Snohomish County Estuary Restoration Workshop Survey Question Title * 1. Please indicate which topics you found important/helpful: Not Important Moderately Important Important Caveats and Challenges of Modeling & Interpreting Flow in Estuaries Caveats and Challenges of Modeling & Interpreting Flow in Estuaries Not Important Caveats and Challenges of Modeling & Interpreting Flow in Estuaries Moderately Important Caveats and Challenges of Modeling & Interpreting Flow in Estuaries Important Technical Challenges Restoring Estuary Surrounded by Levees Technical Challenges Restoring Estuary Surrounded by Levees Not Important Technical Challenges Restoring Estuary Surrounded by Levees Moderately Important Technical Challenges Restoring Estuary Surrounded by Levees Important What We Learned from Pre-Project Monitoring at Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration Project What We Learned from Pre-Project Monitoring at Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration Project Not Important What We Learned from Pre-Project Monitoring at Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration Project Moderately Important What We Learned from Pre-Project Monitoring at Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration Project Important Stillaguamish Estuary Restoration Experiences Stillaguamish Estuary Restoration Experiences Not Important Stillaguamish Estuary Restoration Experiences Moderately Important Stillaguamish Estuary Restoration Experiences Important Monitoring and Lessons Learned at Port Susan Bay & Nisqually Monitoring and Lessons Learned at Port Susan Bay & Nisqually Not Important Monitoring and Lessons Learned at Port Susan Bay & Nisqually Moderately Important Monitoring and Lessons Learned at Port Susan Bay & Nisqually Important Question Title * 2. What additional topic(s) would you have liked included? Question Title * 3. The number of presentations was: too few too many just right Question Title * 4. The workshop was: too short too long just right Question Title * 5. Did the workshop have the right mix of restoration practitioners, monitors and researchers to make the most of the follow-up discussions? Yes No Please explain (optional) Question Title * 6. The number of practitioners in the audience was: too small too large just right Question Title * 7. Did the workshop format work well for you? (20 minutes of presentation and 25 minutes of discussion) Yes No If not, what would you have changed and why ? Question Title * 8. Would a follow-up workshop on estuary restoration in Snohomish and Stillaguamish River Watersheds be valuable to you? Yes No Question Title * 9. Would a follow-up Puget Sound regional workshop on estuary restoration be valuable to you? Yes No Question Title * 10. Would a follow-up workshop on how to get stakeholder support for estuary restoration and the role that creating projects with multiple benefits be valuable to you? Yes No Question Title * 11. Snohomish County worked with The Nature Conservancy and Department of Ecology to sponsor this workshop as a grant deliverable. If a future workshop is to be held, which organization (governmental, NGO or other) do you think would be best suited to sponsor/facilitate it?Organization(s): Question Title * 12. The facilitators realize that many of the workshop’s presenters and participants are members of other workgroups, committees or forums around the region that address estuary restoration topics. In the interest of efficiency, please share your thought about which of these groups could continue the efforts started in this workshop or offer a similar venue for information sharing among restoration practitioners.Organization(s): Question Title * 13. The facilitators strived to invite a comprehensive list of restoration organizations and professionals to this workshop. While we achieved this in many respects, we know the list of participants could be improved. Please list specific groups and/or individuals you feel would contribute to future discussions (include contact info if available).Groups/Individuals: Question Title * 14. Please share any other comments or suggestions: Done