 | Nearly all new vs. 2001! Added sections on federal statutes. |
| Camaraderie vs. fellow regulators. News of NRCS programs. |
| Although course may be too long, I do not think anything
could be accomplished in a shorter course. |
| Overall good course. |
| The food was terrific as always. Thanks! |
| I enjoyed the course, adding the state WQ person is valuable,
try to get more states to do so. |
| State presentations were most valuable. |
| The strength of this course is the opportunity it provides
for interacting with other agencies. Bringing along a water quality
counterpart is an excellent idea, which seems to work for some states. The
question should be asked to determine why al states did not bring a water
quality counterpart. Do they know who that is? |
| I learned a great deal about the funding available to
agencies for pesticides that I was completely unaware of. UD Davis did a
great job putting this course together. |
| Presentations by state attendees, Farm Bill. |
| Other states’ information and feedback. Hearing what
other states have implemented and possible program successes. |
| One thing I liked about having both water and pesticide
folks was that presenters had to explain details, just in case. Translate
jargon and that kind of stuff. |
| Interaction between state and feds. |
| The ability to maintain contact with national issues from a
national perspective and to make/review contacts with counterparts
nationally. |
| State presentations were most valuable. |
| A weakness of the course is that many of the presentations
were either too basic (CWA, Pesticides 101) or not engaging (NRCS). The
strongest presentations were those where there was an explicit direct
connection made to pesticide issues (Nelson Thurman, Florida) or cooperative
programs (Florida) that could directly be applied to other state programs.
The exercises were very valuable, and should be integral parts of the
course. So less focus on lectures where presentators simply related program
details without regards for the pesticide interests of the audience; greater
emphasis on pesticides; and more exercises to directly involve participants. |
| Make sure field trips are relevant. |
| Place greater emphasis on the states to deliver information
about their programs to manage water quality issues (from pesticides). What
methods are used? Perhaps you need to bring more of a "technical
how-to" component to the course. Highlight state programs that can
serve as models for other states. |
| Send invitation to prep course via office of water to state
water agencies directly so they can identify most appropriate person to send
from their agency. |
| Once again, the course was a bit too long. The final day is
a bit exhausting. Four-day course –give it a try. |
| For the break out sessions, I suggest that the groups be
smaller so everyone can contribute, or have facilitator. |
| The final session should be held prior to lunch on final
day. |
| Encourage EPA regional offices to initiate regional
PREP-style courses with pesticide and water quality facilitator by EPA. |
| Need to focus more on identification issues. Make sure OWO
attends in adequate numbers. |
| I suggest more facilitated discussion on issues. |
| A little more elbowroom at the tables would be good. |
| Mix up the working groups for each exercise. Make course 1
day shorter and start on a Sunday so Saturday is the first travel day. |
| Emphasize to participants that we are
"brainstorming" or trying to put many ideas out there for
discussion. There were a couple of states that would shoot down ideas before
we had a chance to discuss them. Maybe they don’t work, but we have to
work through the logistics to see why they won’t work (and perhaps learn
something along the way), or just may be that those ideas would work in some
other state. I felt that I did not get a good grasp of some issues/ideas
because discussions were cut out short by these states. I know you can’t
control personalities, but we can control the discussions to some extent. |
| Improve "invitation" process, facilitate
cooperation with letters from headquarters to state agency heads re: staff
attending course. |
| Suggest a glossary of terms and acronyms-water and
pesticide people use different jargon, and different states use different
jargon i.e., AICAFO. |
| Suggest adding paired presentations from public interest
groups, one that feels too little has been done, one that feels that things
are going too far. Many states haven’t experienced the public pressure and
controversy yet and are interested in what might be out there in the future. |
| Since the course has obviously been going on for quite some
time, it was developed its own traditions and "culture". This is
not necessarily a bad thing, but I notice that there is a sort of old
boy/old girl group that tends to dominate things. I suggest the facilitators
put some more effort in to drawing out the quieter participants to do so
also. |
| Memorial Union: needed a little more elbowroom. Course one
day too long. |
| While le exercises provide an opportunity to examine some
aspects of water quality issues, the breaking into smaller groups really
seems to be a waste of time. A great deal of the discussion in the
"other" groups is missed. Need to examine the same questions but
as a whole group discussion. |
| Not sure why we wasted so much time on Florida. Too much
preaching to the choir. Could have been easily covered in half and hour. |
| California might be the land of fruits and nuts but we need
something for lunches – like real food. |
| No UC Davis staff went with us to the teleconference at
Sacramento State. There should have been coordinators around all the time.
The faculty coordinators should not have had to deal with course logistics. |
