scientific jargon in their discussions with presentations
    to managers and the public

3.  For some scientists, this may require assistance /review by a
    lay-person or manager-type [before]{.underline} the communication

4.  Try to be succinct, phrase your results in language that anyone can
    understand.

5.  Translate research to managers and public in clear and simple
    language

6.  Scientists should engage managers to provide research needs.

7.  Controversy can be positive---don't take it personally- work it! It
    increases public awareness.

8.  Be audience oriented when communicating

9.  Publish in peer journals, but develop outreach to the public
    (newspapers, etc.)

10. Speak managers language ("without a condescending tone/air)

11. Be succinct, on point, re: how science is meeting/will meet
    management's needs in reaching management's goals.

12. Be open to feed back and change your behavior instead of demanding
    that management change.

13. Don't give up on scientists when they don't communicate effectively-
    train them how to communicate!

14. Be less resistant to working with media, especially when getting
    negative coverage. Get your oar in the water.

# Relationship with Managers

1.  Keep managers posted on progress and problems.

2.  Take results to the management at early stage, ascertain that the
    output is that desired

3.  Do early workshops with managers

4.  Scientists need to talk to the managers more, like what is being
    done at this forum, rather than just talking to each other, (at
    meetings and through science journals.

5.  Talk about what you are doing to managers before you have it
    published- bring them into it.

6.  Present all science, not just science, not just the science that
    supports the desired outcome

7.  Use understandable top level numerical analyses

8.  Understand that managers must look out for interests of all
    concerned parties, not just scientist

9.  Pull your scientists into your inner circle---include in management
    team meetings, have them give 10-minute presentations at all
    employee meetings---regular column in newsletter.

10. Participate in more planning exercises

# Funding Issues

1.  Understand that managers must have a budget

2.  Balance time/cost for projects.

3.  Organize budget proposals and all calculations according to
    management's goal statements.

##### SUGGESTIONS FOR BOTH MANAGERS AND SCIENTISTS

1.  Hold annual planning and problem solving workshops for manager and
    scientists

2.  Share objectives with each other.

3.  Participate in manager/ scientists interaction groups

4.  Have a common system for defining any agenda or a system for
    research planning

5.  Both groups need to work better together and separately to
    communicate with the public.

6.  Coordinate efforts and communicate

Scientists and managers need to work better together and separately to
communicate with the public.

\[end\]

[^1]: