California Watershed Management Forums
May 17, 2000
Number of Responses = 25 (out of 50 attending)
· Nice, good tool
· Very good
· Excellent. Need a follow-up on watershed groups in action & successes.
· Great, short!
· Great! Should be distributed
· Very good general educational tool
· Excellent! Simple
· Great
· Excellent
· Superb – we’re getting one! Thanks for giving us the opportunity to see it and now use it.
· Excellent
· Great – distribute statewide
· Excellent
· A nice, inspiring opener
· Nicely done. Good intro. Good to know this exists.
· Nice and concise
· Very nice
· Great!
· Very good, even though it does have an urban, So.CA flavor
· Excellent production!
· Good – can be used in all areas of State. Right length.
· Light
· Helpful info
· Not so helpful – more bureaucratic… ‘This is what we’re doing’ versus ‘Let’s make changes & reasonable suggestions.’
· Good to have up-to-date info
· OK
· So-so. Rhetoric – let’s see the action on the ground. Commitment and actions to remove barriers.
· A bit hard to follow. Time for PowerPoint would have been helpful.
· Informative – a needed perspective
· Too short
· Good partial cross-section
· Interesting
· OK
· Appreciated the opportunity to meet Laurie Fenwood of USFS- R-5
· Was there really a PowerPoint presentation?
· Weak on Fed Policy; good on the Konocti summary
· Minimal value
· I would have enjoyed the time to have been spent on “Working Across Boundaries” workshop mentioned by Julie Tupper. This would have made these two session a little more interactive. Everyone usually enjoys discussing “real life” experiences.
· Good exposure. BLM & NRCS most informative
· OK
· Good ideas, but how do you get funds to do it?
· Not so helpful – same as above
· Good example of how federal agencies can work together
· OK
· So-so: same as above
· Getting this perspective was a necessary part of the 4-part series. Unfortunately, it didn’t seem to fit into the “flow of the day” which has to do with building the state framework. The panelists’ questions should have been linked to the State Framework.
· Good to hear their focus. Some ideas on resources. Styles a bit bureaucratic.
· Informative – a needed perspective.
· A bit basic – the Fed reps were not too dialed into what the forums had already covered
· Needed EPA, NMFS, FWS
· A little boring
· Disappointing - granted, time was tight; a lot of platitudes
· Good discussion, however not having the NMFS person in attendance, was a real minus. NMFS and USFWS are two federal agencies that really need to be brought into the collaborative process in California if it’s going to work here.
· What were the questions? I heard them (or parts) in the beginning but perhaps the questions could have been posted (or written on the 4 flipcharts at the side of the room), or on the overhead.
· Narrow list of participants; didn’t do justice to federal issue on watersheds (didn’t spend much time on this issue); not well connected to other forums
· Introductions to each agency’s mission was of benefit to me
· Would have included in earlier forum and focused more effort on framework discussion
· Minimal value
· Interesting, complicated topic that can’t be fully understood in time allotted. Also, pretty much one-sided.
· Discussion of many things that seem unresolvable or out of our reach to change, but some useful principles.
· This was a good idea and brought together months of discussion and shows areas of agreement / disagreement. Very important!
· Points out we need to narrow the main idea we want to address.
· In spite of many levels of discussion, issues, etc…, we still had a good discussion around many points. I would have liked to see the framework options as the primary format and maybe a summary of questionnaire. Good however to see where we do agree and representative of a lot of good work all along. Dangerous to ignore those points we don’t agree on because they may be more critical than the points we do agree on.
· Appreciate the effort to bring out points. Need to make sure not to mix up points.
· Lots of work and effort went into the questionnaire (good job) results. I only wish you had spent the entire day working on a finished product (framework) with language this group could submit towards the state effort. (Maybe this wasn’t really your goal.)
· Good start; focus on agreements; would be good to resolve questions / confusion on many of the questions, but would take a whole day or two. Good to get NGO input on questionnaire.
· Useful
· While I understand why you chose to go over each response, I found it tedious. I would have cancelled the panel, taken more time and presented a synthesis of results rather than reading responses. Conveying your sense and observatins would have been more helpful. It ran way over time.
· Too little time – need a follow-up.
· Helpful – but questions too loose for reliable interpretation of answers
· Just a skim through – but interesting to touch on the hot buttons
· Great work – perhaps some further polling?
· Problem of distinguishing between No & No Agreement on statements, but very helpful in identifying areas of agreement
· Interesting; Yes / No for Agree / Disagree was confusing, but you already heard that
· Stimulated good discussion, but we have a ways to go yet to get a consensus framework
· Perhaps put the statements in the form of a question. Then have 3 columns: yes, maybe, no. The people can then check the appropriate column. Good discussion and good job in condensing information.
· Interesting areas of agreement and disagreement came out. We should move forward with the ideas having broadest agreement. In future, we will be more effective moving forward in areas of agreement instead of trying to come to agreement in areas where there are major disagreements
· Write up the questionnaire results on items of agreement, recirculate for final edits and comments. Make available widely.
· Not sure it was a good use of time. Some audience members digressed which used up a lot of time. Needed to be more focused on areas of agreement.
· I know others disagree, but I just don’t see much value in this kind of questionnaire. There is too much in it ot result in any kind of focus or meaningful conclusions.
· One key audience sector missing: private landowners
· Too lengthy – should have focused on areas of disagreement and strong agreement, Discussion on certain topics was good.
· Too bad we couldn’t have done more of this. Good discussion anyway
· Good framework to make recommendations
· I liked this simmered down approach and would like to see more happen on this level (distilled).
· Good start!
· I liked this chart – good to choose the way it was laid out
· This was quite thought provoking. The framework embraced a broad spectrum of ideas. Commenters in audience were too long-winded, maybe facilitators could have politely cut them off.
· Too little time – need a followup with small group
· Very good discussion. As always, the contribution for For Sake of the Salmon was most helpful
· The foundation hasn’t set completely; framework discussion needs to stay conceptual in the short term
· Good options – but we didn’t focus in
· Pretty good; discussion wandered a bit at time; could have used more time
· I’m not sure that we go a framework done?
· Good discussion
· The options were a little too generic
· Still needs work, though there are areas of agreement. Doesn’t seem final.
“12 STEPS TO RECOVERY” DISCUSSION
· Yeah, actions!
· Great discussion
· Favorite part – will really get us moving
· Wow – common sense approach, makes sense! Thanks for getting folks to commit to follow up. It will be interesting to track progress.
· Great suggestions during this section that pulled the lack of time on the framework options and survey results together.
· Good give and take – I hope the continuing efforts will pay off
· Great nitty-gritty effort on to-do tasks
· Good wrap-up and valuable discussion
· Very productive – a great wrap up and charter for the future!
· Good outline for making some progress
· Very pro-active and it was good to assign steps to people
· Good start; hope there is follow-up
· Great discussion. Need to follow up on commitments.
· I thought this was good but we needed more time to discuss the 12 Steps (actually they are recommendations), try to reach some consensus, and add some detail. There are some things I don’t agree with here (or would like to see expanded) but time was short and we were at the end of the day.
1. Was Forum #4 worthwhile? Yes = 21 No = 0
Please rank on a scale of 1(low) to 5 (high): Ave. = 3.9
2. Did we develop the beginnings of a ‘robust, collaborative framework for watershed management in California? Yes = 10 Maybe = 2 No = 2
· Identified options
· Got a good start
· Absolutely – the 12 Steps takes it to the next level of action
· Good ideas that can be carried forward
· Didn’t work on enough definitive language to contribute toward state framework
· Not yet – keep going
· Robust is probably optimistic at this point – vibrant maybe
· We are making progress, but we are not there yet
· Show me the draft framework based on today’s discussion
· Started down that path, but needed more structure in the afternoon session
· A beginning. Time to take the input and put it together using sensitivity to how it will be embraced by agency and groups at all levels.
· Marginally
· Definitely “robust”. The always difficult transition from discussion/ framing the issue to “action” stands before this group.
3. Did we succeed in identifying achievable steps to accomplish such a framework?
Yes = 11 Perhaps = 3 No = 1
· 12 Steps exercise partially achieves
· We made headways
· Loosely
· Not as much as needed
· But there’s a lot of work to be done
· Not quite there yet – need some follow up
· Marginally
1. Were the forums of any benefit to you? Yes = 21 No = 0
If so, how?
· Information on context that we operate within
· Provide avenue for local CRMP views to reach wider audience
· Greater understanding of issues; good networking
· Brought together various views on watershed issue
· We desperately needed this in CA – grassroots empowerment and not waiting for the state to provide the answer
· Yes, informational and contacts. Learned a lot.
· Networking towards statewide group
· Networking, motivating to coordinate more!
· Exposure to the larger dialog on supporting watershed efforts
· Especially sharing ideas and networking
· Ideas from all over all helpful
· Helps to broaden the discussion
· Helped shape legislation
· Networking and issue / approach development
· Good discussion / analysis of need for a California approach / program
· Defined the “problem” of implementation of watershed approach to land management
· Lots of good ideas and thought-provoking discussion; short on specifics but that’s what’s to be expected.
· Hearing from the OR and WA representatives was very good.
If not, why not?
· Needed more participation from local watershed groups
2. Do you feel that the participants have a better understanding of one another’s viewpoints than before the forum series?
Yes = 16 Somewhat = 4 No = 1 Don’t Know = 1
· Sure do
· Good question
· Absolutely
· Definitely
· Certainly contacts with one another were of value
· We’ll see how well we listen!
3. Did you feel that your concerns were listened to? Yes = 19 No = 0
4. What were the best parts of the forums?
· The collaborative effort of all parties involved
· Getting to know the various players and views in watershed management
· Examples from other states; I learned a lot from the brainstorming sessions, abeit exhausting and somewhat chaotic
· Agency participation and updates
· Interactive nature
· Hearing other viewpoints, meeting new people. Liked the creative approach to each forum (enjoyable)
· I liked the 12 Steps
· The Forum #1 models from other states; the Forum’s panels were all very appropriate
· The interactive sessions
· Diversity of thoughts and opinions
· Other state examples were a great way to start! Accountability and Governance panels
· 12 Steps
· Focused discussion of important and outstanding issues
· Presentations by other states
· Discussion to develop the framework for collaborative work
· Forums #1 & #2
· Moving from Forum #3 to #4 to Synthesis
· The interchange between the participants
· Networking opportunities
· Networking, focal point for interaction and information
5. What could have been improved?
· List of “recommendations” to go to identified target
· A product
· #3 Forum discussions were too random
· Time management – lots to accomplish. Some things could’ve been left off.
· Faster focus on the key issues
· The panel lectures without time for interaction
· Forum #3 focused on too much detail, but it worked out
· Schedule the series of meetings at the beginning of the year, and make the schedule available to the participants
· The topics are such an important part of thorough evaluation. The agenda (time) is important to follow
· Better tasting coffee
· Questionnaire results were biased since mostly agency reps responded
· More synthesis at interim steps
· More effort to involve agency management types (some did come but there was no continuity). I know it is difficult to get their time and attention for more than about 10 minutes.
· More effort to involve local watershed program coordinators (probably would need to provide some travel expenses.)
· Minimal presentation time and maximum discussion time
· Need to make a concerted effort to make private landowners an integral part of the process
6. Were the facilities and forum administration adequate? (1-5) Ave. = 4.8
7. Should there be another Forum next year ? Yes = 19 Not Sure = 1
If so, what should it focus on?
· Successes / development since first series
· Need follow-up on this forum
· Updates and adaptive action based on progress
· Moving forward – next steps – feedback loop
· Finishing a product for state program
· Progress of 12 Steps
· Follow-up on assigned tasks. Status of State Framework
· Continuation of the effort
· Noteworthy developments from agencies and watershed councils
· Next steps
· Capacity building; legislative involvement
· One year follow-up -- see how we are doing
· “Linking science and policy effectively”
· Lessons from previous and current watershed projects
· Continued collaborative work to help local watershed groups
· Watershed planning leading to implementation success stories
· One day – review the progress of the past year & identify the remaining needs.
· Assess state, local, fed achievements and go from there
6. What recommendations from California do you really want to see shared at the National Watershed Roundtable in 2001?
· Adoption of recommended guidelines for funding and assistance
· The issues we felt trying to come up with a state policy given our diversity
· Contributions local watershed groups have made in the last decade – reports from groups. A lot of improvement has occurred and it should be recognized.
· That watershed groups from such a huge diverse state can come together and help each other
· How can a new robust state framework embrace existing local initiatives?
· The ones about interagency cooperation, effective funding mechanisms, and collaborative stakeholder groups at local level
· California has a wealth of tools for dealing with watershed issues, but we are having problems using the tools together efficiently to achieve the goals we hold in common
· Agencies willing to help with technical support for local watershed groups
· More comparison / identification of state approaches / success stories
· I would try to explain and demonstrate how a diverse watershed program as we have in CA, which is less structured and less coordinated relative to other states we’ve heard from, can be effective.
· Successes, learning experiences, and new programs
Other Comments:
· Great networking opportunities
· Thanks for the opportunity to participate!
· This was my first forum. I’m glad to see such an effort toward California’s watersheds.
· Sari and Dennis did an incredible job – very well organized and coordinated
· An exceptional job on this whole program and the materials coming from the process are very good. Thanks for all your efforts.