Today's scientists and science communicators have to navigate a complex and rapidly changing media environment (National Academies 2016). Americans are divided along party lines in terms of how they view the value and objectivity of scientists. In particular, there are sizable gaps between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to trust in scientists whose work is related to the environment (Funk et al. 2019). In a media landscape pocked with skepticism and false claims, partnerships with trusted institutions are valuable and critical (Nesbit 2014, Skorton 2018). Intermediaries like docents, interpretive rangers, and guides who work in museums, zoos, and aquariums win high marks for trust among public audiences. These interpreters have the potential to increase the public's perception of the value of scientific research (National Research Council 2009, Schneider 2017). As truth is replaced with true-sounding "post-facts," it is critical for science to advance the most accurate knowledge (Plavén-Sigray et al. 2017). One way to do so is to maximize its accessibility to non-specialists. However, scientists and interpreters face time constraints that limit opportunities for in-depth, face-to-face exchanges about place-based studies. Furthermore, scientists' published, peer-reviewed articles are often not accessible to professional audiences outside academe (Merson et al. 2017). With readability of scientific texts decreasing (Plavén-Sigray et al. 2017), research briefs are a valuable and reasonable compromise.