Introduction
On July 23 and 24, 2002, the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA), in partnership withseveral co-sponsors, conducted a workshop titled "Reducing Development Impacts on Water Resources." Workshop participants were requested to complete a workshop evaluation form. Thirty-nine of the seventy-six people (51%) who attended the workshop submitted an evaluation form. The results of the survey are summarized below. This feedback will assist the UNRBA and workshop co-sponsors in planning and conducting future workshops, and in targeting follow-up efforts relating to low impact design and development.

The following first summarizes individual sessions, providing specific comments made by attendees. Evaluation choices included Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. It then summarizes general evaluations of the location, facility, food, and comments about what participants liked or disliked about the workshop.

Workshop Sessions

Session: Snapshot of Watershed Management in the Upper Neuse
Average Evaluation: Very Good
Comments:

• Made more sense when part of "code" session
• Heard it before
• Gave good context for the rest of the presentations

Session: Why is Low Impact Design Important for Local Governments?
Average Evaluation: Excellent
Comments:

• Great overview of LID
• Interesting
• Very Informative
• Very beneficial--presented a developed framework

• Good mix of information
• Focus on local conditions, especially soils
• I have a better idea of what LID is, but could use more ideas on how to make it happen regarding overcoming existing barriers
• "Agent of Change"--This is so doable at local levels, & yet is sooo much work. We just need to get in there and do it
• Very interesting. Great examples

Session: Local Panel on Implementing LID
Average Evaluation: Very Good
Comments:

• Very useful, critical evaluation
• The local panel flushed out a lot of questions, and Larry Coffman addressed many
• Local government perspective was the most helpful
• Representative of development sector could have been stronger, perhaps the engineers/planners/landscape architects
• The panel needed more structure. The HBA representative clearly had not listened to the morning presentations. There was no effort to clarify his statements
• Raised good questions and addressed them
• Needed a facilitated interaction for more structure
• Weak, very unfocused

Session: UNRBA Code and Ordinance Worksheet Survey Results
Average Evaluation: Very Good
Comments:

• Good use of humor. Maybe not necessary to be apologetic for "thumbs down" ratings
• I would like to see the final numbers for individual local governments (this will be provided upon request to local government staff, officials, or citizens)
• Not very interesting
• Thank you for the morning humor. Data was helpful in flushing out the state of our watershed
• More specifics (two requests)
• Will there be other survey results?
• Somewhat simple, but effective
• Perhaps list governments with positive answers as reference resources for others

Session: The Nuts and Bolts of LID
Average Evaluation: Excellent
Comments:

• Good delivery--hard to pull off for a long presentation. Didn't lose me in the details & kept my attention
• I would have liked more hydrologic analysis & urban area details
• Very detailed. An excellent, more detailed session that builds on "Why LID is important for local governments"
• Great session on SW controls & water conservation
• Too technical for most of the audience
• Best presentation except for engineering part
• Need access to examples (& comparisons) to give local people
• Tried to cover too much in too little time--I really appreciated the retrofit examples
• Rushed at end; even out time emphasis a bit more
• Bravo! More on urban retrofit in the future? Very interesting
• I am a little worried that sprawl was legitimized. We must confront it and stop being apologetic.
• Wow! Too much for an architect to think about in such a short time. Inspiring
• Very good presentation
• Larry commented that he wished to deliver a larger conceptual idea with LID/IMP's. Very beneficial.
• Great information!

Session: Breakout Session: Non-Traditional BMP's
Average Evaluation: Very Good
Comments:

• Good experts--more open discussion would have been good
• Facilitator and input was great
• Facilitation was overpowering…needed microphone to hear in back, but strong panel
• Info. Of resources, strategies was good
• I like the idea of an LID academy
• Too unfocused
• Good mix of audience participation and expert panel input
• Well-focused. Could have managed time better; little time left for final topic
• Of course it was good
• Too structured; why experts?

Session: Breakout Session: Impervious Surfaces
Average Evaluation: Very Good
Comments:

• Facilitator and input were great
• The expert was not there
• Milt did a good job juggling the issues--very unfocused
• Further discussion on impacts
• Lively discussion. Could have benefited from more structure
• It would be great to communicate this to local governments/elected officials. Zoning codes limit the ability to do much of these improvements
• No sense of direction
• Somewhat rambling--no clear outline or focus

Session: Breakout Session: Critical Lands Protection
Average Evaluation: Very Good
Comments:

• Would have liked it to be a bit more interactive. A little dull just listening to experts
• Good information!
• I liked the presentations, but would have liked more interaction on strategies for our watershed

Session: Measuring Site Impacts
Average Evaluation: Very Good
Comments:

• Would have liked to see visuals of the model
• Another tool (is) available
• It would be good to see an example run
• Big commercial for Tetra Tech
• Need more examples--case study info
• Great to know this tool is available

General Workshop Elements
Feedback regarding the general workshop elements is summarized below.

Location (Durham):
Responses indicate that the Durham location was regarded as "Excellent" and "Very Good"

Facilities (auditorium, rooms, etc.):
Most responses were that the facilities were excellent.

Food:
Most people responded that the food was excellent.

What did you like best?

• Larry Coffman/Coffman's presentations/Coffman's grasp of subject (17 responses)
• Larry Coffman's presentation were very affirmative and renewed hope that we might be able to get it done
• Coffman's sense of humor.
• Interaction--the ability to communicate with facilitators and peers/ Networking (5 responses)
• Breakout group discussions (3 responses)
• Session on LID
• No wasted time (started at 9 a.m. and ended at good time)
• The information was valuable
• Good mix of presentations & interactive/ Various speakers from different agencies
• Local panel-issues & discussions very useful. Good opportunity for questioning and examination.
• New ideas; outside resources. Interactive participants (different roles, responsibilities, jurisdictions)
• Various speakers from different agencies
• The possibility of all this happening in this area. Great learning experience for me to continue designing better.
• Chance to hear views from other areas
• The content and quality of the presentations, the accessibility of the presenters.
• Good handouts
• Lecture & discussion format. Very informative
• Organization was great. Larry, Pat, Ben, and Chris all excellent. Panels were good.
• Overall format and content of sessions

What did you like the least?

• The format and handouts
• Breakout facilities too small
• I misunderstood the intent of this workshop. I was looking for nuts & bolts. Info--descriptions of the methods, etc. to expand my vocabulary and understanding.
• Would have liked to hear more about the workings of BMP's. Mostly talked about bioretention.
• Everything was appropriate/adequate (3 responses)
• The fact that I couldn't make the first day
• Would have liked to see better participation from Upper Neuse Counties. Their loss.
• Length of session. Would like to keep it to 1 day.
• Could have had more time (3 responses)
• More break time for networking
• Not interactive enough (ie, more small discussion groups)
• Cold auditorium 1st day (4 responses)
• More variety in lunch (2 responses)
• Getting to the site (2 responses)

Other Comments

• It would have been helpful to have a listing of LID projects, location, use (ie, commercial, industrial, residential, acreage, time since construction).
• More engineers would have been here if CEU's would have been offered. It would have been jam packed!
• Might try to get mailing lists at DWQ (to get more people to workshop)
• I'm not sure how this was advertised. I heard about it through a colleague at the last minute. Would like to have seen more developers here.
• Great Workshop!
• Overall, a really good experience
• Thanks!!!
• Nice facilities. Great workshop--very informative and inspiring!
• Nice job!!!
• Great idea! LID--the challenge is to put it into practice, particularly in areas not yet under SW requirements--what would motivate rural areas to implement this?
• Let's organize a local LID manual using a facilitated panel of local experts. Also, please circulate a list of participants so we can maintain a network.