Madison, Wisconsin
August 24-28, 2004
[updated 10/5/04]
What were the strengths of this course? What did you value most?
 | This is an excellent course! |
| Good planning and strong host team! Other strengths: Keeping us ‘on our feet’, both in the class and on the road; different presentation styles; data-rich presentations; real world examples; A+ facilities; good cross-section of states and disciplines. |
| Good overview of how policy affects different groups; good exchange between the states on how they have established their individual programs. |
| The diversity of the participants from different agencies and regions. I valued many of the side comments and conversations and learned a lot. |
| The strengths were the high quality hosts and presenters. |
| Interaction among colleagues was most important to me. Presentations by PREP attendees were most helpful and relevant—good to know what states and regions are currently dealing with. |
| The mixture of field trips, lectures, and group exercises was great. Overall I though the course was very beneficial. |
| Meeting others with similar work roles and problems; group discussions and sharing of solutions to specific problems. |
| Discussions among the states to speculate and brainstorm! |
| Presentations from states were very useful to see what others are doing. Nice mix of classroom and fieldtrips. Good location, setup, and organization. Small groups made for good interaction. Length of presentations about right. Comfortable facilities. Good and overly abundant food. The theme ‘water issues in science and policy’ was followed well. |
| The course was terrific! I learned much. I really liked the field trips and technical lectures. I could live without the group exercise. Thank you so much! |
| Presentations on pesticide problems and how they are dealt with and proposed plans for dealing with excessive chemical concentrations. |
| The workgroup formation worked well—structured seating reinforced this. The participant level of work and involvement was high. The water quality issues and related agriculture practices more appropriate than California. The initiative to rotate among regions is good. I liked the high level of Regional participation; this should also be maintained. |
| Seeing how others handle their problems and the interactions with others; addressing cutting-edge issues like WA’s salmon and GMOs. |
| Interaction and contact with other states and tribes. |
How could future PREP courses on water quality be improved?
| Five days might be a little long; condense to four days. |
| Overall, too much packed into five days. University should take more of a backseat and charge participants with responsibility of class content. |
| Shorten by a day or two less--very difficult to be away from dependant children. |
| Focus less on nutrient problems. |
| Focus on different types of pesticide use in urban/suburban watersheds, turf grass, golf course, and residential lawns. More focus on endangered species and water quality standards and TMDLs. Closer ties to CWA program requirements. |
| I would like a half-day at minimum devoted to presentations on pesticides used that are a threat to water quality, the ones that are on the horizons. Why are they problems? What are states/regions doing to address this? More on pesticide TMDLs. More on surface water issues from specific pesticides. The first day—3 presenters on the policy/science interface is too much. |
| Perhaps locate them in one of three or four different regions of the country on an alternating/rotational basis. I heard a lot of comments that the best thing about this PREP was that it occurred in a place other than Davis, CA. |
| I know there is a cost factor, but more states need to participate!! |
| Keep it focused on water quality (the potato IPM tour either avoided or ignored the WQ-pesticide issue). |
| More time for open/full group discussions. Less extension time. |
| Continue to connect science with policy. Bring in speakers to talk on this. Mainly emphasize state experiences. Keep talking heads to a minimum. Make sure Extension field trips can make a linkage to water quality. Don’t spend too much time with something like Healthy Grown. We don’t need to go to a processing plant; I enjoyed it but it is not necessary. Ecosystem visit could have been the golf course or the prairie chicken reserve. |
| Bring in different examples of traditional problems. In pre-conference survey, ask for questions you want HQ management to answer ahead of time. |
| Some field trips could have been avoided because the relationship to S&P was not there. Do more of what we did on Coloma Farms and the presentation by participants. |
| Avoid bus lectures. Too many different topics in too short a time. |
| The field trips were entertaining and interesting, but tie-ins to WQ in many cases were weak (e.g. the Central Sands area tour didn’t start off with an explanation of the WQ problems and how the IPM work contributed to the solutions.) |
| I would suggest one or two case studies presented and discussed in depth (e.g. ‘WI’s Atrazine prohibition’ or ‘dealing with degradates’). Too many presentations were about technology not science. |
How would you rate the hosts on the course’s organization, logistics, and support?
Rating out of 4.0: 3.9
| Very good—very smooth—very informative. |
| Fantastic job, great accommodations. One thing to think about is the possibility of shortening by one day so participants can get home and catch a breath before returning to work the next day. |
| Great food, great staff, great commitment. |
| UW did an outstanding job!! I cannot think of a future improvement beyond a provision for all participants to stay in a central location. This would better facility state/tribe and federal agency interactions. |
| They were great; I saw no area that needed improvement. |
| Close to airport; great facilities; arrived just before students; super weather; perfect host. |
| Wisconsin did a great job. |
| Very well put together and run course. Felt some content of the field trip veered from water quality. |
| They were great hosts but dominated the presentations too much. |
| Everything was great! |
| Excellent setting and staff; an overview of the area on the first day might help; prior to the course send information on the area. |
| The course was well organized and moved very smoothly. |
| The computer access of the University was unique and good. Good job! |
| An exercise hour to work off the great food. Seriously, no complaints or suggestions—they were great! |
| Pete was excellent about keeping the schedule…keep up the good work! |
| Fabulous. Everything appeared to run very smoothly and the WISP staff is very friendly. Good company! |
| I would have liked opportunities for sightseeing and recreation. |
How would you rate the lodging, food, and facilities?
Rating out of 4.0: 4.0(!)
| I don’t think you can improve on the University’s services. Excellent food and facilities. |
| Outstanding! They’ve set the bar really high for other places. |
| Nothing could be better. |
| Excellent! |
| I don’t think you could improve the desserts! |
| Excellent, although I was surprised by the lack of Wisconsin cheese at meals.(!) |
| Excellent facilities and lodging. |
| The Fluno Center was a great place to have a conference on campus. |
| Skip the fish boil; great place to stay; great food; best of all time; let’s come back. |
| Fantastic, but could get by with significantly less luxury. |
| I felt a bit guilty in such a nice room with tax player money. |
| No complaints. |
| Outstanding! |
| Find a way to integrate EPA and states and tribes lodging. I heard a comment from a state stating that it ‘further contributed to the ‘us vs. them mentality’. |
| Excellent—I had no area that needed improvement. |
| The best. |
| Less dessert, our will power is low! |
Would you recommend this PREP course to a colleague? Why?
Yes: 100%
| In depth focus; quality of information and experience. |
| Good content, good environment, different topics and issues from last course. |
| Good overview of pesticides and water quality |
| Yes, however, focus on pesticide/water quality management. Urban issues should also be addressed. |
| Yes, as long as you shortened some of the field days! |
| Gives you a sense that you are part of a larger group with common goals and problems, and offers a great opportunity to seek solutions to problems you are encountering in your part of the country. |
| I thought the course provided a balanced view of science issues related to water with political issues of implementation. |
| This was a really good session. In the future, could we go to a place where we can visit multiple states, like Sioux City or Kansas City to see multiple state issues? North Carolina or Florida would be good. Bring in a trainer to help coach on answering questions at a meeting, like TV or PR trainers. |
| Great way to meet and get to know your colleagues in WQ. |
| Wakes you up to the real world and the disconnects that exist between the member agencies. |
| It is always good to interact with others in similar positions and get new perspectives. |
| Maybe—it’s a very large time commitment and I would want to see detailed agenda. Only if it’s less ag specific. |
| PREP is a good investment of states’ time. |
| Informative, well run, good overall learning experience. |
| Very informative in current issues; sharing latest technology; building a teamwork mentality; and transfer of information from the veterans to the ‘newbies’. |
| Very relevant and timely. |
| Interactions with others and sampling of what is going on is very helpful. |
What other programs would you like PREP to offer?
| Look at policy and agency duties—how were states able to establish multi-agency cooperation? |
| A program on national and state activities needed to protect endangered species. |
| One on buffers, perhaps? |
| Pesticide disposal issues and policy development: if SFIREG develops a new issues paper process, PREP could enhance (but not replace) the work done on these new work/issue groups. This will help cross the EPA-style boundaries and the EPA X-program interactions. |
| Surface water and pesticides; presentation training (brief); working with the press and the art of press releases; communication strategies; pesticide and water quality education; state-region-headquarter communication processes; building relations with industry and environmentalists; tapping into funding sources; working with the USDA and SCD (where is NRCS?); setting up a state work-plan for Headquarters and regions; working with EPA registrants and labs on new pesticide methods; and water quality evaluations on new or future registered pesticides. |
| Urban pesticide issues; bio pesticides; West Nile virus (and similar diseases) focus; monitoring and analytical issues. |
| Focus on ‘marketing’—how to communicate and sell your info and program to various stakeholder groups. |
| Drift air concerns and water; movement of pesticides. |
| The effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs. |
| I believe combining aspects of endangered species concerns with WQ is already in progress. ESA is clearly a topic from product registration and re-registration but WQ needs to make ESA part of the agenda, yearly. The EPA really can’t afford and manage an ESA by itself. Also, ESA is already established or was established as a single separate effort in the past. |
| Water quality and nutrients. Phosphorus index (etc.) or nitrates. |
| Would like to see a course with state, EPA and advocacy groups meet regarding science and policy and growers to get better understanding and cooperation. |
| Something specifically on toxicology and risk assessment. |
| Maybe a course on the relationship between surface and ground water. |