University of California, Davis
September 8-12, 2008
[updated 10/1/08]
WAS THE AGENDA FOR THIS COURSE ADEQUATE AND DID IT MEET YOUR EXPECTATION?
 | Yes it was more than adequate. Participant level of expertise is so varied and willingness to engage is so varied, that the agenda must necessarily be varied. Good job of finding balance. Overall? Most excellent course!! |
| Yes, it met my expectations. I did not think some of the sessions were going to be as good as they turned out to be. |
| Too packed and not enough Q&A. |
| I am being tapped as a resource to work on the POINTS database project and since water quality monitoring is not my primary job, the course agenda covered a lot of areas that I need to be aware of and cross/train into. |
| I found the agenda adequate. It included a range of topics that addressed important issues, especially regulatory that will help me as a new employee to further grow into and participate in this area. |
| Exceeded expectations, as always. The POINTS database emphasis was just right, time-wise. Room, facilities, meals were GREAT! Tom Steeger and the UC Davis lecturer of Pesticide Chemistry were awesome. |
| Agenda was good with emphasis and focus on a variety of applicable topics. Although a couple of presentations left me curious, most were great and to the point. |
| Yes. There were many good topics covered throughout the week. |
| Excellent agenda. Covered a wide range of issues from agricultural issues to urban issues to social issues. Also, answered many questions related to POIs and POCs. Extremely well organized. Exceeded expectations. |
| Agenda was adequate - I wanted to hear about POIs/POCs but ended up more confused because every state seemed to be defining them differently especially in POINTS. |
| Having participants contribute to the formal agenda is far more valuable (and interesting) then the short state reports. Based on the materials presented, the challenges for new things to learn about (follow up on) is high. |
| Yes. The group was very diverse in terms of experience and I thought the course was well-rounded. Although I appreciate the scientific presentations, I was hoping for more hands-on, practical regulation/implementation information. For example, what states have the authority to do and how they manage things they do not have specific authority to do? |
| Kelly Moran, Ron Tjeerdema, Linda Prokopy, Lisa Nowell and Tom Steeger - great additions to the faculty. |
| I was expecting more general discussion with Q&A sessions with EPA about the program and overall grant-guidance compliance. Many of us have discussed that we may be leaving with more questions than answers. *I wrote the above statement before the discussion on grant guidance. That section did allow more general discussion - opportunity to express concerns. |
| Yes. A good mix of technical/policy topics, although the POINTS database was presented, I was looking for a more detailed explanation of how and why the specific reporting elements were derived. |
| I think the first 3 days were kind of slow. Perhaps breaking up the day with more interactive discussion would help. State presentations were a bit repetitive. Perhaps the charge should be modified for next time. |
| Yes - it was, for the most part, very engaging and informative. I think I got a lot out of this session. State presentations were great again! |
| Good mix of technical and practical. |
| Very good agenda - especially valued the open round table and problem solving sessions. Past PREPs did not have as much participant participation. Great mix this time. |
| Yes, thank you for the opportunity to collaborate! |
| Sessions of top/value/interest: 1. Urban runoff - UC Ext 2. Modeling - Purdue 3. Veg drainage ditches - EPA CA 4. Fate of pesticides 5. Social indicators 6. Sessions where there were sharing between states. Sessions of lesser value: Database sessions - too much time dedicated to POINTS session could flow better. |
| Yes and yes - it was almost too much!! |
| The agenda was very good. You did a great job at arranging the session to have a good flow through the week. |
| Yes, this was a very good WQ PREP. |
| Yes. It’s a hard thing to balance, time, subjects, and approaches. But as usual I think it was right there with the early courses. |
| The agenda met my expectations for the most part. It helped me realize what’s important to other states. |
| The course exceeded my expectations. |
| I wasn’t sure what to expect. This is my 1st PREP. I was expecting to be a sponge more than a contributor during the course. However, I thought that some of the "interactions" and feedback sessions could have been more focused. Also could use more but shorter breaks. More breaks in a.m. would be useful to help "purge" all that a.m. coffee and tea. |
| Yes, I think generally the agenda was very good and contained a rich and diversity of subject matter. There may have been value to adding a basic management session toward the end to frame an approach to addressing an environmental/management problem and tools to address the problem. |
| Yes. |
| Yes, very detailed and touched on most subjects relevant to my state. |
| As always, PREP exceeded my already high expectations. Overall, speakers were appropriate for topics, interacted well with the participants and provided valuable information. Enjoyed variety of activities (lecture, field, computer lab, small groups). Certainly leaving with new knowledge of water quality, in general and specific ideas for my state. |
WHAT COULD THE PREP PLANNERS HAVE DONE TO MAKE THIS COURSE MORE USEFUL TO YOU?
| I think that planners should consider shortening this course by one day and/or a more tightly developed agenda to avoid redundancy and create a better "whole." And/or seek attendee nominations first, then develop agenda through a survey of nominees -> in this way, certain elements of the course can be directly responsive to nominee/attendee issues/concerns. |
| I wish we could have invited more states to attend since we were talking about how to manage the POINTS system. |
| Shorten this PREP agenda or increase number of days. |
| Possibly would have helped to have a more robust pre-course document, say Env. Chem. 101 to refresh my memory. |
| A suggestion for a possible modification in the program is to include more breakout sessions, especially during the first days of this agenda, which were somewhat an overload of information. |
| 1. Uncertain about the emphasis on modeling use. 2. Very hot water to brew tea or more of the wonderful iced tea at lunch. 3. Late arriving and departing flights were more difficult for 3-hour time zone differences. |
| Class participation is paramount to the success of these courses. I would recommend that the course announcement explicitly state that participation is not appreciated, but expected. All states have much to gain and contribute in these courses. Smaller group exercises (4 to 6/group) would enhance participation by all attendees. |
| I would have liked a computer lab session for POINTS. |
| Continue to make sure that in future PREP courses that people from HQ participate. This was invaluable in getting a clearer understanding on issues. Perhaps have someone with the regulation division or BEAD attend to address labels and economic analysis - if applicable to future PREP course. |
| How about breakout groups to split manager/non technical people from technical types so each group could get more information pertinent to them? |
| I hope the group enjoyed this course. I feel good about what we accomplished. The most important accomplishment/measure of success will be if recommendations make it into the next guidance and POINTS database revisions. |
| Staff was terrific. |
| It has been extremely useful. In the technical presentations, a more simplified introduction may have helped with understanding. |
| Provide an overview of CWA 319 funds. |
| I really liked the technical presentations of interpretation of WQ data and would like to hear more. Would like to hear more practical discussion of BMP implementation. |
| This is personal bias - but include more of a groundwater focus to some of the sessions. Very surface water-oriented. Maybe just make more even. I personally don’t like so much focus on the planning/program management side (though I think the overall agenda was pretty even). |
| A couple of the POINTS demos could have been coordinated a bit more. Laying out authorities under different act CWA, SDWA etc. and what S&Ds, benchmarks etc. are how branches feed into this. |
| Ease up on the agenda and allow more time for questions/discussions after each presentation. |
| This could be 2 separate PREPs - 5 days did not allow as much discussion as I would like. |
| A little more time for state presentations would be nice. These were curtailed this PREP to make room for some excellent presentation. I know this week is only so long, but everyone seems to like the state presentations. |
| Maybe a couple of more group exercises earlier in the week. |
| I wasn’t too impressed with the field trip - the native plantscape was interesting but it’s still being watered. I would have rather seen more buffer strip and drain tile issues -> CA, seems to have a contradiction - what do you want more a billion dollar ag industry or 500 sq. feet or green grass? |
| I’m interested in data on the effectiveness of BMPs - if there is good info available on that I’d like to see and discuss it with peers. |
| I would like to see the groups break out to scientists, managers, etc. in a session to gain experience from my direct peers. |
| Better prepare newcomers for course with background info that may help. |
| A few more small group sessions may have been useful in addressing tools and overcoming barriers to using WQ information vis-a-vis pesticides in managing a problem. Again a basic management session might have been useful/help assist groups in working through the real world problem breakout session. |
| Roundtables were a little under-structured (those involving whole groups). Small groups were fine. |
| See last 2 comment sections. |
| As I am on the program management side of the water quality protection program, more emphasis on the administration, reporting, guidance etc. would have provided more applicable information. That being said, I do have a better appreciation for the technical side of the program (i.e. analytical methods, lab capabilities, product chemistries). |
IF THIS COURSE WAS TO BE HELD AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, CAN YOU SUGGEST FACULTY WHO COULD SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE THE AGENDA?
| Dr. David Mulla, University of Minnesota, Dept. of Soil, Water and Climate (pesticide fate modeling). |
| We could possibly move to another location to take advantage of different faculty. |
| Yes, WRRI, NM/NMSU. |
| I don’t currently have anyone in mind that could contribute more positively than the group that was assembled. |
| Hope we can return to OW and SW monitoring emphasis especially aquifer vulnerability. Going outdoors into the warm CALIFORNIA sunshine for some sessions was a plus! Field trip was excellent in every respect; especially the water treatment plant - well prepared guides. |
| Yes, depending on topic addressed, could provide suggestion of faculty. |
| Someone to talk about different analytical methods being used by different states (Heidi Hickes, Angela Schaner, MDA) or programs. Emerging Sampling Techniques (USGS, David Alvarez?) |
| There were several instructional topics that were "just right" for the agenda but really deserved additional training time (i.e. modeling - USGS data eval - social indicators - state benchmarks, etc.) |
| Model. |
| I’ll keep my eyes open. |
| No, sorry. |
| All good. |
| Possible consider new technologies related to water analysis/contaminant identification. |
| I am interested how other states manage their programs what tasks are done by which agency (ag, environment, natural resources) their staffing levels, their budget, where their funding comes from, do they do state registration etc. Maybe a big white board that people can fill out and review over time. |
| Can you get Jake back as the graduation dinner speaker? |
| Not this time but I’m interested in info on groundwater benchmarks for the many pesticides that don’t have them. |
| Yes. |
| No, although I did like the Pesticide Chemistry session with Ron Tjeerdema. The Social Indicators session (Linda Prokopy) session was informative, too. |
| More focused (longer sessions) on benchmarks and management issues. |
| Enjoyed many of the speakers used in this course. In particular, Kelly Moran (Urban Use); Ron Tjeerdema (Pesticide Chemistry); Bernie Engel (Modeling); and Linda Prokopy (Social Indicators). |
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
| Thank you, thank you. This represents a great effort on the part of planners and implementers (Dea, Suzanne, et al). Also, thanks to EPA for supporting PREP and continuing to listen. It makes a world of difference. |
| This was a great course for beginners and novices. |
| Hotel has a great new look. What, no beer at grad! We gotta fix this one. Great job Suz and Dea! Sorry for the interruptions. PREP at Las Cruces next year? |
| Overall, I am leaving the course with knowledge and conviction to be active in my state’s pesticide-water quality initiative. |
| With respect to the POINTS database, it would have been useful to have had a computer lab session similar to what we did with the modeling. |
| The UCD Extension team planners/managers are grade A! Thanks for everything. You make it look easy but I know otherwise. Always interested in future existence of and direction of PREP. |
| Great course and agenda. Dea is doing a great job. Suzanne is doing a great job. Modeling "field trip" across campus was great. |
| I enjoyed hearing about other states’ programs and issues. I also appreciated that the facilitators kept us on time - many of these topics could easily go over time. |
| Excellent course. Suzanne and Dea did excellent job in running the course and making sure everything ran smoothly. |
| Always interesting to hear how other states conduct their CA programs. |
| I’m tired. I think we worked diligently this week. No slack in this program. Congratulations to Dea Zimmerman for completing her rookie PREP season successfully! PREP is in good hands! |
| Having personnel from the OW was an excellent idea. The small breakout group discussions were my favorite part. |
| The hotel and University of Davis was great. Food and organization was wonderful. The only thing I would suggest is informing speakers to leave time for questions. I learn a lot from question and answer sessions. |
| Shorten the course by one day, as currently structured you have to block out a full week. |
| I have a hard time sitting still, so I would have liked more opportunities to move around and more 5 minute breaks. P.S. chairs are very uncomfortable! Keep up the good work! |
| Great job to all the planning staff and planning committees. Dea, Suzanne and Sanaa, very well organized and Suzanne did a great job of herding us cats. |
| It was great having folks like Joe Zachman and Jeff Comstock here - very knowledgeable. |
| Instead of an off-site grad dinner, set something up with local (downtown Davis) restaurant that could meet our needs for the evening. |
| Thank you Suzanne and Dea for a job well done! |
| 1. Put two name tags back-to-back in the name tag holder. When worm on a lanyard, the name tag holder tends to spin and often the blank side is the one that shows 2. Encourage Hallmark Inn to provide in-room recycling containers 3. Is the briefcase a necessary expense? 4. A week is a long time to be away from home and family. Ending the course at noon Friday would allow participants to have a full weekend before the start of the next work week. |
| One of the best weeks I’ve ever spent in a course! |
| Overall, another excellent PREP! |
| I think it would be useful to leave some slots open once you know what regions are coming get a regional EPA person here (kidnap if necessary) for each attending region. Nice seeing you all again, guess I’ll never be invited back that’s the breaks. Best to all, carry on and good luck you’re doing excellent work. (Doug Hudson.) |
| I enjoyed it and learned a great deal that I will take back to MI. |
| It was a good use of 5 days. It is difficult for EPA employees in a lot of ways due to the ??? nothing for EPA employees ride. Would be nice to roll the shuttle into the registration fee since it’s a bit of a hassle if they don’t have your name on their "approved" list and the registration fee seems quite generous for it. Consider graduation dinner on Thurs. night like PIRT course? |
| Amazing course. I have learned so many ideas and have gained many valuable tools to more effectively manage water in my state. |
| Overall great job by the planning committee. The suggestions I’ve made would be more of a tweaking contribution to some excellent course material ideas. |
| Really appreciate OPP and OW participation. Contacts are invaluable. Harmonization in action. |
| Case studies (details) by states. Would be good to review - going through each of the 3 steps with specific examples with time allowed for critiques/feedback/etc. |
| While there was a very full agenda, think more time should have been given to state presentations even if a session had to be omitted or multiple sessions shortened in length; many presentations had maps etc. that were too small both on screen and in handouts. Also, for other sessions - not all questions were able to be answered. Discussion is important for processing and value gained by participant. Aquatic Benchmark Session (9/9) - would request that speakers and handouts provide readable slides; provide screen prints when session focuses on, for example, POINTS (Roundtable management of pesticides, (9/10)- difficult to see/read page projected; would like to see additional information on urban use; enjoyed the field trip and computer lab activities; think the planning group did a good job including both the programmatic and technical sides of the water quality issue, however, although as a program manager I have an appreciation of the technical side, it does not directly apply to my job. Many of the technical sessions were not germane to my duties and responsibilities or under the authority of the agency. Conversely, I would assume the technical side of the house had similar thoughts. Would recommend perhaps breakout sessions to meet the specific needs of each group along with regular sessions that apply to both. Also, while I understand the issues related to hosting this course with both the SLA and water quality agency attending together as we did in 2006, the benefits are tremendous particularly in building the relationship between agencies, understanding authority, priorities, etc. This may be even more appropriate or beneficial now with the efforts at harmonization between OPP and OW. For future courses, would suggest Senior Executive Mgmt; Container Containment (although held in 2008, as it is newly implemented program, would be beneficial to repeat); Enforcement and Compliance and, again, a repeat of Water Quality especially with POINTS, Management plans etc. Will have more data, experience as we hone program and plan for next guidance cycle. Thank you for everything. P.S. Dinner theme ideas: Sock Hop, Black Tie, Alma Mater |