• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Main














Title: Natural Resources Forum
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089825/00001
 Material Information
Title: Natural Resources Forum
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Natural Resources Forum
Publisher: University of Florida, Center for Natural Resources,
Copyright Date: 2001
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089825
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: 181600449 - OCLC

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 30a
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
Full Text











06I


1 .



."'- - '.... .. . "

tes-l4usd Gardens

.-,Tamnpa, Florida
.




;,. -








Summary


Natural Resources Forum

Watershed Science,

Policy, Planning,

and Management

Can We Make It
Work in Florida?
Tampa, Florida
June 19-21, 2001

Hosted by:
UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Center for Natural Resources


By: Nancy Peterson and Wendy-Lin Bartels
Center for Natural Resources, UF / IFAS
Sept 2001





Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Forum


Sponsors


The cofrec oraizr thn the folwn sponors


FlI

US Army Corps
of Engineers.
Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District
Environmental and Regulatory Divisions


orida Center for Environmental Studies
Florida Atlantic University


fluea. of '

Watonlied
Mann-mt


Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Watershed Management


South Florida Water Management District


UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA I
Instute of Food and Agricultral Scenes
School of Forest Resources
and Conservation
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
University of Florida


Mitigation Marketing, Incorporated
Winter Park, Florida


-v-'q NOM Fisheries
"fth- INahimiW IAr Fiheries Seiwice


Florida Forestry Association


Southeast Fisheries Science Center


LJF IF

Eun -a.-a

Center for Natural Resources
University of Florida


I


.


June 19-21, 2001


I





Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Door Prize


Donors


Th cn e o t t e f oow donors


Cargill Fertilizer, Inc., Ms. Christine Smith
8813 Highway 41 S. Riverview, FL 33569


CF Industries, Inc., Mr. Stefan Katzaras
PO Box 1480 Bartow, FL 33831


Farm Credit of Central Florida, Mr. Ron O'Connor
PO Box 8009 Lakeland, FL 33802-8009


Environmental Solution, Inc., Mr. Steve Gordon
2830 Scherer Drive N. Suite 310
St. Petersburg, FL 33716


Ruskin Redneck Trading Company
Sandy Council and Ann Davis
1203 First St. SW Ruskin, FL 33570


Tampa Bay Estuary Program, Ms. Nanette Holland
Mail Station 1-1/NEP, 100 8th Ave. S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701


Tampa Electric Company, Ms. Kay McDaniel
PO Box 1110 Tampa, FL 33601


Door Prizes coordinated by:
Mike McKinney, UF Hillsborough County


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Forum Dedication

Dr. Garald G. "Jerry" Parker, Sr. (1905-2000)

SJerry is rightfully known as the "Father of Florida groundwater
hydrology." He started his hydrogeologist career in 1940 by driving his
family all the way across the country to help save the Miami water supply.
There he identified sources of saltwater intrusion into the well fields and
developed protective measures. During this time, (1940-1947) Jerry
identified and named the Biscayne aquifer, the Floridian aquifer and
defined the geologic structure of southern Florida. Additionally, he was
instrumental in teaching Marjory Stoneman Douglas about the Everglades
a "River of Grass" in preparation for her 1947 book. He also discovered
the Peninsular Florida Hydrologic Divide which results in the southern portion of Florida being
entirely dependent on rainfall for its freshwater. Jerry devoted his life to protecting the waters
and landscapes of Florida and many other states during his half-century career as a hydrologist
for the U.S. Geological Survey (1940-1969) and then as being the first hydrologist and senior
scientist for the Southwest Florida Water Management District (1969-1975). To read more about
Dr. Parker's impressive career and to view photos of his life, please visit:
http://sofia.usgs.gov/memorials/parker.




Forum Voolunteers & Staff

Conference Organizers
Nancy Peterson, Conference Organizer, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS
Shelby Tatlock, Conference Coordinator, Office of Conferences and Institutes, UF/IFAS

Poster Tour Guides
Sara Fotopolus, Local Environmental Resources Agencies and Hillsborough County
Environmental Planning Commission
Sheri Lewins, Mitigation Marketing, Inc.
Mike McKinney, UF Hillsborough County Extension
Will Sheftall, UF Leon County Extension
Shayla Smith, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS
Jim Yawn, Walt Disney Imagineering

Session Recorders
Wendy-Lin Bartels, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS
Pete Colverson, The Nature Conservancy
James Cuda, Entomology & Nematology Department, UF/IFAS
Wendy Graham, UF Ag & Biological Engineering Department, UF/IFAS
Margie R. Owens, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS
A.J. Singh, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS
Shayla Smith, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Forum Summary

On June 19-21, 2001 approximately 175 people from throughout Florida and several
other U.S. states gathered in Tampa, Florida to take an active role in the second Natural
Resources Forum "Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make
It Work in Florida?" Conference participants expressed the view that watershed
management can, and indeed, must work in Florida.

The Forum's design encouraged a proactive and stimulating exchange of ideas between
the conference participants and the program presenters concerning watershed
management. The program explored the strengths and weaknesses of the political,
scientific, and collaborative (integrated decision making) approaches to the watershed
management process. To this end, three keynote speakers were asked to present a
strong argument that watershed management is most effectively achieved when their
"assigned perspective" is the primary driving force. Of course, managing our state's
water resources based on one narrow viewpoint is not realistic. However, the
disconnects between these perspectives are real. By focusing on each mindset, perhaps
the larger nebulous process of watershed management can be better understood and
refined. A fourth keynote speaker related lessons learned from a case study.

Presenting the political approach to watershed management was Wayne Daltry,
Executive Director of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Daltry
examined the relationship between politics and water management. He noted that
water has been managed in the U.S. largely as a response to land management needs
(e.g., flood control, irrigation, soil conservation, etc.). Watershed management is
heavily influenced by politics and the only sure way to lose the political game is to not
play. It is important to know your local county commissioner and the executive
director of your water management district. They are key to the watershed
management process. If you participate in the political game, politicians will listen. He
explained elected officials are the ones out front on the issues. Their performance is
evaluated and they are held accountable for their actions every election. Given the
prominent role politics play on the watershed management process, it is critical that
Florida finds a way to link watershed boundaries to political units.

Terry Logan, President of N-Viro International and Emeritus Professor of Ohio State
University brought the scientific approach into focus by drawing upon the Great Lakes
Restoration Project of the 1970s. Logan noted that bringing together diverse scientists
and stakeholders and reaching consensus across disciplines was important to the
success of the Great Lakes Restoration Project. Further suggestions were: You must
communicate using language and jargon that can be understood by all; Public support
is necessary and to maintain their support you must continually inform them about the
project; Consistent funding for basic research and monitoring is required; and Monitor
the project and share the results with policymakers.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Tony Rosenbaum, Professor at the University of Florida Political Science Department
discussed the merits of the collaborative approach. He pointed out that this approach is
fraught with risks and uncertainties. It is messy and there are no assured outcomes and
no infallible flow chart or template to follow. The scientist must be aware that although
most important policy decisions may be informed and shaped by science in some
manner, they will not be driven primarily by scientific data. Public officials should note
that science will frequently be politically incorrect and risky. In addition, although
scientific information may be inconclusive, it is not insignificant. Despite these
constraints, the collaborative approach is often very successful. It encourages broad
stakeholder participation, compromise, negotiation and shared goals. It discourages
adversarial legalism, scientific fundamentalism and political reductionism.

John Dohrman, Policy Director for the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team,
Washington, spoke about this successful watershed management program that began in
1983. He outlined the successes and failures of the program and offered suggestions for
other projects. He said it was essential to recognize that environmental problems are
created by system failures. The system must be fixed to prevent future problems.
Different geographic scales must be used to address different parts of the problem and a
structure must be in place to oversee the plan's implementation. The plan must be
updated, or the project will die. The benefits of watershed planning are: it allows
coordination of actions by diverse and independent government structures, provides a
comprehensive look at problems and their causes, encourages scientific and technical
work, and involves the community.

Other perspectives that influence watershed management were brought into the
program by panel members and poster presenters. These included educators, students,
engineers, members of environmental groups, private environmental consultants, city,
county, and regional planners, public utilities, business and industry representatives,
environmental regulators, resource managers, and natural resource administrators.
Panelists were allowed to question (challenge) the keynote speaker and other panel
members. This enabled other viewpoints to be brought into the discussion.

Approximately fifty poster presentations provided greater depth of knowledge and
diversity to this topic. Guided poster tours and one-on-one exchanges between the
poster authors and conference attendees were scheduled. For the poster tours,
participants were divided into groups and lead through a portion of the poster
presentations. Poster authors addressed the tour groups, briefly describing their project
and answering questions. Further questioning of the poster authors or reviewing the
remaining poster presentations was encouraged. An impressive showing of
presentations were given by distinguished poster authors. Cutting-edge information
and innovative projects were featured. Abstracts of the poster presentations can be
viewed in the "NRF 2001 Abstract Book and Program" located on the Center for
Natural Resources web site:
http://cnr.ifas.ufl.edu/publications/NRF 01/abstract&program.pdf.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Of equal importance to the program and to the ultimate success of the forum, were the
oral and written comments provided by the conference participants. Comments were
recorded throughout the three plenary sessions. A list of suggestionsfor enhancing or
improving the watershed management process was developed jointly by the speakers, panelists,
poster presenters and audience members. During the final session of the conference,
attendees were asked to evaluate each suggestion. Suggestions widely accepted by the
group are consolidated and categorized on pages 28-30.

Four suggestions rose to the top of list, receiving a 4.5 or above ranking out of a 5-point
scale. Those involved in watershed management will do well to incorporate these
suggestions in their processes. Many other suggestions relating to these are included in
the complete list referred to above. The highest ranked comments were:

1) Scientists must provide information that can be understood and easily used by the
decision-makers. This includes both written information and oral presentations.
2) Have a measurable goal and monitor its success.
3) Have sustained funding for monitoring and evaluation.
4) Decision-makers must educate themselves on complex issues and must be willing to
accommodate science and vice versa for scientists.

Much was accomplished in a day and a half. It is, of course, only a beginning. We
encourage you to review the suggestions brought forth by this well-informed and
diverse group. We trust that you will find them helpful in your work on watershed
management. With continued assistance, input and collaboration from all the players
involved in Florida's watershed management process, we can be successful in our
endeavors.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Keynote Speaker and Panel Session

Summaries


Political Approach to Watershed Management

The keynote speaker was asked to present a persuasive argument supporting the
premise that the political approach is the most critical element to the watershed
management process.

Keynote Speaker Provocateur 1: Wayne Daltry

Daltry discussed the influence political systems have on watershed management. He
reflected on how, dating as far back as ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia through
modern times, watersheds have been managed for land use. Water policy is set to meet
land use needs (e.g., transportation, irrigation, flood control, soil conservation, etc.) and
is typically formed as a reaction to a pressing need. Similarly, land/water management
systems have a profound effect on the type of political systems developed within a
particular region.

Different political systems utilize different approaches to form public policy. How
land/water policies are formed relates to the type of government in control. Daltry
discussed four approaches for establishing public policy. The science-driven approach
to develop public policy is used in National Socialism. Here, policy is set by Ph.Ds and
everyone must do as the state dictates. In Communism, public policy is set by social
scientists. It is similar to socialism, but with a strong central government. Anarchism
looks to no one to establish public policy. Things just go as they may. The fourth
approach for establishing public policy is Capitalism. In Capitalism everyone gets a
share, but you must be watchful of mindless economics.

How can we effectively influence water policy in Florida? Daltry responds, you must
play the political game. In the U.S. the politician is the "listening ear." The politicians
are the ones "out front" and held accountable for their actions at the ballot box. Using a
colorful metaphor about, "monkeys dividing bananas," Daltry explained the political
game as it relates to watershed policy. Not playing the political game is the only certain
way to lose. Playing the political game gives you an opportunity to win, but winning is
ephemeral. The first step to watershed management takes place at city/county
commissions and at the water management districts. Daltry noted that if you want to
influence watershed management, these are your most important contacts. To illustrate
his point, he quizzed the audience to ascertain their involvement in the political


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


process. Daltry reminded the audience that politicians listen to you if you participate in
the political game.

Additional points offered by Daltry were: 1) There is a need to establish bodies that
use science to get to the policy makers. He used the restoration of the Everglades
project as an example and emphasized the need to manage resources for supply and
demand so that we can have "something for everybody." 2) We must wisely use the
resources we have. Past policies and management practices were based on "present
thinking" which was to drain the land. The economy was given much more
consideration than the environmental repercussions, which required future thinking.
So now we must contend with these management decisions.

Daltry concluded his presentation by noting the political picture for watershed
management in Florida is not complete. We must recognize watershed boundaries and
formally link these boundaries to political units. This will provide the necessary
infrastructure to carry out the task.

Panelists/Speaker Interaction
Moderated by Jerry Scarborough
Panel Members: Rick Garrity, George O'Connor, Ward Brewer,
Richard Gragg

Session Format: Panelists were each given an opportunity to pose one question to the
keynote speaker. After this round of questions, panelists were free to question either
the keynote speaker or other panel members. Key points are summarized below.

Questions and Comments:

"Who is representing the natural resource that has to be protected?" Garrity asked.
Daltry replied that organized management structures would prevent any one particular
interest from being marginalized. He admitted, however, that it was a highly
competitive discussion.

"What do you view as the essential roles of scientists and politicians to make sound
decisions?" asked O'Connor. Daltry noted that participation in workshops and
informal gatherings to get information was key.

"How are we going to get areas that are still remote, still pristine to be preserved- how
do we get the political representation and power to these people?" Ward Brewer asked.
Daltry highlighted the importance of alliances and finding out what was important to
rural citizens. Urban areas will exploit rural areas. At the same time, however, he
wondered how one could balance the need for jobs (keeping the youth in the area) vs.
exploitation of the rural area.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


"How do you get politicians and decision makers to take low income and minority
populations into account?" Gragg asked, in reference to addressing the social issues
when considering environmental restoration projects. Daltry noted that these groups
are often overlooked. Politicians need to know what is being proposed and how these
proposals will affect other groups.

Garrity noted that finding key items of interest that inspire citizens, like hunting and
fishing, would motivate them to become more involved in conservation issues. Ward
mentioned the possibility of using resources that already exist in the community to hit
the grass roots. He also added the environmental community must not be self-centered,
but must work with other groups. Gragg pointed out that getting the public involved
early on in the decision making process is better than waiting until everything is done.

Gregg asked Garrity how you get to the bureaucrats, those that are not elected but are
making the decisions. Garrity responded that you demand the Public Records and that
Sunshine laws be followed.

Although Garrity mentioned that politicians are generally distrusted, Daltry pointed
out that, in fact, the best people are politicians. Those people who decide to run for
office are constantly on "the sharp edge" and faced with difficult decisions. It is easy for
the rest of society to sit back and complain.

Audience Reaction

The audience was then asked to respond, giving suggestions on how to improve on the
political approach. These comments can be found in the Facilitated Session Section on
page 22.


June 19-21, 2001





Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Scientific Approach to Watershed Management


The keynote speaker was asked to present a persuasive argument supporting the
premise that the scientific approach is the most critical element to the watershed
management process.

Keynote speaker Provocateur 2: Terry Logan

Terry Logan used the Great Lakes International Restoration Project to illustrate the
importance of science in watershed management. He also drew upon these experiences
to develop recommendations for future restoration projects.

The restoration project Eutrophication in the Great Lakes Basin
The IJC is the international agency that coordinates Great Lakes research, policy and
formal agreements between the U.S. and Canada. It is headquartered in Windsor,
Ontario. PLUARG was the work group of scientists, policy specialists and regulators
assembled in the early 70s to study Great Lakes pollution and develop remedial action
plans. PLUARG published its final report in 1978, which formed the basis for the treaty
agreement between the two countries.

At the outset of the project, phosphorous (P) was recognized as the limiting nutrient in
the Great Lakes. The Vollenweider model of algal growth and total P loadings was
accepted as generally valid. Stratification in each of the lakes and in the Eastern,
Central and Western Basins of Lake Erie was known to affect P cycling. Rapid flushing
of the lakes was seen as favorable to rapid response to remediation. Sediment-P had
lower but unquantified bioavailability to phytoplankton.

Various Watershed Analysis Methodologies were used by PLUARG. For instance,
point and non-point source monitoring main stem and tributary event monitoring for
flow, sediment and nutrients. Results showed that The Western and Central Basins of
Erie and specific embayments of Michigan were the most eutrophic; Superior and
Huron were oligotrophic; Ontario and the Eastern Basin of Erie were mesotrophic.

The U.S. has the largest contributing watershed drainage to the lakes and had the
largest P loadings. P loadings were roughly 50-50 between point and agricultural
sources. Point source P loadings were primarily from sewage effluent. P removal to 1.0
mg/L was recommended for all Great Lakes dischargers. Non-point source P loadings
were primarily from runoff and erosion of cultivated row crops, primarily corn,
soybeans and wheat. Agricultural P loadings were a consequence of naturally high
levels in young glacial till and lacustrine derived soils, and from buildup of soil test P
levels associated with excessive P fertilizer use. Sediment delivery and P enrichment of
sediment were high because of the very fine clay textures of lower Great Lakes soils.
Conservation tillage was seen as an effective P control process coupled with reductions


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


in P fertilizer use. Attaining P reduction goals required > 75 % reduction in point
source P and > 50 % reduction in non-point source P. Load reductions were allocated
between the U.S. and Canada on the basis of relative loadings.

Several lessons were learned. Point source P removal was rapid, exceeded load
reduction goals, and the lake response was dramatic. The non-point source P reduction
goals were never met because of a lack of funding. Slow adoption of conservation
tillage and reduction in P fertilizer use was primarily due to farm economics and some
increase in cost-sharing and technical assistance. Stream monitoring in the late 1980s
showed that non-point source reductions were measurable at the watershed level for
dissolved but not for total P. Lack of total P load reductions was due to low overall
erosion rates and high delivery ratios.

The rapid response of the lakes to point source reductions resulted in complacency and
a lack of investment in non-point source reductions. Invasion of zebra mussels in the
1990s changed in-lake P dynamics and produced algal blooms as a result of increased
water clarity and biomass decomposition.

Applying the PLUARG experience to other projects.
The PLUARG process was very effective and knowledge gained from this experience
can assist other projects such as the Everglades Restoration. Key points noted by Logan
were:
> Process of bringing together diverse scientists and stakeholders is very important.
Probably more important than the outcomes.
> Involvement across disciplines and stakeholder groups resulted in consensus and
buy-in. Scientists need to reach consensus. It is a messy process, but important.
> Caution: Scientific paradigms can dominate the discussion of issue (e.g., phosphate
loading and algae model).
> Develop a model of the system from basic data.
> Use of language and jargon both within a diverse scientific community and beyond
the scientific community must make things understandable.
> Need consistency of funding for both basic research and monitoring.
> Need consistent support for the project by the public. The public needs to
continually get information to keep the interest up.
> Monitor results and continue to supply information to policymakers (lessons
learned).
> Contacts, information exchanges and networking was more valuable than the
published products the impact on working professionals and graduate students
was profound and long lasting.
> Restoration can not be based on static growth models the 1978 PLUARG report did
not anticipate the growth of poultry and dairy CAFOs in the 1990.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Panelist Interaction
Moderated by Julie Morris
Panel Members: Timothy Feather, Tom Swihart, Maggie Hurchalla,
John Hall

Session Format: Panelists were each given an opportunity to pose one question to the
keynote speaker. After this round of questions, panelists were free to question either
the keynote speaker or other panel members. Key points are summarized below.

Questions and Comments:

"Are we spending too much time and effort on GIS?" Feather asked. Logan noted that
tools like modeling, data sets and simulations are fantastic to refine research questions,
and to engage and educate the public.

When Swihart asked about getting the ear of the decision maker and the merits of peer
review, Logan responded saying that repetition of an idea was important to keep it on
the agenda and in the public's attention.

"What do we lose when the scientists drop out of the process?" Hurchalla asked. To this
Logan replied that not all scientists have to be in the front trenches, but they still need to
be in the process.

Hall commented that regulators often have to make decisions in the absence of scientific
information and often feel caught between the politicians and scientists. Logan praised
regulators saying he was generally impressed with the job they did. Decisions have to
be made. Scientists need to balance their research needs with decision makers' needs to
make decisions.

"In the Great Lakes initiative, where were the economists?" Feather asked. Having
society make financial contributions is critical, Logan replied. He stressed the need to
make the case that money spent for environmental improvement is money well spent,
and he mentioned that there are plenty of examples of successful investments in the
environment. He said that a watershed is the perfect unit for observing how society
and nature are integrated.

"What about values, ethics and sustainability? How do you fit moral choices into
science and policy?" Swihart asked. Logan said that human values are nothing new,
but that today we have more tools available and mistakes to look back on so that we can
take account of our failures and forecast the future.


June 19-21,2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


"In the Great Lakes, what were the rude gestures from the environment and did they
stop after action was taken?" Hurchalla asked. Logan said that several visible
responses showed that through policy and investment you can a make a change.

Hall was concerned about the different interpretations of the same data. Logan said
that it was unreasonable to expect scientists from different areas to have the same
opinion. However, the scientific method should compensate for these differences. He
added that because the public is easily confused, scientists who move into the political
arena need to let the audience know what role they are playing.

Swihart wondered how, with all this conflicting information, politicians know when
they have enough information to make a decision. Weighing the consequences of
different actions was stressed. Logan added that knowledge is not static and
emphasized that we must continue to monitor effects of actions and be prepared to
change direction and regulations.

Hall wondered if perhaps this "watershed approach/ecosystem approach" might
simply be a new "buzz word." Logan admitted that every few years we reinvent
watershed management. However, there are some core ideas that are now well
accepted and well understood.

Logan concluded the session by stating that adaptive management is an important
process and despite the uncertainty of restoration, the public needs to be informed
about what they're going to get down the road.

Audience Reaction

The audience was then asked to respond, giving suggestions on how to improve on the
scientific approach. These comments can be found on in the Facilitated Session Section
on page 22.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Integrated Approach to Watershed Management

The keynote speaker was asked to present a persuasive argument supporting the
premise that the collaborative (integrated) approach is the most critical element to the
watershed management process.

Keynote speaker Provocateur 3: Tony Rosenbaum

In a cautionary tale about the risks and uncertainties involved in collaborative (or
integrated) decision-making, Rosenbaum referred to The Endocrine Disruptor
Screening and Advisory Committee (EDSCAC) who spent days arguing over the
spelling of "interrupter" (interruptor vs. interrupter) and not over who was there or
what they were talking about.

Collaborative decision making about science-based policy encourages broad
stakeholder participation, compromise, negotiation and shared goals. It discourages
adversarial legalism, scientific fundamentalism and political reductionism.

"Collaboration" or "integration" means that all the important stakeholders are involved
in the decision-making process, that they are talking "with" each other-not "at" each
other, and that they are "listening" to each other-not simply exercising the "nodding
benignly mechanism."

Rosenbaum noted that the process is messy in the sense that there is no assured
outcome and no infallible flow chart or template to follow. He stressed the necessity of
negotiation through the whole process and said that often the best decisions would be
no decisions. He encouraged members to be prepared to think about the unthinkable
and consider choices and outcomes that might be 'unacceptable' at times.

The speaker drew attention to the fact that science won't be sovereign. In other words,
although the most important policy decisions may be informed and shaped by science
in some manner, they will not be driven primary by scientific data. The most important
information may not be scientific and even the science itself is often negotiable.

Public officials should note that science would frequently be politically incorrect and
risky. Even though scientific data may sometimes be inconclusive, it is not
insignificant, Rosenbaum said.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


He stressed that the quality of the decision-making would depend on how one chooses
to manage the three aspects of collaboration:

1. Participation:
Define the role of stakeholders. They should be included as early and as often as
possible in all significant deliberations. Be sure to include the difficult ones: if you don't
get them around the table and involved in the process, you may meet them in the
courtroom-we are a litigious society. Aggressively search out potential stakeholders-
go against your instincts! At the beginning, discuss expectations about the role of
stakeholders: does participation imply influence? Power? Remember that stakeholders
may easily assume that involvement implies empowerment.

2. Information:
Information is one of the fundamental obstacles to reaching agreement. Often the least
considered, if it is considered at all, is information sharing. One of the first items on the
agenda in designing the process is negotiation over information needs and availability.
Information must be negotiable. It is important to know what various decision-makers
and stakeholders consider legitimate or credible information. Different participants will
not only have different information resource, but different information priorities. Find
out what decision-makers need to know-it may not necessarily be what you want to
give them. Public officials are likely to give as much priority, or more, to information
concerning economic costs, public opinion, constituency impact and time. Include
social scientists, when possible, in the "science"component of the participation. They
are likely to raise important and uncomfortable issues, such as environmental justice or
other equity concerns. Do all significant stakeholders have access to the information
they need? Seek out jointly usable information.

3. Process:
Begin with a coordinating committee. Insofar as possible, include as many stakeholders
as possible in designing the process itself. Don't try to 'scientize' the process by
elevating science to a superior or preferred position among data, and implicitly demote
the importance of other kinds of information. Stakeholders should drive the technical
process and determine what questions need to be answered in what priority. Often,
how things are done is as important, or more so, than what is decided. Thus, put as
much time into creating the process as into using it. This also means: Negotiate the
process! Bring the stakeholders into the discussions about how to proceed. Negotiating
the process also means negotiating the information needs.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Case Study-Lessons Learned

Keynote Speaker: John Dohrmann

Puget Sound Estuary Program A Watershed(s) Case Study- Puget Sound
Action Team

Puget Sound is one of 28 nation-wide areas included in the National Estuary Programs
(NEP). NEP programs in Florida include Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Indian River
Lagoon and Charlotte Harbor. Dohrmann described the complex geography of the
Puget Sound area as well as past and current cultural aspects.

In the prelude to the Estuary Plan (1975-1983) serious toxic chemicals were discovered
in sediments in the Puget Sound area. There were reports of declining fish and wildlife
populations and dead whales. Closures of shellfish growing areas and health
advisories against sport fishing in urban areas were adopted. This situation demanded
early leadership. The media reacted strongly and public leaders were visible and vocal.
In 1983 the Legislature and Governor formed a citizen advisory group to study the
problem and make recommendations.

The "First Authority" was established in 1983. It consisted of 21 members in a basin-
wide study. Results showed that Puget Sound was showing serious harm from human
development. The population in the basin was rapidly increasing so conditions would
only get worse. There were adequate legal authorities, but too many jurisdictions were
acting independently.

It was recommended that an organization be established to prepare a comprehensive
management plan for Puget Sound to coordinate federal, state and local actions. It
needed to address secondary treatment, non-point pollution, runoff, education and
involvement, monitoring and research, dredge spoil disposal, cleanup of toxic
contamination, and protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. Legislation was
enacted to create a single entity with adequate resources to develop a comprehensive
plan for water quality protection in Puget Sound. It would be implemented by existing
state and local agencies.

From 1985-1996 the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority was the state agency created
to work exclusively on Puget Sound. The Board (the Authority members) was
appointed by the Governor representing the public (7) and state agencies (2). The Chair
was the full-time director and had assigned staff.

The public was involved on several levels. (i.e., generating an early scoping document;
participating in public scoping workshops; interacting with outreach staff on
geographic assignments; participating in multiple advisory committees and public
authority meetings with public comment; and a being informed via a monthly


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


newsletter). The scoping process looked at existing problems (e.g., shellfish closures,
sediment contamination, wildlife declines, oil spills, habitat loss, etc.) as well as causes
(e.g., point sources, storm water, onsite sewage systems, agriculture, development, oil
transport and storage, etc.).

Two planning models were followed. The "clean-up model" found and restored hot
spots. The "prevention model" identified the behavior causing harm, designed a better
behavior, shifted to the new behavior and repaired the damage.

Technical and policy documents were prepared. The State of the Sound Report
reviewed the physical description, history and conditions. Issue papers defined and
described issues. They reviewed science, laws and regulations. They listed the gaps or
problems and suggested alternative solutions for each problem. In 1986 a Draft Plan
was drawn up and organized into programs with a goal, strategy and elements. Each
program (including no-action) had three alternatives. Costs were estimated and
schedules made.

The "Puget Sound Management Plan" was adopted Dec. 1986. It was comprehensive
and long-term, covering from point sources to oil spills to education and research. It
included assignments to federal and state agencies and local governments. There was
tremendous public attention and involvement. Some programs, however, were
incomplete.

In 1996 the Puget Sound Protection Act replaced the Authority with the Puget Sound
Action Team and Council. Its purpose was to implement the Management Plan with an
added two-year work plan. It was made up of the Puget Sound Action Team, the Puget
Sound Council, and the Chair of the Action Team. Support staff included the Puget
Sound Action Team Chair (appointed by the Governor) and 10 state agency directors
(from Ecology, Natural Resources, Fish & Wildlife, Health, Agriculture, Community,
Trade and Economic Development, State Parks and Recreation Commission,
Transportation, Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Conservation
Commission). It also included a county representative, city representative and tribal
representative (each appointed by the Governor) as well as 3 federal agency
administrators (non-voting) from the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Agency and National Marine Fisheries Services.

The Puget Sound Council was thus made up of Governor-appointed representatives of
agriculture, business, cities, counties, the environmental community, the shellfish
industry and tribes. In addition, there were four state legislators (non-voting members).
The Puget Sound Management Plan was a comprehensive, basin approach with the
goal: Restore and protect biological health and diversity of Puget Sound. It consisted of
15 programs (point, non-point, habitat, shellfish, education, monitoring and more) with
a clear goal established for each program.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


The Puget Sound Work Plan identifies and sets priorities for actions by federal, state
and local governments each biennium. It implements the Puget Sound Management
Plan and includes other actions to protect Puget Sound. It also includes a budget for
state agency actions, presented to the Governor and Legislature. It is funded at $26.8
million for the 1999-2001 biennium.

The Management Plan addresses resources associated with habitat, shellfish and
sediment contamination. In addition, it addresses activities like spills, on-site sewage,
forestry, agriculture, marinas & boating, and pest management. Tools and techniques
are explored in the plan. These include estuary management, monitoring, research,
labs, transboundary cooperation, watershed planning, and education/involvement.
Performance of these actions is measured by looking at: barriers to fish passage, status
of key species, contaminated sediments, shellfish bed classification, toxic contamination
of biota, fecal coliform levels and spill frequencies.

When studying watersheds within watersheds we need to recognize their nested
nature. Different sizes have different strengths and weaknesses and scales need to be
selected to fit one's needs.

The successes of the Management Plan are evident in sediment standards, site
identification and effective cleanup, on-site system standards, funding, certification,
improved land use management, a comprehensive monitoring program, local storm
water management, better NPDES permits, education program and grants, non-point
plans and actions, wetland protection and a research program.

Lessons learned from the Puget Sound experience.
Success depended on
> Strong public and political support
> Good science
> Better policy
> Organization (to push implementation, provide technical assistance, seek funding
and participate in the work)
> Flexibility in interpreting and updating the Management plan

Failures in the venture include
> Slow progress that never quite meets the Plan's vision
> Conflicts with newly-created programs and organizations
> Conflicts with implementers
> Declining public attention

Reasons for these failures
> Inadequate funding for state activities
> No direct funding for local activities
> Technical complexities


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


> Conflict with state-wide agency missions
> Perception that completing the plan solves the problem
> Short attention span and desire for new solutions-new credit
> Voluntary nature of the program

Concluding comments and suggestions for other projects.
It is essential to recognize that environmental problems were created by system
failures-fixing the system prevents future failures. Dohrmann recommended using
different geographic scales to address different parts of the problem and designing a
structure to oversee the plan's implementation and to update the plan-otherwise the
plan would die. Don't plan if you can't implement.

Various benefits are derived using Watershed Planning. It allows coordination of
actions of diverse and independent government structures. It allows a comprehensive
look at problems and their causes. It is an appropriate unit for scientific and technical
work. Finally, it allows involvement by the community (especially at smallest scales.)



Panelists/Speaker Interaction
Moderated by: Stephen Humphrey
Panel Members: Sandra Glenn, Terry Logan, Mary Anne Poole,
Ronnie Duncan

Session Format: Panelists were each given an opportunity to pose one question to the
keynote speaker. After this round of questions, panelists were free to question either
the keynote speaker or other panel members. Key points are summarized below.

Questions and Comments:

Glenn asked Dohrmann whether the ownership of land in his area was public or private
to which he replied that it was mostly private with public forest and military land. She
wondered what authority they had over private property. Dohrmann said that they
had used local government authority and the Salmon Law that gives authority over the
streams, especially now that the Chinook salmon are endangered.

"How do you get scientists to participate in a process where there may be a
compromise of the scientist's beliefs?" Logan asked Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum reminded
the audience that science would not be the basis for the final decision and that it was
important for scientists to be there to have as much influence as possible. Rosenbaum
said that scientists needed to prepare information in a way that would be attractive to
policy makers. He added that they should talk to congressmen in their districts about
the impacts of superfund cleanup compared with not doing a cleanup. It is essential
that people accept the reality of the others' constraints.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Poole wondered what social science disciplines should be involved? "Where do the
agencies get the experts? How do you translate the messages for those who are not
grounded in the social sciences?" Rosenbaum said that one needed to involve the
people with relevant information and that sociologists are tuned into equity issues.
Political scientists can inform about public opinion and once you find one person, they
will help you get to others. He recommended going to universities and federal agencies
and their contacts. Dohrmann said that they had a few people involved from the
University of Washington. Many people came from council members. He thought
politicians were great sociologists and said they had also used a very effective polling
firm. He said that it was interesting to have different perspectives around the table.

"Commissioners have so many issues on their plate that it is hard to get a response until
the public is outraged, (e.g., there is a fish kill). Does the science initiate the outrage or
the outrage lead to the science?" Duncan asked. Dohrmann said, "We have adaptive
management by default. The wheel is always turning. Chesapeake Bay led to the study
of other estuaries that lead to action in other places. We need to understand that
perceived impacts are as important as real impacts." Rosenbaum answered that when
he was at a conference on stratospheric ozone, the leading scientists talked about the
sociology of their own profession on this issue. Their answer was, "if not us, who-and if
not now, when?" He indicated that we need to step out of the science culture to see the
big picture and take a lead.

Glenn commented that it was important to talk to the people in the community about
what they are concerned about. Duncan responded that in Tampa Bay, scientists are
educating children/youth and the public so that lay people and Water Management
District board members could talk to each other.

Logan was concerned that the word "science" is bandied about and that some experts
don't have credentials for what they are talking about.

Dohrmann said that they had been working with scientists in Puget Sound and had
staff pose the questions. Through this they found who was good on which issues and
put them together in teams. They had staff write summaries and had them peer
reviewed.

Rosenbaum said when people are making presentations they display their credentials.
The bigger problem, however, is when there is adversarial science from those with
equal credentials.

Dohrmann noted that mistakes are made when the science panel is asked a vague
question and then they give back a recommendation not based on their expertise.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


June 19-21, 2001


Audience Reaction

The audience was then asked to respond, giving suggestions on how to improve on the
collaborative (integrated decision-making) approach. These comments can be found in
the Facilitated Session Section on page 22.




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Facilitated Session Setting Priorities for

Improving or Enhancing the Watershed

Management Process in Florida


Process Overview
During each of the three plenary sessions, oral and written comments were solicited
from all forum attendees (speakers, panelists, poster presenters and audience
members). Specifically, they were asked to provide suggestions on how the watershed
management process could be enhanced or improved. Several people served as
recorders, documenting the oral comments and projecting them on two large screens
located in the front of the room. Attendees were also encouraged to provide written
suggestions. (Appendix I "Participant Input Forms I, II and II"). Over the course of
the conference, 101 oral and written suggestions were generated.

During the final session of the conference, attendees were asked to evaluate the
acceptability of each suggestion using a five-point scale (Appendix II "Suggestions
Review Form"). The highest ranking (5) indicated the suggestion was "whole-heartedly
supported." A rank of (4) meant the suggestion was good, but it could be improved. A
neutral response (3) denoted the statement had pros and cons. If the respondent had
serious concerns about the suggestion, they gave it a number "2" ranking. If the
respondent was opposed to the suggestion, it received a ranking of "1". Responses
were recorded on a computer scan form. These suggestions, along with the mean and
standard deviation for each are located in Table 1. During this same exercise,
respondents were given the opportunity to provide written comments for refining or
modifying any suggestion on the list. These comments are provided in Table 2.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Table 1 Ranking of All Suggestions

Suggestions were ranked according to acceptability using the following scale:
5 = Wholeheartedly support; 4 = Good, but it could be improved; 3 = Neutral, it has
pros and cons; 2 = I have serious concerns about this; 1 = Oppose

Standard
Mean Deviation Political Policy P
4.67 0.83 Provide scientific "information" that decision-makers can understand and use; not just
data and academic papers.
4.24 1.03 Allow staff experts to participate in public forums so science is considered and
misinformation is challenged
4.22 0.88 Scientists should go to the meetings where decisions are developed and made; commission
meetings, workshops, conferences, etc.

4.18 0.91 Meet with elected officials one-on-one to explain the science and build a working
relationship

4.16 0.82 Use local case studies to increase stakeholder involvement to minimize public distrust of
politicians and agencies.
4.11 1.04 Don't be cynical (the enemy is us). Understand our individual and collective roles in
watershed management rather than pointing the finger
4.11 1.03 Increase public involvement in the political process
4.09 1.02 Provide information to citizens at a time of day and in a way they are willing and able to
listen to it
4.04 0.95 Make sure watershed needs get good coverage on editorial pages and in letters to the
editor
4.02 0.92 Make sure that every candidate is questioned about how they will protect and restore
watersheds
3.95 0.96 Find a political leader who embraces watershed science and policy and creates change
3.93 0.96 Digest and synthesize information into stories and present them in a way that decision
makers can relate to
3.84 1.04 Extension must develop a stronger relationship with politicians
3.71 0.92 Provide education in the schools to reach elected officials. Have elected officials give
speeches at student presentations
3.47 1.04 Define the results desired by politicians and then make a progress chart with objectives.
Hold public officials and activists accountable for meeting these objectives.
4.43 0.82 Get citizens involved by showing how it affects them in their homes and recreation
4.39 0.89 Demand that decisions be made in the Sunshine and that public records laws are followed
4.38 1.05 Government should set good examples for citizens (e.g., adhere to water restrictions)
4.33 0.90 Identify the final decision makers who are accountable and who the political powers are
that oversee the conveyance system
4.27 0.91 Recognize people in both urban and rural areas for their stewardship efforts
4.20 0.84 To get research and resources for pristine areas that don't have support, find out what is
important to the area's stakeholders and build alliances around those needs
4.00 1.00 To get citizens involved, we need to make it clear who will make the decisions and when
they will be made
3.98 0.85 Get agriculture and environmentalists to form coalitions for better water management
3.98 0.93 Evaluate the impacts of proposals on low income and minority populations and use the
results to inform and organize those affected

3.98 0.94 Provide citizens education on the basics of water management that scientists agree on (e.g.,
agencies can't agree that septic tanks pollute)
3.98 0.95 Involve stakeholders around specific local issues that produce results and they will also be
involved in the larger issues


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


3.80 1.16 Environmentalists can get support by helping groups they need help from
3.78 0.95 Organize the groups that recommend or make decisions so that environmentalists are
included in a number and in a way that they can influence decisions
3.77 1.05 Have citizen action groups like the St Johns WMD or like the stakeholder groups of the
SRWMD that focus on economic realities
3.76 1.09 Work through existing groups of those affected (e.g., volunteer fire departments can make
calls)
3.56 0.97 Coordinate a big coalition of local groups to make their presence known in water issues
3.20 0.89 Change the local government structure to include a sub-committee process to enhance the
access and education of citizens
3.31 1.12 Use faith-based groups that promote environmental stewardship
SImproving PoHlta Deciions
4.49 0.79 Require that water management address the dual goals of providing water for growth and
the environment in land use and other plans. Transform water supply planning into
watershed management planning
4.18 0.81 Educate scientists and engineers to consider social variables
4.00 0.88 Use unbiased facilitator or program manager to guide the activities of the involved
agencies
3.93 0.94 Address private landowners' economic interest
3.84 0.94 Impose statutory deadlines for developing a water budget and have a plan to implement it
3.82 1.07 Change the organizational structure of the water management districts; currently different
divisions are planning conflicting projects for the same watersheds
3.64 1.33 Act on what we know even though we don't have all the possible science
3.39 1.15 Give statewide bodies like the Conflict Resolution Consortium or DEP authority to come in
and mediate in local situations to come up with compromises
3.33 1.35 Create a statewide board to coordinate efforts of the Water Management Districts and
other groups
_____ Stndn Specal Suggestions
4.49 0.94 Consider cumulative impacts in the planning not permitting phase
4.22 0.79 Provide education and funding to support irrigation conversions and water reuse
4.09 0.92 Provide leadership in defining and curtailing "non-essential" water uses
4.00 1.09 Have developers pay for mitigation on forestlands (mitigation bank) to pay for water
management improvements there
MOW&__ SdtiAppwac
prove Communicaton of Informaton
4.67 0.68 Be proactive instead of reactive in presenting science to decision-makers. Present the
information in an understandable format
4.22 0.81 Regulators need to let the scientists know what kinds of answers they need as early as
possible
4.40 0.75 Identify the basic problem. The Great Lakes put together a paradigm, and then the
researchers could answer the question
4.27 0.84 Educate public that science does not know all the answers, especially at the watershed
level. Acknowledge the uncertainty of science
4.16 0.88 Keep ideas before the public through repetition
4.05 1.24 Caution people about invalid science on the Internet
3.87 0.97 Insist that the scientists come to the table with their data and work with the stakeholders
3.67 1.17 Distinguish science for non-regulatory voluntary and regulatory process. Need a higher
test for regulatory. Voluntary programs just need to make sense to the stakeholders.
enhancee Caedibity.. .
4.16 0.88 Ensure that models and predictions are reliable and use appropriately
3.60 1.19 Establish an independent, Florida research council to decide on the problems and how to
address them. It will improve credibility
3.53 1.20 Establish a credential standard required to present expert information. Need to present
and explain the credentials of presenters at public forums
3.09 1.22 We need an anonymous peer review panel
4.58______ 9 H e a n nd ad he Other Suggestions mon
4.58 0.69 Have a goal in mind and have it be measurable and then monitor progress


June 19-21,2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


4.47 0.81 Identify critical areas to leave natural. Evaluate the true cost of development
4.47 0.89 Incorporate water management principles into land management plans, urban design
manuals, development codes, etc.
4.42 0.81 Our science that supports regulation should move from documenting the problem to
evaluating the solutions (e.g., determining the impact of BMP's)
4.36 0.88 Have awards program for projects that produce best results. Share success stories that
county commissions can use. It will also reward the scientists in a forum that the
public will see. Make it available on the web
4.29 0.87 Mechanisms need to be in place to ensure continued funding of research so that adaptive
management can succeed
4.00 1.07 Get science involved with economics, creating innovative business products, i.e. permeable
surfaces
3.89 0.96 Involve engineers, they know how to solve problems and can team up well with scientists
3.82 1.13 Focus scientific effort on "the big picture" to fulfill a vision
Collaborative or Integratie Approach.
4.53 0.69 Need sustained funding for monitoring and evaluation
4.51 0.79 Decision-makers must be prepared to educate themselves on complex issues. Must be
willing to accommodate science and vice versa
4.40 0.89 Management agencies need to validate legitimate public concerns rather than dismissing
them
4.36 0.84 Scientists should continue to educate children regarding environmental issues so that we
have an informed public
4.36 0.96 Collaborative partnership between science and education to reach the public (e.g., FYN)

4.33 0.88 Goal setting; bring politicians into goal setting process early and involve social and
physical scientists to help sort out the process
4.32 0.91 Board members for water agencies need to have ability to learn about issues and how they
are interrelated
4.29 0.97 Include cross-section of stakeholders on advisory boards and gear the communication to
participants
4.22 0.82 Need to resolve tension between short term funding and the need for long term studies
4.22 0.93 Recognize uncertainty of scientific forecasts and the politicians need to accept that
uncertainty
4.20 0.87 Promote socially aware scientists to participate on water management boards and to be
politically active
4.20 0.92 Set time schedule for planning with deadlines or decision implementation
4.16 0.93 Continue to encourage professional societies to be involved in public policy issues
4.16 0.95 Better prepare scientists to package information in ways attractive to policy makers
4.16 1.03 Include social science components in research project funding
4.14 0.94 Educate scientists to have broader cross-disciplinary communication skills.
Interdisciplinary environmental science training needed
4.09 1.16 Learn to deal with misinformation campaigns by those who don't want to be regulated
4.07 0.99 Need to better prepare scientists for collaborative decision making (e.g., let them know
science isn't the ultimate authority)
4.05 0.9 Anthropologists, sociologists and political scientists should be included on science panels
4.04 1.11 Collaborative process should be led by someone that everyone knows and trusts -
selection is critical
3.98 1.10 When setting policy, need to use site-specific sub-regional approaches when dealing with
regional problems. Avoid broad-brush approach
3.91 1.04 Need formal mechanisms for scientists and policy makers to get together
3.93 1.01 Public behavioral change needs to be monitored from attending meetings to changing
behavior. Acknowledge an evolution of public behavior
3.93 1.05 Add course work on teaching scientists to do community service for environmental
advocacy, with community service requirements for graduate students, educate board
members and elected officials
3.93 1.07 Develop primer of examples of successful collaboration
3.89 1.02 Perceived environmental impacts need to be treated in addition to actual impacts


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


3.89 1.08 Be honest that we are creating a managed landscape
3.89 1.09 Need to ask specific science questions
3.84 1.03 Need to develop a way to referee adversarial science (e.g., when two scientists with good
credentials disagree)
3.84 1.13 Deliberately and strategically study information needs and nature of decisions
3.73 1.07 Need effective and frequent way to get week to week developments to stakeholders
3.67 1.11 Aggressive science advocacy has led a lot of environmental programs rather than issues.
Scientists need to learn to do this since it is outside science culture
3.35 1.04 Board members must have the ability to change rules more rapidly
3.13 1.24 Integration needs everyone to agree that agreement is needed


Table 2 Written Refinements and Additions to Suggestions

During the ranking process, participants could provide written refinements or modifications
to improve on the suggestions that were given at the forum. In the table below, the original
suggestion is listed in the left-side column and the written comments are listed in the right-
side column.

Original Suggestion Refinement/Additions/Improvement
Find a political leader who embraces Yes, as long as leader is still well respected by
watershed science and policy and creates other interests, etc.
change.
Use local case studies to increase stakeholder Where good examples exist
involvement to minimize public distrust of
politicians and agencies.
Government should set good examples for Within reason (downtown trees die?)
citizens (e.g., adhere to water restrictions)
Provide citizens education on the basics of Need both
water management that scientists agree on.
For example agencies can't agree that septic
tanks pollute.
Have citizen action groups like the St. Johns Realities now and future
WMD or like the stakeholder groups of the
SRWMD that focus on economic realities.
Identify the final decision makers who are Important
accountable and who are the political powers
that oversee the conveyance system.
Address private landowners' economic Yes, but also true cost of development
interest.
Change the organizational structure of the Need to look at that from inside first
water management districts; currently
different divisions are planning conflicting
projects for the same watersheds.
Use unbiased facilitator or program manager Good
to guide the activities of the involved agencies.
Impose statutory deadlines for developing a Another board?
water budget and have a plan to implement it._


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Give statewide bodies like the Conflict Too political
Resolution Consortium or DEP authority to
come in and mediate in local situations to
come up with compromises
Consider cumulative impacts in the planning Need effective way to assess impacts. Very
not permitting phase. tough and often avoided.
Educate public that science does not know all Public already thinks that
the answers, especially at the watershed level

Regulators need to let the scientists know Poorly stated. Give them what they want?
what kinds of answers they need as early as
possible
Caution people about invalid science on the Invalid science in general (all media) also
Internet limitation of science in general
Keep ideas before the public through Not just repetition. Need to keep it current and
repetition relevant, explain why problem persists, etc.


We need an anonymous peer review panel No credibility
Establish an independent Florida research Educate panel? Too many panels
council to decide on the problems and how to
address them. It will improve credibility
Identify critical areas to leave natural. Excellent
Evaluate the true cost of development.
Need to develop a way to referee adversarial If you can appoint a PhD scientist to your
science (e.g., when two scientists with good decision making body as a citizen member or
credentials disagree); Decision-makers must environmental group rep, they can help the
be prepared to educate themselves on complex rest of the board decide which scientific
issues. Must be willing to accommodate opinion to trust. Similarly, an attorney
science and vice versa; Set time schedule for appointed to the board or committee as a
planning with deadlines for decision business or citizen rep, can help the board
implementation. understand how regulatory systems work.
Learn to deal with misinformation campaigns Misinformation campaigns are often led by
by those who don't want to be regulated, special interest groups, environmental wackos,
who cannot see that non-regulatory
approaches often get the best results


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Outcomes of the Forum


Top Ranked Suggestions (scoring 4.5 or above)

Five suggestions for improving or enhancing the watershed management process
received acceptability ranking of 4.5 or higher. Two of the five suggestions were similar
and thus combined into one.

The four most highly ranked suggestions are:
1. Provide scientific information that can be understood and easily used by the
decision-makers. This includes both written information and oral
presentations.
2. Have a measurable goal and monitor its success.
3. Have sustained funding for monitoring and evaluation.
4. Decision-makers must educate themselves on complex issues and must be
willing to accommodate science and vice versa for scientists.



Generally Accepted Suggestions (scoring 4.0 or above)

Fifty-eight suggestions scored an acceptability ranking of 4.0 or above. Again, a score of
4.0 indicates the suggestion is "good, but it could be improved." To enhance the utility
of these suggestions, the Center for Natural Resources staff placed them into one of the
following categories: 1) Involving the Public, 2) Involving the Decision-makers, 3)
Involving the Scientists, 4) Improving the Process, and 5) Money Matters. Similar
suggestions were combined to avoid redundancy. The following is a synthesized list of
suggestions offered by the group.

Suggestions for Improving or Enhancing the Watershed Management
Process in Florida
All received acceptability scores of 4.0 or above
Similar suggestions were combined to avoid redundancy

Involving the Public
1. Increase public involvement in the political process. At the same time, make it cear
who will be making the decisions and when they will be made.
2. Provide information to citizens at a time of day and in a way they are willing and
able to listen. Be sure to allow staff experts to participate in these public forums so
science is considered and misinformation is challenged. Keep ideas before the
public through repetition and caution people about invalid science on the Internet.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


3. To reach the public, use collaborative partnerships between science and education
(e.g., Florida Yards and Neighborhoods). Show how it affects them in their homes
and recreation. Scientists should continue to educate children regarding
environmental issues so that we have an informed public.
4. Management agencies need to validate legitimate public concerns rather than
dismiss them. Educate the public that science does not know all the answers (i.e.,
acknowledge the uncertainty of science) especially at the watershed level.
5. Use the mass media to inform the public. Make sure watershed needs get good
coverage on editorial pages and in letters to the editor.
6. Use local case studies to minimize public distrust of politicians and agencies and to
increase stakeholder involvement.

Involving Decision-Makers
7. Decision-makers must be prepared to educate themselves on complex issues and
must be willing to accommodate science. Board members for water agencies, for
instance, need to have the ability to learn about issues and how they are interrelated.
8. Regulators need to let the scientists know what kinds of answers they need as early
as possible and should recognize the uncertainty of scientific forecasts. Politicians
also need to accept that uncertainty.
9. Government should set good examples for citizens (e.g., adhere to water
restrictions).
10. Identify the final decision-makers who are accountable, and who the political
powers are that oversee the conveyance system.
11. Demand that decisions be made in the "Sunshine" and that Public Records laws are
followed. Learn to deal with misinformation campaigns by those who don't want to
be regulated.
12. Make sure that every candidate is questioned about how they will protect and
restore watersheds.

Involving Scientists
13. Scientists should be proactive instead of reactive in presenting science to decision-
makers. Present the information in an understandable and attractive format, not just
data and academic papers. Educate scientists to have broader cross-disciplinary
communication skills as well as interdisciplinary environmental science training.
14. Educate scientists and engineers to consider social variables, to be politically active
and to participate on water management boards. Continue to encourage
professional societies to be involved in public policy issues. Scientists should go to
the meetings where decisions are developed and made (e.g., commission meetings,
workshops, conferences, etc.). They should meet with elected officials one-on-one to
explain the science and build a working relationship.
15. Better prepare scientists for collaborative decision making (e.g., let them know
science isn't the ultimate authority).
16. Anthropologists, sociologists and political scientists should be included on science
panels


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Improving the Process
17. Identify the basic problem. (The Great Lakes put together a paradigm, and then the
researchers could answer the question.)
18. Goal setting and monitoring: Bring politicians into the goal setting process early and
involve social and physical scientists to help sort out the process. Have a goal in
mind and have it be measurable and then monitor progress.
19. Include a cross-section of stakeholders on advisory boards and gear the
communication to participants.
20. Consider cumulative impacts in the planning, not permitting phase.
21. Require that water management address the dual goals of providing water for
growth and the environment in land use and other plans. Transform water supply
planning into watershed management planning. Incorporate water management
principles into land management plans, urban design manuals, development codes,
etc. Provide leadership in defining and curtailing "non-essential" water uses.
22. Science that supports regulation should move from documenting the problem to
evaluating the solutions (e.g., determining the impact of Best Management
Practices).
23. Ensure that models and predictions are reliable and used appropriately.
24. Identify critical areas to leave natural. Evaluate the true cost of development.
25. Set a time schedule for planning with deadlines or decision implementation.
26. Use an unbiased facilitator or program manager to guide the activities of the
involved agencies. Someone that everyone knows and trusts should lead the
collaborative process- selection is critical.
27. Don't be cynical. (The enemy is us!) Understand our individual and collective roles
in watershed management, rather than pointing the finger.
28. Incentives: Have awards program for projects that produce the best results. Share
success stories that county commissions can use. Reward the scientists in a forum
that the public will see. Make these available on the web. Recognize people in both
urban and rural areas for their stewardship efforts.

Money Matters
29. Mechanisms need to be in place that ensure continued funding of research so that
adaptive management can succeed (i.e., sustained funding for monitoring and
evaluation is necessary). Resolve tension between short term funding and the need
for long term studies. Include social science components in research project
funding.
30. Get science involved with economics by creating innovative business products (e.g.,
permeable surfaces).
31. Have developers pay for mitigation on forestlands (mitigation bank) which will pay
for water management improvements there.
32. Provide funding and education to support irrigation conversions and water reuse.
33. To get research and resources for pristine areas that don't have support, find out
what is important to the area's stakeholders and build alliances around those needs.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Appendices


i i I i


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Appendix I
NATURAL RESOURCES FORUM
WATERSHED SCIENCE, POLICY, PLANNING, AND MANAGEMENT
CAN WE MAKE IT WORK IN FLORIDA?
Tampa, Florida, June 19-21, 2001

PARTICIPANT INPUT FORM I

SESSION 1 The Political/Policy Approach to Watershed Management (Wednesday
A.M.)
(The strengths, weaknesses and ideas will be recorded and projected on 2 screens.)

Format:
1) Keynote speaker makes the case for the political approach.
2) Panelists offer their perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the political
approach and how this process can be improved.
3) The audience suggests additional ways to enhance the political approach by
building on the strengths and mitigating the weaknesses.
4) The speaker and panelists will offer brief responses to the suggestions.
5) Suggestions will be synthesized Wednesday night and refined and ranked on
Thursday.

YOUR THOUGHTFUL INPUT IS IMPORTANT!!! (Please write legibly)

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING THE POLITICAL APPROACH:


PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORMS TO REGISTRATION DESK FOR INCLUSION
IN THURSDAY MORNING SESSION.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Appendix I Continued
NATURAL RESOURCES FORUM
WATERSHED SCIENCE, POLICY, PLANNING, AND MANAGEMENT
CAN WE MAKE IT WORK IN FLORIDA?
Tampa, Florida, June 19-21, 2001

PARTICIPANT INPUT FORM II

SESSION 2 The Scientific Approach to Watershed Management (Wednesday P.M.)
(The strengths, weaknesses and ideas will be recorded and projected on 2 screens.)

Format:
1. Keynote speaker makes the case for the scientific approach.
2. Panelists offer their perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific
approach and how this approach can be improved.
3. The audience suggests additional ways to enhance the scientific approach by
building on the strengths and mitigating the weaknesses.
4. The speaker and panelists will offer brief responses to the suggestions.
5. Suggestions will be synthesized Wednesday night and refined and ranked on
Thursday.

YOUR THOUGHTFUL INPUT IS IMPORTANT!!! (Please write legibly)

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH:




















PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORMS TO REGISTRATION DESK FOR
INCLUSION IN THURSDAY MORNING SESSION.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Appendix I Continued
NATURAL RESOURCES FORUM
WATERSHED SCIENCE, POLICY, PLANNING, AND MANAGEMENT
CAN WE MAKE IT WORK IN FLORIDA?
Tampa, Florida, June 19-21, 2001

PARTICIPANT INPUT FORM III

SESSION 3 Integrated Approaches to Watershed Management (Thursday AM.)

Format:
1. Keynote speaker makes the case for an integrated approach.
2. Panelists offer their perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of an integrated
approach and how this approach can be improved.
3. The audience suggests additional ways to enhance the integrated approach by
building on the strengths and mitigating the weaknesses.
4. The speaker and panelists will offer brief responses to the suggestions.
5. Suggestions will be displayed, refined and ranked in the final session.

YOUR THOUGHTFUL INPUT IS IMPORTANT!!! (Please write legibly)

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING THE INTEGRATED
APPROACH:




















PLEASE PLACE COMPLETED FORMS IN MARKED BOXES
ON REGISTRATION DESK


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Appendix II
SUGGESTIONS REVIEW
Instructions for the Ranking Process

Suggestion Overview

Your input will be compiled and put on the web site. Please use the computer scorable
form and be sure to match the suggestion number to the form. You do NOT need to fill
in your name.

Turn in your forms at the back of the room or at the registration desk.

Suggestion Evaluation

Please read and rank the acceptability of each of the suggestions using the following
scale:

5 = Wholeheartedly support
4 = Good, but it could be improved
3 = Neutral, it has pros and cons
2 = I have serious concerns about this
1 = Oppose

Suggestion Refinements and Additions

Please list ways to improve the suggestions (give the number) and any additional
suggestions here. (use the back if you need more room)













Ideas for Implementing the Suggestions

List ideas about what can be done to implement these suggestions and what existing or
new groups should take the responsibility.


June 19-21,2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Appendix III


Biographical Sketches

Keynote Speakers

Wayne E. Daltry, Executive Director
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
PO Box 3455
Fort Meyers, FL 33918-3455
(941) 656-7720
wdaltry@swfrpc.org

Born in Elizabethtown, Kentucky in 1947, Wayne E. Daltry completed the bachelors
program from The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina in 1969 and his Master's in
planning program from Florida State University in 1973.

Mr. Daltry joined the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) in 1975
as a Coastal Planner. In 1977, he became the Planning Director and since 1982 he has
been the Executive Director. Before joining SWFRPC, Mr. Daltry was chief of Long
Range Planning for Manatee County from 1973-75.

Some of the past/present honors and associations held by Mr. Daltry are the following:
Vice Chair, CREW; Vice Chair, Everglades Restoration Working Group; Trustee, Calusa
Nature Center, Lee Children's Science Museum, Sons of American Revolution, Lee
County Planning Advisory Committee; Lee County Charter Commission; Lee County
United Way; Lee County Chapter National Red Cross; Florida Growth Management
Conflict Resolution Consortium; Former Chair of the Southwest Chapter Florida
Planning and Zoning Association; Former Chair of the Florida Promised Lands Section
Chapter American Planning Association; Former Conference Chair of the Florida
Chapter American Planning Association; Former Chair of the Staff Directors Florida
Regional Councils Association; Former Chair of the Governor's Coastal Resources
Citizens Advisory Committee; Former President of the Florida Chapter American
Planning Association; Former Chairman of the Lee County Community Coordinating
Council; Former Chairman of the Southwest Florida Regional Harbor Board.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


John Dohrmann, Policy Director
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
Office of the Governor
P. O. Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
(360) 407-7305
(360) 407-7333 FAX
jdohrmann@psat.wa.gov

John Dohrmann is the Policy Director for the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
and has been with the agency in various planning positions since its formation in 1985.
He is responsible for policy issues covering all aspects of estuary management. He was
Planning Director during development of the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan which was the first plan approved by EPA under the National Estuary
Program. Currently, he is working on management of contaminated sediments and
recovery of threatened salmon stocks and serves as the Washington co-chair of the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force. John has a bachelor's degree in
fishery biology from New College and studied biological oceanography at the
University of Washington.


Terry Logan, Ph.D., President, Emeritus Professor
N-Viro International Corp
3450 W. Central Ave., Suite 328
Toledo, OH 43606
(419) 535-6374 Phone (Toledo, OH office)
(614) 487-9521 Phone (Columbus, OH office)
FAX (614) 487-9539
e-mail: tlogan@columbus.rr.com

Dr. Terry Logan is the President and Chief Operating Officer of N-Viro International (a
firm that develops and licenses technology worldwide to treat organic wastes and
convert them into soil amendment products). Dr. Logan is a soil chemist and retired
Professor Emeritus of The Ohio State University. He served on the faculty for 28 years,
during which time he was one of the leading U.S. scientists studying Great Lakes
pollution. He served on the team that developed the 1978 International Agreement for
Restoration of the Great Lakes.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Walter Rosenbaum, Ph.D.
Political Science Dept
University of Florida
PO Box 117325
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 392-0262 ext 27
tonyros@polisci.ufl.edu

Walter Rosenbaum received his Ph.D. from Princeton and is a Professor of Political
Science at the University of Florida and Adjunct Research Professor in School of Public
Health, Tulane University Medical College. He has been a consultant to the Office of
the Executive Director, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Project, the Department of
Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida. His recent work includes a year as a Fellow at the Belfer
Center for Science and Public Policy, Harvard University.

He has also served as a Special Assistant to Assistant Administrator for Policy Planning,
U.S. EPA. His research and writing concern national environmental policy, energy
policy, and risk management.




Moderators

Stephen R. Humphrey, Ph.D., Dean
College of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Florida
103 Black Hall, Box 116455
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 392-9230
humphrey@ufl.edu

Stephen R. Humphrey received a B.A. in Biology from Earlham College, a M.A. in
Zoology from Southern Illinois University, and a Ph.D. in Zoology form Oklahoma
State University in 1971.

Dr. Humphrey is founding Dean of the College of Natural Resources and Environment,
University of Florida. The college has 180 undergraduate students in the Environmental
Science degree program and 47 graduate students in the M.S. or Ph.D. degree programs
in Interdisciplinary Ecology.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


He conducted research on systematics and ecology of mammals at the Florida Museum
of Natural History for 22 years and published 2 books and more than 60 technical
articles, mostly on endangered species.

He is chief financial officer of the Society for Conservation Biology. He also has been a
member and chair of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's
Environmental Regulation Commission and trustee and chair of the Florida Chapter of
The Nature Conservancy.


Julie Morris, Commissioner, Coordinator
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Environmental Studies Program
Florida New College
5700 N. Tamiami Trail
Sarasota, FL 34243
(941) 359-4299
morris@virtu.sar.usf.edu

Julie Morris lives in Sarasota and coordinates the Environmental Studies Program at
New College, the honors undergraduate liberal arts college of the state university
system. She has held many state and national volunteer leadership positions in Sierra
Club. Since 1991, she has served on the Board of The Myakka Conservancy, Inc., a local
land trust.

Julie was a charter member of Florida's Nongame Wildlife Advisory Council in the
1980's. In 1992 she was appointed Commissioner of the Florida Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission, and reappointed in 1997 for a term that will expire in 2002. She
served as Chairman of the newly created Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission from July, 1999 December, 2000.


Jerry A. Scarborough, Executive Director
Suwannee River Water Management District
9225 County Road 49
Live Oak, FL 32060
(904) 362-1001
district@srwmd.state.fl.us

Mr. Jerry Scarborough joined the SRWMD staff as executive director on January 1,1990.
He was Suwannee County Clerk of the Court for 14 years and former editor of the
Suwannee Democrat newspaper.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Mr. Scarborough grew up in the area, graduating from Branford High School and then
the University of Florida in 1971 with a bachelor's degree in journalism.

Before his appointment to executive director, he was involved in water resource
management issues. Mr. Scarborough served on the District's Surface Water
Improvement and Management advisory committee, and as chairman of the Suwannee
River Resource Planning and Management Committee, a panel appointed by former
Governor Bob Graham to develop ways to protect the Suwannee River.



Panelists

Ward W. Brewer II, Founder and CEO
Pensacola Bay Ecosystem Management Advisory Council
6223 Hwy. 90 Suite 182
Milton, FL 32570
(850) 623-9083
Towerl@gulf.net

Mr. Brewer grew up near Greensboro, North Carolina and studied nuclear engineering
at the University of Tennessee. With over 12 years experience in management
consulting and applied high technology, Mr. Brewer worked as a consultant for
corporations such as Nippondenso, Panasonic and the RSA's Energia, while also
providing technical support for a National Geographic Special. Business eventually
moved him to Milton, Florida where he has lived since 1996. Mr. Brewer served as the
Technical Advisory Committee's Chairman of the Santa Rosa and Escambia County's
environmental oversight committee: The Bay Area Resource Council from 1997-1998. In
1998, at the request of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, (EMAC),
Mr. Brewer founded the Pensacola Bay Ecosystem Management Advisory Council. In
just two years, Pensacola Bay EMAC's efforts have been nationally recognized and the
organization has received several public service awards including the Governor's
Council for Sustainable Florida Leadership Award-the first environmental
organization in the Panhandle of Florida to have received this award.

Mr. Brewer currently serves on several boards and committees serving the
environment, education, and various social causes. He is a nationally red-carded
Wildland Firefighter, and when not fighting wildfires, volunteers his time as a search &
rescue/fire fighter with the Munson Volunteer Fire Department.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Ronnie E. Duncan, President
The Duncan Companies, Inc.
3030 North Rocky Point Drive
Tampa, FL 33607
rduncan@duncancompanies.com

Ronnie E. Duncan is a Founder and President of The Duncan Companies, Inc., a Tampa,
Florida-based commercial real estate firm with regional offices in Fort Myers and Boca
Raton, Florida; Phoenix, Arizona; and Atlanta, Georgia.

Currently, Mr. Duncan serves as a Member and Treasurer of the Governing Board of
the Southwest Florida Water Management District in charge with the balancing of
responsible preservation of today's water and natural resources and the continued
economic growth and development within the Region. He is the co-chair ex officio of
the Pinellas-Anclote River Basin Board and serves as Chair of the Finance and
Administration Committee.

In addition, Mr. Duncan is a member of the National Board of Directors for the National
Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) and Vice President of Public
Affairs for the State of Florida Chapter of NAIOP. Mr. Duncan also serves as a member
of the NAIOP Tampa Bay Board of Directors and represents all local and state members
as a part of the Executive Committee. Mr. Duncan received the National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) "Building the Bridge" National Award for
building the bridges of understanding and education between the development
community and the natural resources community at the chapter, state and federal
levels.

Mr. Duncan serves on the Pinellas County/Florida Department of Transportation U.S.
Highway 19 Task Force and the Pinellas County Economic Development Task Forces.


Timothy D. Feather, Ph.D., Strategic Development Manager
Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd
PO Box 1316
Carbondale, IL 62903
(618) 549-2832
timf@pml.com

Timothy D. Feather presently serves as the Strategic Development Manager at Planning
and Management Consultants, Ltd. (PMCL) where he evaluates the water resources
planning research needs in seeking consulting opportunities for PMCL. He received a
Ph.D. from the University of Florida in Geography with minor concentration in
Environmental Engineering. Dr. Feather's professional and academic focus has been on
the development of interdisciplinary solutions to environmental challenges.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Dr. Feather has been involved in projects nationwide servicing federal and state water
resource agencies with special planning and policy studies. Recently, Dr. Feather has
worked with stakeholder groups to surface the strategic balance between growth and
the environment in south Florida and the Everglades. As part of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research Program, Dr. Feather has
researched methods for monetary and non-monetary valuation of environmental
project features and developed an overall evaluation framework for environmental plan
formulation. For the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Dr. Feather managed a
legal assessment of Illinois water quantity law where problem areas were developed
through focus groups of key water stakeholders and optional legal responses were
developed.

Environmental planning tools and projects that Dr. Feather has supervised and/or
developed include environmental resource valuation, environmental law
review/assessment, outdoor recreation analysis, water demand and conservation
analysis, economic base analysis, water and wastewater quality analysis, survey and
statistical evaluation, and group process design and facilitation.


Richard D. Garrity, Ph.D., Executive Director
Hillsborough County Environmental Protection
1900 9th Ave.
Tampa, FL 33605
(813) 272-5960
GarrityR@epcjanus.org

Dr. Richard D. Garrity was born in Boston, Massachusetts and graduated from Boston
Latin School. He moved to Florida in 1967 and presently lives in Lakeland. He
received his B.S. in Biological Science form Boston University in 1965, his M.S. in
Biological Science from Northeastern University in 1967, and his Ph.D. in Biological
Science from Florida State University in 1974.

Dr. Garrity is presently the Executive Director of the Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough County. This position is responsible for an agency
charged to set, implement and enforce standards that protect the air, water and soils of
Hillsborough County Florida from pollution and contamination harmful to the health
and welfare of residents and visitors to the county. From 1999 2000, he was Water
Resource Team Administrator for Hillsborough County where he was responsible for
coordinating review of all water supply projects proposed for Hillsborough County.
From 1984-1999, Dr. Garrity was Director of District Management for the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection's Southwest District office in Tampa serving
under four gubernatorial administrations. This office oversees environmental concerns
in twelve Florida counties with a population of 3,500,000 and is responsible for the
protection, conservation and management of air, water, and natural resources in these


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make it Work in Florida?


counties. From 1977-1984, he was the Urban Environmental coordinator for the City of
Tampa. In this capacity, he served as environmental advisor to all City departments
and as special projects administrator. He was the Principal Environmental Scientist
with Conservation Consultants, Inc. from 1974 to 1977 and from 1972 to 1974 was the
National Teaching Fellow at FAMU.

Richard D. Garrity has twenty-five years of experience managing environmental
projects and directing the activities of professional staff. Experiences include:
environmental impact assessments, municipal utility issues, resource regulation
programs and innovative approaches to achieving regulatory compliance.


Sandra S. Glenn, Executive Director
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
631 North Wymore Road, Suite 100
Maitland, Florida 32751
(407) 623-1075
(407) 623-1084 FAX
sglenn@ecfrpc.org

Ms. Sandra Glenn, whose political career includes four years as an Altamonte Springs
commissioner and 12 years as a Seminole County commissioner, is no stranger to
regional planning. Prior to her position as Executive Director, she had more than 14
years experience on the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, first as an
elected official and then as a governor's appointee. She served as chairman of the 38-
year-old agency from 1982 to 1984. In addition, she was a representative to the National
Association of Regional Planning Councils (NARC) where she served a four-year term
on the Board of Directors representing Florida and Georgia and now serves on NARC's
Board of Executive Directors.

Over the years, Ms. Glenn has dedicated her time, energy and leadership to a multitude
of agencies and civic organizations. These include chairman of the Orlando Sanford
Airport Authority, of which she is still a member; immediate past president of the
Sanford Chamber of Commerce; board member of the Central Florida Sports
Commission; and board of trustees member of the Police Officers and Firefighters
Pension Plan for the City of Altamonte Springs. Ms. Glenn has served on the Orlando
Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (now MetroPlan Orlando) and the
governor's regional advisory board to the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services. She is also presently chairing the Eco-Heritage Corridor
Planning Committee of the St. Johns American Heritage River Initiative and is a
member of the Governance Board of the Metro Orlando International Affairs
Commission.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


On the national level, Ms. Glenn was one of three persons chosen by the National
Planning Council to represent them on a national Transportation Study Commission to
write the legislation for the enacted transportation policy (ISTEA).

The selection of Ms Glenn as the Council's executive director was part of a
comprehensive restructuring process the agency began in March of 1998. The Council
organized the area's first-ever Regional Summit on June 5 of that year at the Disney
Institute, gathering 100 of the region's elected officials and community leaders to talk
about regional issues and new roles in the Council.


Richard D. Gragg, Ph.D. Associate Director/Assistant Professor
Environmental Sciences Institute
Center for Environmental Equity and Justice
1520 S. Bronough St.
Florida A&M University
Tallahassee, FL 32307

Dr. Richard Gragg is responsible for directing the Center for Environmental Equity and
Justice, which was established by the Florida legislature in 1998 following a
recommendation by the Florida Commission on Environmental Equity and Justice. The
Center conducts research, training and education on the adverse environmental impacts
of facilities and infrastructure in low-income and minority communities. The Center is
housed in the Environmental Sciences Institute, which offers the bachelors, masters and
doctoral degrees in environmental science. Dr. Gragg currently teaches graduate and
undergraduate courses in environmental toxicology and human health, environmental
toxicology, and environmental ethics. Dr. Gragg's research interests include [a] the
impact of photochemical transformation on the toxicology of environmental
contaminants; [b] environmental equity and justice; and [c] human health, risk factors
for contaminant exposure. Dr. Gragg is a member of the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and its Health and Research Subcommittee. The
NEJAC provides independent advice to the Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator on areas relating to environmental justice including, among other things
"advice for improving how EPA and other participate, cooperate, and communicate
within the Agency and between other Federal agencies, State, or local governments,
Federally recognized Tribes, environmental justice leaders, interest groups and the
public. Dr. Gragg also serves on the Audubon of Florida Board of Directors.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


John R. Hall, Ph.D., Chief, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
(904) 232-1177
John.R.Hall@saj02.usace.army.mil

Dr. John R. Hall manages the Corps' regulatory program in Florida, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. He leads a staff of more than 70 individuals who process close
to 8,000 permit applications annually. These applications range from minor single-
family docks to complex fill proposals for residential development, major port
expansion, landfills, phosphate and rock mining, and large commercial projects.
Regulatory Division staff also maintains an active enforcement program for both
unauthorized activities and compliance with issued permits.

Prior to this position, Dr. Hall was chief of the District's North Permits Branch for two
years. He also had held positions in the District as senior project manager, section chief
and biologist in the Environmental Branch. In addition to these positions, Dr. Hall has
worked in Washington, D.C., as a research fisheries biologist with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and chief, technical unit in the Regulatory Branch, Office of the Chief
of Engineers. In 1989 and 1990, he served as acting branch chief in the regulatory
branch in Washington while on a developmental assignment. He has been in his
present position since September 1990.

Dr. Hall was born in St. Louis, Mo. and graduated from high school in Alexandria, VA.
He received a BS in biology from George Washington University in 1961 and a
doctorate in biology (marine ecology) from the University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, in 1971.

Maggy Hurchalla, Former Commissioner
Martin County
5775 WE Nassau Terrace
Stuart, FL 34997
mhurchalla@hotmail.com

Born in Miami Florida in 1940, Maggy Hurchalla graduated Phi Beta Kappa from
Swarthmore College. She served as Martin County Commissioner from 1974 to 1994.
From 1993-97 she served on the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South
Florida. She worked on the Indian River Lagoon Study Team for Everglades Restudy.

In 1981, she won the Florida Audubon Environmentalist of the Year. Some of the
committees she participates in are the following: Martin County Comprehensive Plan,
Martin County Save Our Coast beach acquisitions, Martin County Wetlands Protection,
and Lands for You Wilderness Acquisitions.


June 19-21,2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


George A. O'Connor, Ph.D., Professor
Soil and Water Science Dept.
University of Florida
P.O. Box 110510
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 392-7181 ext 329
gao@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

George A. O'Connor is Professor of Environmental Soil Chemistry in the Soil and Water
Science Department (SWSD) at the University of Florida. He has researched and taught
contaminant fate and transport in the environment for 30 years, the last 10 years at the
University of Florida. His current research interests deal with land application of non-
hazardous wastes. He is a past Chair of the SWSD at the University of Florida.


Mary Ann Poole, Biological Administrator
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
255 54th Ave.
Vero Beach, FL 32968
(561) 778-5094
poolem@gfc.state.fl.us

Mary Ann Poole received her Bachelors from Duke University and her M.S. from
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, both degrees in botany.

She entered rather late into the world of government employment, starting in 1987 at
the Florida Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Preserves program, after
spending a number of years as a freelance biological illustrator. In 1990, She took a
position with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's (now the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) Office of Environmental Services field
office in Vero Beach, where she worked on the development of projects in the Central
Florida Regional Planning Council counties. She also participated in developing a
multi-agency report on the Green Swamp. In 1995, she was asked to lead and develop a
program aimed at participating in the growing multi-agency planning efforts to restore
the Everglades. She participated in a number of projects, including the development,
and the implementation of CERP; the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan;
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park; the development of the Lake
Okeechobee regulation schedule and other lake issues; and operations to protect the
Cape Sable seaside sparrow. She currently sits on the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force's Working Group as the representative for the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Tom Swihart, Environmental Administrator
Division of Water Resource Management
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Blvd, MS #46
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
(850) 921-2230
tom.swihart@dep.state.fl.us

Mr. Tom Swihart regrets that he is not a native Floridian, but he did persuade his
parents to move to Florida when he was ten years old. He is a graduate of the
University of South Florida and the Florida State University, with degrees in
Interdisciplinary Science and in Urban and Regional Planning. Mr. Swihart is the
Administrator of the Office of Water Policy in the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. His duties include preparation of the Florida Water Plan and cose
coordination with Florida's water management districts in district planning, policy
development, and rule adoption.



Facilitator

Tom Taylor, Ph.D., Assistant Director
Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium,
Florida State University
2031 East Paul Dirac Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32310-4161
(850) 644-6320
flacrc@mailer.fsu.edu

Dr. Tom Taylor, AICP, is the Assistant Director of the Florida Conflict Resolution
Consortium (CRC) since 1990. For twelve years he has been teaching dispute resolution
courses and has worked with public and private parties to seek solutions to case-
specific conflicts and policy disputes and to reach consensus on strategic plans and
visions for organizations and communities. This program was created by the
legislature to address critical problems facing Florida by promoting and supporting the
use of mediation, facilitation and other collaborative processes. His projects range from
facilitating a few people for a few hours to multi-meeting processes that take over a
year, large groups with as many as 2000 in one meeting and one with a settlement of
over five hundred million dollars. Hundreds of elected officials, administrators, staff,
mediators, attorneys and others have participated in his training.

Dr. Taylor has a Ph.D. in Environmental Design and Planning and is an adjunct
professor of Urban Planning at Florida State University. He facilitated the Governor's
Water Supply and Development Workgroup, Santa Fe and Silver Springs working


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


June 19-21, 2001


groups and meetings of several Florida Department of Environmental Protection water-
related units. Prior to coming to the CRC he was a professor at the University of
Oklahoma, a practicing planner, consultant and trainer.




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Appendix IV
Conference Information

Overview
The Natural Resources Forum Series was created with the goal to discover better ways
to link good science with ecological policy and outreach education for making
informed, intelligent, and cost-effective choices on ecosystem management and
restoration. This forum is the second in the series.
Conference Theme and Purpose
Natural Resources Forum (NRF) focuses on the issue of watershed science. Recently,
statewide surveys revealed water quality and quantity was a top area of concern for
Floridians. Legislation affecting water and the mandated development and
implementation of total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and minimum flows and levels
add to the significance of this topic.
The forum explores the interconnections and processes driving watershed management
from the scientific (biophysical and social), educational, political/policy, and
management perspectives. The conference format allows for dynamic interaction
between public and private entities. The culminating activity is to identify watershed
priorities in each of these areas.
Audience
Resource Managers, Researchers (Biophysical and Social Scientists), Engineers, City,
County, Regional and State Planning and Environmental Staff, Educators, Extension
Agents, Private Environmental Consultants, Local and State Elected Officials,
Environmental Organization Members, Business and Industry Representatives,
Agricultural Leaders, Public and Private Utilities, and others interested in water issues
of Florida.

Conference Structure and Format
Three plenary sessions and two guided-poster tours are scheduled, along with a poster
and exhibitor reception. The conference format is designed to ensure a lively exchange
of ideas in a relatively brief period of time. A memorial dedication to Dr. Garald Parker
immediately follows the conference.

Plenary Sessions: Each of the three plenary sessions has one or more keynote speakers,
a panel presentation and an interactive audience session. The third plenary session also
includes a facilitated segment.
Keynote Speakers (30 45 minutes) Four keynote speakers have been invited. Three of
the speakers have been asked to serve as provocateurs, presenting strong arguments as
to why their assigned perspective is the most critical element to the watershed
management process. The political/policy, scientific, and collaborative (integrated
decision making) approaches will be featured. The fourth keynote speaker will present
a case study, drawing upon experiences from another region of the U.S. Successful


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


processes and procedures, which may be applicable to Florida, will be the thrust of this
presentation.

Panel Session (45 minutes). A panel session will follow each keynote speaker's
presentation. Four panel members, representing numerous perspectives, have been
invited. Each will be given an opportunity to pose one question to the speaker,
challenging or supporting the speaker's presentation. The panelist will be allowed to
"couch" the question. If time permits, a second round of questioning will take place.
This time, the panelist is free to question either the keynote speaker or another panel
member.
Audience Interactive Session. (30 minutes) At the end of the panel session, the
audience is given an opportunity to provide positive suggestions for bridging the gaps
or resolving the issues mentioned by the speakers) and panelists. These comments will
be recorded and used in the final conference session on day 2. (Written comments also
will be solicited to ensure everyone will be given an opportunity to voice their
opinions.) At the conclusion of the audience interaction, each panelist and keynote
speaker will have an opportunity to give a one-minute response.

Guided Poster Tours. (One hour, 15 minutes each) Two guided poster sessions are
featured. During these sessions, designated guides lead a group of conference
participants through the poster displays. Poster presenters briefly explain the project to
the group and answer questions. This format provides conference participants a formal
structure to interact with a wide array of poster presenters. Additional time to interact
with poster presenters is scheduled during the evening poster and exhibitor reception.
To ensure maximum exposure to poster information, speakers and panelists received a
compilation of poster abstracts prior to the forum, thereby allowing them to incorporate
knowledge gained from the poster presentations into their sessions. (Note: poster
presentations were selected from abstracts submitted to the conference committee.)
Facilitated Session. (One hour 45 minutes). The concluding session of the conference
focuses on identifying priority areas in Florida watershed management. At the
beginning of the forum, participants are asked to consider a specific set of questions.
Building on the responses to these questions, the conference participants will establish a
list of priority areas. A summary of these recommendations will be posted on the
Internet.

Forum Participation and Roles

Session 1 The Political/Policy Approach to Watershed Management
(The strengths, weaknesses and ideas will be recorded and projected on 2 screens)

1) Keynote speaker makes the case for the political approach.
2) Panelists offer their perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the political
approach and how this process can be improved.


June 19-21,2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


3) The audience suggests additional ways to enhance the political approach by
building on the strengths and mitigating the weaknesses.
4) The speaker and panelists will offer brief responses to the suggestions.
5) Everyone will write additional suggestions on their comment form.

Session 2 The Scientific Approach to Watershed Management
(The strengths, weaknesses and ideas will be recorded and projected on 2 screens)

1) Keynote speaker makes the case for the scientific approach.
2) Panelists offer their perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific
approach and how this approach can be improved.
3) The audience suggests additional ways to enhance the scientific approach by
building on the strengths and mitigating the weaknesses.
4) The speaker and panelists will offer brief responses to the suggestions
5) Everyone will write additional suggestions on their comment form.

Session 3 Integrated Approaches to Watershed Management
(The strengths, weaknesses and ideas will be recorded and projected on 2 screens)

1) Keynote speaker makes the case for an integrated approach.
2) Panelists offer their perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of an integrated
approach and how this approach can be improved.
3) The audience suggests additional ways to enhance the integrated approach by
building on the strengths and mitigating the weaknesses.
4) The speaker and panelists will offer brief responses to the suggestions.
5) Everyone will write additional suggestions on their comment form.

Session 4 Setting Priorities for Future Directions
(Everyone has a handout with suggestions from Sessions 1 and 2 and Session 3
suggestions are on the screens. Session 4 results will be posted online.)

1) Everyone ranks the acceptability of the suggestions from Sessions 1-3 on computer
forms.
2) The facilitator asks for strategies for implementing suggestions to enhance
watershed management in Florida.
3) The strategies are recorded and then refined.
4) Everyone ranks the acceptability of the strategies on computer forms.
5) Speakers, panelists and participants offer concluding comments as time permits.


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Appendix V
PROGRAM AGENDA


TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2001
PM


4:00-6:00
6:00-8:00
7:00-10:00


Registration Desk Open and Check-In
Welcome Social
Poster Presenters to Set-up Displays


WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20,2001
AM


7:00-5:00
7:00-8:00
8:00-8:15

8:15-8:30

8:30-9:15




9:15-9:30
9:30-10:15










10:15-10:45
11:00-12:15

PM
12:15-1:30


1:30-2:15


Registration Desk Open
Poster Presenters to Set-up Displays
Welcome and Opening Remarks Mike Martin, Vice-President,
University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Dedication to Dr. Garald Parker, Sr. Carl Goodwin, Chief, Florida
District, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey
Political/Policy Approach to Watershed Management
Keynote Speaker Provocateur 1: Wayne Daltry, Executive
Director, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
Moderator: Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director, Suwannee River
Water Management District
Refreshment Break
Panelist/Speaker Interaction:
Rick Garrity, Director, Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection
George O'Connor, Professor, Soil & Water Science Dept., University
of Florida
Ward Brewer, Founder & President, Pensacola Bay Ecosystem
Management Advisory Council
Richard Gragg, Associate Director, Center for Environmental
Equity and Justice, Environmental Studies Institute, Florida A&M
University
Audience/Panel/Speaker Interaction
Guided Poster Tour (Posters 1-26)


Lunch on your own

Scientific Approach to Watershed Management
Keynote Speaker Provocateur 2: Terry Logan, President, N-Viro
International and Emeritus Professor, Ohio State University


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Moderator: Julie Morris, Commissioner. Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and Coordinator, Environmental
Studies Program, Florida New College
2:15-2:30 Refreshment Break


2:30-3:15 Panelists/Speaker Interaction:
Timothy Feather, Strategic Development Manager, Planning and
Management Consultants, Ltd., Illinois
Tom Swihart, Environmental Administrator, Office of Water
Policy, Division of Water Resource Management, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
Maggie Hurchalla, Former Martin County Commissioner
John Hall, Chief, Regulatory Division, Army Corp of Engineers,
Jacksonville, FL

3:15-3:45 Audience/Panel/Speaker Interaction

4:00-5:15 Guided Poster Tour (Posters 27-51)

5:30-7:30 Poster and Exhibitor Reception

THURSDAY, JUNE 21,2001

AM
7:30-10:30 Registration Desk Open

8:00-8:15 Opening Remarks

8:15-8:45 Integrated Approach to Watershed Management
Keynote Speaker Provocateur 3: Tony Rosenbaum, Professor,
Political Science Dept., University of Florida
Moderator: Stephen Humphrey, Dean, College of Natural Resources
and the Environment, University of Florida

8:45-9:15 Case Study: Lessons Learned
Keynote Speaker: John Dohrmann, Policy Director, Puget Sound
Water Quality Action Team, Washington

9:15-10:00 Panelists/Speaker Interaction:
Sandra Glenn, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional
Planning Council
Terry Logan, President, N-Viro International and Emeritus
Professor, Ohio State University


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


10:00-10:15

10:15-10:45

10:45-12:30



12:30

12:30-1:00


Mary Ann Poole, Biological Administrator, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission
Ronnie Duncan, Southwest Florida Water Management District
Governing Board and President, Duncan Companies, Inc.
Refreshment Break

Audience/Panel/Speaker Interaction

Setting Priorities for Future Directions
Facilitator: Tom Taylor, Assistant Director, Florida Conflict
Resolution Consortium

Conference Concludes

Memorial Dedication Ceremony and Press Conference


June 19-21,2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Appendix VI

Steering and Program Committee Members


Nick Aumen
Everglades Program Team
National Park Service

Rand Baldwin
Southwest Florida Water Management
District & Water Issues Coalition

Larry Battoe
Environmental Sciences Division
St. Johns River Water Management District

Leonard Berry
Florida Center for Environmental Studies
Florida Atlantic University

Ronnie Best
Restoration Ecology Branch
U.S. Geological Survey

Don Bethancourt
National Forests of Florida
USDA Forest Service

David Bracciano
Tampa Bay Water

Rich Budell
Office of Agricultural Water Policy
Florida Department of Agriculture &
Consumer Services

Richard Cabrera
Water Issues Coalition of Hillsborough
County

Tom Crisman
Center for Wetlands
University of Florida

James Cuda
Entomology and Nematology Dept.
University of Florida /IFAS


Bill DeBusk
Soil and Water Science Dept.
University of Florida /IFAS

Bruce Delaney
Former Mayor/Commissioner of
Gainesville, FL

Richard Eckenrod
Tampa Bay Estuary Program

Sara Fotopulos
Florida Local Environmental Resource
Agencies & Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection Commission

Pat Fricano
Watershed Planning and Coordination
Section
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

Wendy Graham
Center for Natural Resources,
Agricultural and Biological Engineering
Dept.
University of Florida/IFAS

Stephanie Haas
Marston Science Library
University of Florida

Victor Heller
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission

Stephen Humphrey
College of Natural Resources and the
Environment
University of Florida

Jennifer Jacobs
Dept. of Civil Engineering
University of Florida


June 19-21, 2001




Watershed Science, Policy, Planning, and Management Can We Make It Work in Florida?


Ed Lowe
Division of Environmental Studies
St. Johns River Water Management District

Frank Mazzotti
Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education
Center
University of Florida/IFAS

Mike McKinney
University of Florida Extension/
Hillsborough County

Louis H. Motz
Florida Water Resource Center
Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering
University of Florida

George O'Connor
Soil and Water Science Dept.
University of Florida/IFAS

Franklin Percival
Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit
U.S. Geological Survey

Nancy Peterson
Center for Natural Resources
University of Florida/IFAS

Stoddard Pickrell
League of Women Voters & Water Issues
Coalition
P. Suresh C. Rao
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University

K Ramesh Reddy
Soil and Water Science Dept.
University of Florida/IFAS


Joe Schaefer
Center for Natural Resources
University of Florida/IFAS


Bill Seaman
Florida Sea Grant College
University of Florida
Will Sheftall
University of Florida Extension/ Leon
County


Judith Simpson
Center for Natural Resources
University of Florida/IFAS

Hanley (Bo) Smith
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Wayne Smith
School of Forest Resources and
Conservation
University of Florida/IFAS

Mike Spranger
Florida Sea Grant College

Randall Stocker
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants
University of Florida/IFAS

Hilary Swain
Archbold Biological Station

Thomas Taylor
Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium
Florida State University

Gwen Tillotson
Southwest Florida Water Management
District
Governing Board & Water Issues Coalition

John Warwick
Environmental Engineering Sciences Dept.
University of Florida

Jim Yawn
Walt Disney Imagineering


June 19-21, 2001








APPENDIX VII

PARTICIPANT LIST


Ms. Loretta Adoghe
Miami Dade Comm College
11380 NW 27th Ave
Miami, FL 33015
305-237-1104 305-237-1529
ladoghe@mdcc.edu

Mark Alderson
Sarasota Bay
5333 N Tamiami Tr
Sarasota FL 34234
941-359-5841 941-359-5846
mark_alderson@ci.sarasota.fl.us

Ms. Towanda Anthony
Florida A&M University
1520 S Bronough St
Tallahassee, FL 32307
850-599-8193
tanthony77@earthlink.net


Mr. Daniel Apt
Florida DEP
400 N Congress Ave
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
561-681-6666 561-681-6755
daniel.apt@dep.state.fl.us

Ms. Wendy-Lin Bartels
UF Center for Natural Resources
Box 110230
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-7622 352-846-2856
ww.wonderlust@hotmail.com

Ms. Nancy Blum
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
631 N Wymore Rd Ste 100
Maitland, FL 32751
407-623-1075 407-623-1084
nancy@ecfrpc.org

Dr. Del Bottcher
Soil & Water Engineering Technology Inc
3448 NW 12th Ave
Gainesville, FL 32605
352-378-7372 352-378-7472
dbottcher@swetcom

Mr. Charles Boulian
Walton Co Public Works
117 Montgomery Cir
DeFuniak Springs, FL 32435
850-892-8108 850-892-8094


Esq. Jackson Bowman
Brigham Moore LLP
100 Wallace Ave
Sarasota, FL 34237
941-365-3800 941-952-1414
jbowman@brighammoore.com

Mr. Ward Brewer
Pensacola Bay EMAC
6223 Hwy 90 #182
Milton, FL 32570
850-623-9083 850-623-9099
tower @pcola.gulf.net

Ms. Cynthia Brown
UF Leon County Ext
615 Paul Russell Rd
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-487-3003 850-487-4817
brownc@mail.co.leon.fl.us

Mr. Geoffrey Brown
UF Multi-County Ext
84 Cedar Ave
Crawfordville, FL 32327
850-926-3931 850-926-8781
geoftb@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Ms. Ima Bujak
St Johns River Water Mgmt
525 Community College Pkwy SE
Palm Bay, FL 32909
321-984-4950 321-984-4937
imabujak@district.sjrwmd.state.fl.us

Ms. Lois Bush
St Johns River Water Mgmt
PO Box 1429
Palatka, FL 32718
904-329-4593 904-329-4485
loisbush@districtsjrwmd.state.fl.us

Dr. Tarunjit Butalia
Ohio State University
470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Ave
Columbus, OH 43210
614-688-3408 614-292-3780
butalia.1@osu.edu

Dr. Mark Clark
UF Center for Natural Resources
Box 110510
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-1803 352-392-3399
clarkmw@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu








Ms. Linda Ann Clemens
Florida DEP
2600 Blair Stone Rd MS 3525
Tallahassee, FL 32327
850-921-9476 850-922-6387
linda.clemens@dep.state.fl.us

Mr. Shawn College
Hillsborough Co Planning Comm
PO Box 1110
Tampa, FL 33601
813-272-5940
colleges@plancom.org

Mr. Peter Colverson
The Nature Conservancy
2700 Scrub Jay Tr
Kissimmee, FL 34759
407-935-0002 407-935-0005
pcolverson@tnc.org

Mr. Jim Cooper
Gasparilla Island Bridge Authority
PO Box 1918
Boca Grande, FL 33921
941-697-2271 941-697-5629
giba@ewol.com

Dr. James Cuda
UF Entomology & Nematology
Box 110620
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-1901 352-392-0190
jcuda@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

Mr. Wayne Daltry
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
PO Box 3455
Ft Myers, FL 33918
941-656-7720
wdaltry@swfrpc.org

Mr. Robert Day
St Johns River Water Mgmt
525 Community College Pkwy SE
Palm Bay, FL 32909
321-984-4950 321-984-4937
robertday@district.sjrwmd.state.fl.us

Dr. William DeBusk
UF Soil & Water Science
Box 110510
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-1804 352-392-3399
wdebusk@ufl.edu

Mr. Juan Diaz-Carreras
South Florida Water Mgmt
3301 Gun Club Rd
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
561-682-6781 561-682-6442
jhdiaz@sfwmd.gov


Mrs. Joann Dixon
US Geological Survey
9100 NW 36 St Ste 107
Miami. FL 33178
305-717-5807 305-717-5801
jdixon@usgs.gov

Mr. John Dohrmann
Puget Sound Action Team
PO Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504
360-407-7305 360-407-7333
jdohrmann@psat.wa.gov

Ms. Deb Drum
South Florida Water Mgmt
3301 Gun Club Rd
West Palm Beach, FL 33463
561-682-2558 561-682-6442
drum@sfwmd.gov

Mrs. Bridgett Duckworth
South Florida Water Mgmt
7335 Lake Ellenor Dr
Orlando, FL 32809
407-858-6100 407-858-6121
bduckwor@sfwmd.gov

Mr. Ronnie Duncan
The Duncan Companies Inc
3030 N Rocky Point Dr #405
Tampa, FL 33607
813-287-0070 813-287-9779
ronnieduncan@duncancompanies.com

Ms. Cindy Dwyer
Miami-Dade Co Planning & Zoning
111 NW 1st St Suite 1220
Miami, FL 33128
305-375-2835 305-375-1091
cdwyer@co.miami-dade.fl.us

Mr. Richard Eckenrod
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
100 8th Ave SE RMI Bldg
St Petersburg, FL 33701
727-893-2765 727-893-2767
reckenrod@tbep.org

Mr. Al Eisenmenger
Hillsborough Co Planning Comm
601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th FL
Tampa, FL 33602
813-985-5977

Ms. Tracy Enright
US Geological Survey
600 4th St S
St Petersburg, FL 33701
727-803-8747 727-803-2032
tenright@usgs.gov








Ms. Melissa Evans
Univ. of South Florida
13201 Bruce B Downs Blvd MDC 56
Tampa, FL 33612
813-974-8226 813-974-4986
meevans@hsc.usf.edu

Dr. Timothy Feather
Planning & Management Consultants Ltd
6352 Hwy 51 S
Carbondale, IL 62901
618-549-2832 618-529-3188
timf@pmcl.com

Mr. Felix Fernandez
Battelle Memorial Institute
4928 Sailfish Dr
Ponce Inlet, FL 32127
386-767-3330 386-760-7927
femandezf-c@battelle.org

Dr. Mitch Flinchum
UF Office of District Directors
PO Box 8003
Belle Glade, FL 33470
561-993-1523 561-992-2078
dmf@gnvl.ifas.ufl.edu

Ms. Sara Fotopulos
Hillsborough Co EPC
1900 9th Ave
Tampa, FL 33605
813-272-5670 813-272-5157
sara@fotopulos.com

Mr. Pat Fricano
Florida DEP
2600 Blair Stone Rd MS 3565
Tallahassee, FL 32399
850-921-2369 850-921-5217
patfricano@dep.state.fl.us

Dr. Richard Garrity
Hillsborough Co EPC
1900 9th Ave
Tampa, FL 33605
813-272-5670 813-272-5157
garrityr@epcjanus.epchc.org

Dr. Nancy Gassman
Broward Co Planning & Env Protection
218 SW 1st Ave
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-519-1464 954-519-1496
ngassman@broward.org

Ms. Sandra Glenn
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
631 N Wymore Rd Ste 100
Maitland, FL 32751
407-623-1075 407-623-1084
sglenn@ecfrpc.org


Mr. Bud Goldsby
Florida Div of Forestry
3125 Conner Blvd C-19
Tallahassee, FL 32399
850-414-9929
goldsbb@doacs.state.fl.us

Mr. Alan Goldstein
South Florida Water Mgmt
3301 Gun Club Rd
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
561-682-3011 561-682-6442
agoldste@sfwmd.gov

Dr. Carl Goodman
US Geological Survey
227 N Bronough St
Tallahassee, FL 32312
850-942-9500 850-942-9521
cgoodwin@usgs.gov

Ms. Patricia Goodman
South Florida Water Mgmt
210 Atlanta Ave
Stuart, FL 34994
561-223-2600 561-223-2608
pgoodman@sfwmd.gov

Mr. Rick Gorsira
CH2M HILL
50 W Sypress St Ste 600
Tampa, FL 33607
813-874-0777 813-874-3056

Dr. Pat Gostel
South Florida Water Mgmt
3301 Gun Club Rd
West Palm Beach, FL 33463
561-223-3612 561-223-2608

Mr. Stephen Grabe
Hillsborough Co EPC
1410 N 21st St
Tampa, FL 33605
813-272-5960 813-272-7144
grabe@epcjanus.epchc.org

Dr. Richard Gragg
Florida A&M University
1520 S Bronough St
Tallahassee, FL 32307
850-599-8549 850-561-2248
richard.gragg 11l@famu.edu

Dr. Wendy Graham
UF Ag & Biological Engineering
Box 110570
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-1864 352-392-4092
wgraham@ufl.edu








Mr. Gregory Graves
Florida DEP
1801 SE Hillmoor Blvd
Port St Lucie, FL 34952
561-398-2806 561-398-2815
greg.graves@dep.state.fl.us

Ms. Kathy Gross
The Nature Conservancy
2700 Scrub Jay Tr
Kissimmee, FL 34747
407-935-0002 407-935-0005
kgross@tnc.org

Ms. Lorraine Guise
Broward Co Planning & Env Protection
218 SW 1st Ave
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-519-0321 954-519-1496
lguise@broward.org

Mr. Boyd Gunsalus
South Florida Water Mgmt
3301 Gun Club Rd
West Palm Beach, FL 33463
800-250-4100 561-223-2698
bgunsalu@sfwmd.gov

Dr. John Hall
US ACE
400 W Bay St
Jacksonville, FL 32202
904-232-1666
john.r.hall@usace.army.mil

Dr. John Harsh
US Geological Survey
4710 Eisenhower Blvd Suite B-5
Tampa, FL 33634
813-884-9336 813-889-9811
jfharsh@usgs.gov

Ms. Sekeenia Haynes
Florida A&M University
1520 S Bronough St 305-D SRC
Tallahassee, FL 32307
850-599-3550 850-561-2246
s_haynes30@hotmail.com

Mr. Robert Heagey
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm
100 8th Ave SE
St Petersburg, FL 33701
727-896-8626 727-893-1271
bob.heagey@fwc.state.fl.us

Ms. Heather Hendrix-Holmes
Univ of South Florida
4202 E Fowler Ave
Tampa, FL 33612
813-974-4094
heath66er@aol.com


Ms. Heather Henkel
US Geological Survey
600 4th St S
St Petersburg, FL 33701
727-803-8747 727-803-2032
hhenkel@usgs.gov

Mr. David Higgins
Lake Co Board of Commissioners
PO Box 7800
Tavares, FL 32778
352-343-9738 352-343-9595
dhiggins@co.lake.fl.us

Dr. Arthur Hornsby
UF Soil & Water Science
Box 110290
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-1951 352-392-3902
agh@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Dr. Stephen Humphrey
UF Natural Resources & Environment
Box 116455
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-9230
humphrey@ufl.edu

Ms. Maggy Hurchalla
Stuart, FL 34997
561-287-0478 561-287-0478
mhurchalla@hotmail.com

Ms. Blanche Jacob
Brown & Caldwell
1060 Maitland Center Commons Suite 402
Maitland, FL 32751
407-661-9500 407-661-9599
bjacob@brwncald.com

Dr. Charles Jacoby
UF Sea Grant
7922 NW 71st St
Gainesville, FL 32653
352-392-9617
cajacoby@ufl.edu

Ms. Sonja Jamilla
Hartman & Associates Inc
201 E Pine St
Orlando, FL 32801
407-839-3955 407-481-8447
svj@consulthai.com

Mr. Charles Jenkins
Farmland Hydro LP
PO Box 960
Bartow, FL 33831
863-519-1334 863-533-8793
cwjenkins@farmland.com








Mr. Dale Jenkins
Moffatt & Nichol Engineers
1509 W Swann Ave Suite 225
Tampa, FL 33606
813-258-8818 813-258-8525
djenkins@moffattnichol.com

Mr. Jerry Joiner
USDA NRCS
PO Box 141510
Gainesville, FL 32614
352-338-9508 352-338-9574
jerry.joiner@fl.usda.gov

Ms. Jo Ann Jolley
Florida Center for Environmental Studies
3932 RCA Blvd #3210
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
561-691-8546 561-691-8540
jjolley@fau.edu

Mr. Jeff Jones
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
631 N Wymore Rd Ste 100
Maitland, FL 32751
407-623-1075 407-623-1084
jjones@ecfrpc.org

Ms. Terry Joseph
West Florida Regional Planning Council
PO Box 486
Pensacola, FL 32593
850-595-8910 850-595-8967
josepht@wfrpc.dst.fl.us

Mr. Ricky Keck
Farmland Hydro LP
PO Box 960
Bartow, FL 33831
863-519-1232 863-533-8793
rlkeck@farmland.com

Mr. Robert Knight
Office of Utility Regulation
3600 W Sovereign Path Suite 269
Lecanto, FL 34461
352-527-5442 352-527-5319
robert.knight@bocc.citrus.fl.us

Mr. Larry Korhnak
UF Forest Resources & Conservation
PO Box 110410
Gainesville, FL 32611

Mr. Gary Kuhl
Hillsborough County
705 E Kennedy Blvd
Tampa, FL 33602
813-301-7256 813-301-7254
kuhlg@hillsboroughcounty.org


Dr. Herb Kumpf
NOAA NMFS
3500 Delwood Beach Rd
Panama City, FL 32408
850-234-6541 850-235-3559
herb.kumpf@noaa.gov

Mr. Stephen Lane
SAIC
107 Hwy 85 N
Shalimar, FL 32578
850-882-4164
laines@eglin.af.mil

Mr. David Lee
Broward Co Planning & Env Protection
218 SW 1st Ave, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-519-1570 954-519-1496
dlee@broward.org

Mr. Jim Lee
Friends of the Wekiva River Inc
PO Box 6196
Longwood, FL 32791
407-660-6315 407-875-1161
leejb@cdm.com

Dr. Hal Lendbel
Town of Longboat Key
501 Bay Isles Rd
Longboat Key, FL 34228
941-316-1999 941-316-1942
donnas@cyberstreetcom

Ms. Danile Levy
EA Engineering Science & Technology
15500 New Barn Rd
Miami Lakes, FL 33014
305-819-2212 305-819-3383
dlevy@eaest.com

Ms. Sheri Lewin
Mitigation Marketing Inc
1031 W Morse Blvd Suite 305
Winter Park, FL 32789
407-599-7134 407-629-8179
mmisheri@aol.com

Dr. Zhongyan Lin
Hillsborough Co EPC
1410 N 21st St
Tampa, FL 36605
813-272-5960 813-272-7144
lin@epcjanus.epchc.org

Dr. Terry Logan
N-Viro International Corp
1814 Andover Rd
Columbus, OH 43212
614-487-9521 614-487-9539
tlogan@nviro.com








Mr. Jeffrey Mahan
EA Engineering Science & Technology
11019 McCormick Rd
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
410-527-2452 410-527-1068
jmahan@eaest.com

Mr. Richard Marella
US Geological Survey
227 N Bronough St Ste 3015
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-942-9500 850-942-9521
rmarella@usgs.gov

Dr. Michael Martin
VP Ag & Natural Resources
PO Box 110180
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-1971 352-392-6932
mvm@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Mr. Robert McConnell
Tampa Bay Water
2535 Landmark Dr Suite 211
Clearwater, FL 33761
727-791-2376 727-791-2388
rmcconell@tampabaywater.org

Mr. Brian McCord
Danone Waters of North America
7100 NE CR 340
Gainesville, FL 32643
904-454-5907 904-454-1918
brian.mccord@danone.com

Ms. Kay McDaniel
Tampa Electric Co
5010 Causeway Blvd
Tampa, FL 33619
813-630-7374 813-630-7350
ckmcdaniel@tecoenergy.com

Ms. Lynn McGarvey
Tampa Bay Sierra Co-Conservation Chair
13610 Diamond Head Dr
Tampa, FL 33624
813-960-1090
mcgarv@prodigy.net

Mr. Sean McGary
Passarella & Associates Inc
4575 Vai Royale Suite 201
Ft Myers, FL 33919
941-274-67 941-274-0069
seanm@passarella.net

Mr. Michael McKinney
UF Hillsborough County Ext
5339 S CR 579
Seffner, FL 33549
813-744-5519 813-744-5776
mfmckinney@mail.ifas.ufl.edu


Dr. Benjamin McPherson
US Geological Survey
4710 Eisenhower Blvd Suite B-5
Tampa, FL 33634
813-884-9336 813-889-9811
bmcphers@usgs.gov

Mr. Paul Millar
South Florida Water Mgmt
210 Atlanta Ave
Stuart, FL 34994
561-223-2600 561-223-2608
pmillar@sfwmd.gov

Ms. Connie Mizak
Hillsborough Co EPC
1410 N 21st St
Tampa, FL 33605
813-272-5530 813-272-5605
mizakc@epcjanus.epchc.org

Ms. Julie Morris
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm
5700 N Tamiami Trail
Sarasota, FL 34243
941-359-4299 941-359-4538
monis@sar.usf.edu

Mr. Dennis Mudge
UF Orange Co Ext
2350 E Michigan St
Orlando, FL 32806
407-836-7567 407-836-7578
dmmudge@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Mr. Troy Mullis
Florida DEP
2600 Blair Stone Rd
Tallahassee, FL 32399
850-488-8163 850-921-2769
troy.mullis@dep.state.fl.us

Dr. Bob Myer
UF North Florida REC
3925 Hwy 71
Marianna, FL 32446
850-482-9904 850-482-9917
bmyer@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Dr. Rao Mylavarapu
UF Soil & Water Science
Box 110290
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-846-3833 352-392-3902
raom@ufl.edu

Mr. Luke Ney
Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy
60 Pleasant St Apt 201
Arlington, MA 02476
617-627-5771
lolney@rcn.com








Dr. George O'Connor
UF Soil & Water Science
Box 110510
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-7181 352*392-3399
gao@ufl.edu

Ms. Kathleen O'Neil
UF Environmental Engineering Sciences
Box 116450
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-332-3888 352-332-3222
oneil@ufl.edu

Ms. Margie Owens
UF Center of Natural Resources
1051 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-7622 352-846-2856
mrowens@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Ms. Sherry Pennington
Brigham Moore LLP
100 Wallace Ave
Sarasota, FL 34237
941-365-3800 941-952-1414
spennington@brighammoore.com

Mr. Dennis Peters
SAIC
1140 Eglin Pkwy
Shalimar, FL 32579
850-609-3414 850-651-0775
petersd@saic.com

Ms. Nancy Peterson
UF Center for Natural Resources
Box 110230
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-7622 352-846-2856
njp@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Mr. Alan Pierce
FDACS
1203 Governors Square Blvd Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-488-6249 850-921-2153

Ms. Mary Ann Poole
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm
255 154th Ave
Vero Beach, FL 32968
561-778-5094 561-778-7227
poolem@gfc.state.fl.us

Dr. Bill Price
UF Lake County Ext
30205 SR 19
Tavares, FL 32778

Mr. Walter Quintero-Betancourt
Univ of South Florida
140 7th Ave S
St Petersburg, FL 33701
727-553-3415 727-553-1189
walter@marine.usf.edu


Mrs. Heidi Rhoades
110 NE 8th St
Delray Beach, FL 33444
561-243-1642
thmlbeena@aol.com

Mr. Troy Rice
St Johns River Water Mgmt
525 Community College Pkwy SE
Palm Bay, FL 32909
321-984-4950 321-984-4937
troyrice@district.sjrwmd.state.fl.us

Mr. Joseph Richards
Pasco County Attorney's Office
7530 Little Rd Suite 340
New Port Richey, FL 34654
727-847-8120 727-847-8021

Dr. Donald Rockwood
UF Forest Resources & Conservation
Box 110410
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-846-897 352-846-1277
dlr@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

Dr. Tony Rosenbaum
UF Political Science
Box 117325
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-0262
tonyros@polisci.ufl.edu

Mr. Jerry Scarborough
Suwannee River Water Mgmt
9225 CR 49
Live Oak, FL 32060
386-362-1001 386-362-1056

Dr. Joe Schaefer
UF Center for Natural Resources
Box 110230
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-7622 352-846-2856
jms@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Mr. Dan Schmutz
Tampa Bay Water
2535 Landmark Dr Suite 211
Clearwater, FL 33761
727-791-2345

Mr. Will Sheftall
UF Leon County Ext
615 Paul Russell Rd
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-487-3003 850-487-4817
williams@mail.co.leon.fl.us

Mr. Mark Shelby
UF Sarasota County Ext
2900 Ringling Blvd
Sarasota, FL 34237
941-316-1000 941-316-1005
mshelby@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu








Ms. Kim Shugar
Florida DEP
2600 Blair Stone Rd MS 3560
Tallahassee, FL 32399
850-921-9395 850-412-0624
kimberly.shugar@dep.state.fl.us

Sonjay Shukla
UF Ag & Biological Engineering
2686 SR 29 N
Immokalee, FL 33907
941-658-3400 941-658-3419
sshukla@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Dr. Janas Sinclair
Florida International University
3000 NE 151 St ACII 335
North Miami, FL 33181
305-919-5259 305-919-5215
sinclair@fiu.edu

Mr. AJ Singh
UF Center for Natural Resources
Box 110230
Gainesville, FL 32611

Ms. Mellini Sloan
Hartman & Associates Inc
201 E Pine St, Ste 1000
Orlando, FL 32801
407-839-3955 407-839-3790

Dr. Hanley "Bo" Smith
US ACE PO Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232
904-232-1685 904-232-3442
bo.smith@usace.army.mil

Mr. Darrell Smith
Div of Admin Ag Water Policy
1203 Governors Sq Blvd 2nd Fl
Tallahassee, FL 32399

Ms. Shayla Smith
UF Center for Natural Resources
Box 110230
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-7622 352-846-2856
cnrnmail@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Dr. Wayne Smith
UF Forest Resources & Conservation
Box 110410
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-846-0850 352-392-1707
whsmith@ufl.edu


Mr. Brian Sodt
Central Florida Regional Planning Council
Box 2089
Bartow, FL 33831
863-534-7130 863-534-7138
bsodt@cfrpc.org


Mr. Daniel Somodi
Manatee Co Ag & Natural Resources
6900 Professional Pkwy E Suite 200
Sarasota, FL 34240
941-907-0011 941-907-0015
daniel-somodi@fl.nacdnet.org

Dr. Mike Spranger
UF Sea Grant
Box 110405
Gainesville, FL 32611

Ms. Joanne Spurlino
7224 N Mobley Rd., Odessa, FL 33556
813-926-9311 813-920-0153
spurlinoj @aol.com

Mr. Andrew Squires
Pinellas Co DEM
300 S Garden Ave
Clearwater, FL 33756
727-464-4425 727-464-4403
Pinellas.fl.usasquires@co.

Mr. Michael Stallings
US Geological Survey
600 4th St S
St Petersburg, FL 33701
727-803-8747 727-803-2032
mkstallings@usgs.gov

Ms. Jo Anne Stapleton
US Geological Survey
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr MS 521
Reston, VA 20192
703-648-4592 703-648-4614
jastapleton@usgs.gov

Ms. Jennifer Steadman Ryan
Sarasota Co Environmental Services
1301 Cattlemen Rd Rm 218
Sarasota, FL 34232
941-378-6142 941-378-6136
jsryan@co.sarasota.fl.us

Dr. William Stimmel
South Florida Water Mgmt
7335 Lake Ellenor
Orlando, FL 32809
407-858-6100 407-858-6121
wstimmel@sfwmd.gov

Dr. Karen Strasser
Univ of Tampa
Box 108F 401 W Kennedy Blvd
Tampa, FL 33606
813-253-3333 813-258-7881
kstrasser@alpha.utampa.edu

Mr. Ray Swicegood
Suwannee River Water Mgmt
9225 CR 49
Live Oak, FL 32060
904-362-1001 904-362-1056
swicegood_r@srwmd.state.fl.us




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

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