Prioritization Tool for Puget Sound Salmon Recovery ... Recovery & Stormwater Individual & Residential-Scale Best Management Practices ... social marketing and behavior change strategies,

Prioritization Tool for Puget Sound Salmon Recovery & Stormwater Individual & Residential-Scale Best Management PracticesA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP IN

COLLABORATION WITH THE STORM COALITION OF PUGET SOUND MUNICIPALITIES

PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP TECHNICAL REPORT 2016-01 | APRIL 2016

PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS

Leah Kintner Puget Sound Partnership Dave Ward Puget Sound Partnership Peter Holte City of RedmondJen Burke Puget Sound Partnership Leska Fore Puget Sound Partnership Emily Sanford Puget Sound Partnership

CONTENTS

I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

II. BACKGROUND

III. PURPOSE OF THE BMP PRIORITIZATION TOOL

IV. PROCEDURE USED TO DEVELOP THE TOOL

Process identification and approval Brainstorming sessions Best management practices list refinement and crosscheck Technical scoring Interdisciplinary scoring Final ratings, queries and results

V. HOW TO USE THE BMP PRIORITIZATION TOOL

VI. LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA

VII. PROPOSED NEXT STEPS FOR USE OF THE TOOL

VIII. FOR MORE INFORMATION

APPENDIX A. COMPILED LISTS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SCORED

Stormwater best management practices Salmon recovery best management practices

APPENDIX B. CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS

Stormwater Salmon recovery Combined

APPENDIX C. KEY TO SORTED LISTS

APPENDIX D. RESIDENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SALMON

RECOVERY – sorted lists

APPENDIX E. RESIDENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR STORMWATER –

sorted lists

APPENDIX F. LIST OF PUGET SOUND EXPERTS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO SCORING

PROCESSES

Stormwater experts Salmon recovery experts

APPENDIX G. INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW CRITERIA DEFINITIONS

RECOMMENDED CITATION

Kintner, L, D Ward and P Holte,et al. (2016).Prioritization Tool for Puget Sound Salmon Recovery and Stormwater Individual and Residential-Scale Best Management Practices: A Technical Memorandum for the Puget Sound Partnership in Collaboration with the STORM Coalition of Puget Sound Municipalities. Tacoma, Washington: Puget Sound Partnership Technical Report 2016-01.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRIORITIZATION TOOL FOR PUGET SOUND

1

I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE AND THANK OUR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL REVIEWERS:

Mary Raybourn—King County Eric LaFrance—City of Redmond Tristan Peter-Contesse—Puget Sound Partnership Dan Calvert—Puget Sound Partnership

MANY THANKS FOR THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS FOR THEIR SIGNIFICANT

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS REPORT:

Puget Sound Partnership City of Redmond Stormwater Outreach for Regional Municipalities (STORM)

Nicole Faghin—Washington Sea Grant Kristen Stavros—Puget Sound Partnership Cara Ianni, Alexandra Doty, Kari Stiles, Scott Redman—Puget Sound Partnership Laurie Devereaux—City of Bellevue Laura Blackmore—Cascadia Consulting Group Stef Frenzl—Snohomish County

Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council Puget Sound Lead Entities PSP Ecosystem Recovery Coordinators PSP Science Panel PSP Social Science Advisory Committee

Our many brainstorming session participants, technical scorers, and interdisciplinary scorers (see Appendix F)

This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement PT-00J17601 to the Puget Sound Partnership. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.


2

II. BACKGROUND The prioritization tool for Puget Sound salmon recovery and stormwater individual and residential-scale best management practices (BMP prioritization tool) can be used to inform prioritization of BMPs by Puget Sound stormwater municipalities, the STORM coalition (Stormwater Outreach for Regional Municipalities), salmon recovery groups, the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council, and other related organizations. The Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership) and members of the STORM coalition formed a workgroup to facilitate rating of individual and residential-scale best management practices (BMPs). Between September 2013 and June 2015, the workgroup conducted brainstorming sessions, technical and interdisciplinary scoring processes, and data analyses that resulted in an open-source stormwater and salmon recovery BMP Prioritization Tool for the Puget Sound region. This effort updates a similar effort compiled for use by stormwater municipalities in 2008, and offers new information on salmon recovery. The workgroup surveyed subject matter experts working on stormwater and salmon recovery in the Puget Sound region to accomplish the following:

• Identify a comprehensive list of individual and residential-scale stormwater and salmon recovery BMPs

• Rate the identified BMPs based on three technical criteria

• Rate the identified BMPs based on three interdisciplinary criteria

• Rate the identified BMPs based on their expected response to three different social approaches

All rating of BMPs relies on the expert opinions of those Puget Sound professionals participating in the exercise. Using information collected from these surveys, the workgroup created an open-source prioritization tool (in Microsoft Excel 2013) that can be used to rank stormwater and salmon recovery BMPs in Puget Sound. The tool assigns a numeric score to each answer provided by a survey participant. It then averages the scores from all participants for each question, respective to each BMP. All nine scoring criteria can be sorted and cross-referenced by end-users to support recovery actions. By mixing and matching averaged scores across criteria, users can build distinct queries to answer specific questions.

III. PURPOSE OF BMP PRIORITIZATION TOOL Prioritizing individual and residential-scale BMPs from the large list of actions necessary for Puget Sound recovery can be a challenging assignment for local and regional organizations. In 2008, Puget Sound municipal stormwater permit holders conducted a prioritization process for residential-scale stormwater BMPs. The results guided promotional programs launched collaboratively by the STORM coalition of municipalities and by individual municipalities (such as Puget Sound Starts Here). At the time, a gap was noted in the absence of many BMPs critical to salmon habitat and recovery. The STORM municipalities


3

decided in 2013 to update their 2008 process, validate previous findings, and identify changes to regional priorities. At their September 2013 meeting, the Salmon Recovery Council approved a parallel process for salmon recovery BMPs. This effort, in part, meets tasks identified in the work plan for the Salmon Recovery Council following a workshop at Pack Forest and adopted in November 2012. This new tool offers a starting point that can assist organizations with selection of actions for grant applications, outreach and education activities, mass-media campaigns, social marketing and behavior change strategies, regulatory approaches, and other related efforts. By linking the processes for stormwater and salmon recovery and by using a common methodology, we have combined a broad suite of individual and residential-scale BMPs. The combined process enabled review of BMPs for common descriptive language and conflicting practices. Results from parallel rating processes for stormwater and salmon recovery can be integrated for more informed management decisions. We anticipate that this effort will inform future programmatic decisions and support investments to increase beneficial behaviors and reduce detrimental ones for both salmon and stormwater. The compiled prioritization tool should prove useful in identifying and selecting content for regional stormwater and salmon recovery awareness and education campaigns, developing regional social marketing programs, and prioritizing topics for funding. Its utility comes from the fact that it collects and summarizes the collective wisdom of stormwater and salmon recovery professionals working throughout the Puget Sound region. As such, the tool provides a starting point to frame, sharpen, and focus the scope of conversations regarding which BMPs to promote.

IV. PROCEDURE

The BMP evaluation process was conducted in phases between 2013 and 2015: 1. Process development and approval 2. Brainstorming sessions 3. BMP list refinement and crosscheck 4. Technical scoring 5. Interdisciplinary scoring 6. Final ratings, queries, and results


4

PROCESS IDENTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FIGURE 1. This chart describes the overall process and sequence of work. After consensus for the process was reached, parallel processes identified and ranked salmon recovery and stormwater BMPs.


5

At several points, the outcomes of those parallel processes were compared to identify and rectify gaps, redundancies, and potential conflicts between BMPs on the two lists. BRAINSTORMING SESSIONS

To ensure that the product resonates with users and provides value for implementation of BMPs, we sought participation from different local watershed areas and a variety of expert backgrounds. For salmon recovery scores, this included experts in habitat protection, habitat restoration, water quality, and water quantity. For stormwater scores, both engineers and Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) pollution response experts participated. To the extent possible, we tried to include those "muddy boot professionals" generally found outdoors conducting the everyday work of salmon recovery or stormwater management and working on the ground to implement BMPs throughout the Puget Sound region. For stormwater, the brainstorming took place at a regularly scheduled STORM quarterly meeting in Edmonds; this meeting included 35 participants who work to meet outreach mandates associated with the NPDES Phase I and Phase II municipal stormwater permits. For salmon recovery, 23 participants from different watershed areas and with a diverse range of expertise completed the brainstorming at a 2.5-hour work session in Edmonds. Participants in both sessions were asked to brainstorm a comprehensive list of stormwater or salmon recovery BMPs that fit the following three criteria:

• Individual or residential-scale BMPs (not scaled for the institutional or corporate level)

• End-state actions (not one or more degrees removed from the resource impacts addressed)

• Separate and distinguishable actions (non-divisible, as opposed to clusters of behaviors) BMP LIST REFINEMENT AND CROSSCHECK

The following steps were completed to condense, refine, and crosscheck suggested stormwater and salmon recovery BMPs:

• Ensure that each BMP meets the defined criteria (as listed above)

• Combine and consolidate identical or similar BMPs from the brainstormed lists

• Rephrase descriptors in consistent and understandable language and, if possible, frame as positive actions

• Cross-reference the lists with other BMP guidelines (such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] or the Sound Behavior Index)

• Cross-reference and compare the salmon recovery and stormwater BMP lists for comparable language, consistency, potential conflicts, gaps, and overlaps

Of the 77 initial salmon habitat BMPs, 26 aligned with comparable BMPs on the stormwater list. Of the 70 initial stormwater BMPs, 35 aligned with comparable BMPs on the salmon habitat list. TECHNICAL SCORING

Technical scoring reveals the potential impact of each BMP. Scoring was conducted electronically. Salmon recovery surveys were distributed via the salmon recovery Lead Entities, specifically seeking


6

respondents that are members of local or regional technical bodies, or both. Stormwater surveys were distributed via the STORM network. Technical scoring was based on three criteria:

• Effectiveness of the BMP in addressing the intended condition or issue

• Confidence in the science behind the BMP

• Local area relevance In the technical assessment for stormwater, 36 surveys were returned by individuals who are, to some degree, involved in stormwater pollution dumping and spill response (IDDE response, in other words). For salmon recovery, 14 surveys were returned, with diverse watershed and salmon habitat expertise represented. Scoring was based on the BMPs as actions, not on their associated pressures or stressors. Additional technical information based on pressure categories may be gleaned from the results of the Puget Sound Pressure Assessment (such as frequency, severity, and extent of issue). INTERDISCIPLINARY SCORING

Interdisciplinary scoring reveals our potential ability to influence implementation of each BMP. Roughly one-third of the BMPs in the technical round were culled before the interdisciplinary scoring round began. Culled BMPs were the lowest scoring in the technical round, meaning they were either deemed ineffective in addressing the problem, or that the body of science validating their effectiveness is limited. Scoring was conducted during an in-person workshop to allow for group discussion. The solicitation for participation was distributed via the STORM network, the NPDES Permit Coordinator Networking Groups, Salmon Recovery Lead Entities, and ECO Networks. All interdisciplinary workshop participants were asked to be well acquainted with the social aspects of implementing BMPs. Participants included outreach, education, and social marketing experts, and those familiar with the reception of BMPs by target audiences, as well as those with experience in legislative and regulatory approaches. Interdisciplinary scoring was based on three criteria:

• Audience willingness to act on the BMP

• Need for action (in other words, promoting the BMP fills a gap)

• Fit for your organization or organizations Additionally, we collected scores for the effectiveness of three different approaches to the BMPs:

• Fit for social marketing and behavior change approaches

• Fit for information and education approaches (outreach, mass media)

• Fit for regulatory and legislative approaches In the interdisciplinary assessment for stormwater, 18 surveys were returned. For salmon recovery, 16 surveys were returned.


7

FINAL RATINGS AND ANALYSIS

The BMP technical and interdisciplinary scores were aggregated into a single Microsoft Excel 2013 file. After a third-party quality control check, the scores were averaged across evaluators to produce a list of BMPs with corresponding average scores for each of the nine criteria. Zeros or non-responses were omitted from the calculated averages. This list became the basis for a series of sorts, using Excel, based on various combinations of selected criteria. More detail on the sorts is provided in Appendix C. Example sorts for both stormwater and salmon recovery BMPs can be found in Appendices D and E. All collected data is open-source and available in a set of Excel files on the Box website, located at: https://pspwa.box.com/BMPPrioritizationTool

V. HOW TO USE THE BMP PRIORITIZATION TOOL The BMP prioritization tool is designed to aid local and regional bodies in prioritizing individual and residential-scale BMPs that best suit their organizational needs and abilities. This new tool offers a starting point that can assist organizations in selecting priority actions that are ready for funding and grant applications, outreach and education activities, mass-media campaigns, social marketing and behavior change strategies, regulatory approaches, and other related efforts. This report contains many prepared data sorts that show various combinations of the nine criteria. (See Appendices D and E.) End-users may also wish to prioritize based on their own customized data sorts. Original data for all nine criteria are available as Excel spreadsheets. These are available at https://pspwa.box.com/BMPPrioritizationTool . Please contact the project managers listed in Section VIII of this report for more information.

The open-source BMP prioritization tool can be deployed by users to rank stormwater and salmon recovery BMPs in Puget Sound. All nine criteria scored and represented in the Excel spreadsheets can be sorted and cross-referenced to inform specific local and regional recovery actions. By mixing and matching averaged scores across criteria, users can build distinct queries to answer specific questions. The tool can be used to inform prioritization of BMPs by Puget Sound stormwater municipalities, salmon recovery groups, and other related ecosystem recovery organizations. By linking the processes for stormwater and salmon recovery together, and by using a common methodology, we combined a broad suite of individual and residential-scale BMPs. The combined process ensures that BMPs from both lists use common descriptive language, wherever possible, and that the two lists do not contain conflicting practices (in other words, BMPs for stormwater do no harm for salmon recovery, and vice versa). Results from parallel rating processes for stormwater and salmon recovery can be further integrated for more informed management decisions. We anticipate that this

https://pspwa.box.com/BMPPrioritizationTool


8

effort will inform future programmatic decisions and support investments to increase beneficial behaviors and reduce detrimental ones for both stormwater and salmon recovery. The tool’s utility comes from the fact that it collects and summarizes the collective wisdom of stormwater and salmon recovery professionals working throughout the Puget Sound region. As such, the tool provides a starting point to frame, sharpen, and focus the scope of conversations regarding which BMPs to promote. In 2008, Puget Sound municipal stormwater permit holders conducted a similar prioritization process for residential-scale stormwater BMPs. The results of that process informed the selection and sequencing of work for BMPs promoted in the Puget Sound Starts Here public awareness campaign. They provided guidance for municipalities working individually and collectively as they prioritized other BMP promotion efforts. They also informed the inclusion of BMPs in the 2012 Action Agenda related to infiltration, pollution reduction, habitat improvement, tree planting, forest canopy cover, soil health, shoreline armoring, and critical areas.

HOW CAN YOUR ORGANIZATION USE THIS TOOL? Example ideas follow.

EXAMPLE 1

A salmon recovery organization decides to conduct education and outreach activities within a local watershed area. The educators decide they want to prioritize subject matter based on criteria for technical merits and willingness of the local community to implement target BMPs. They can look to prepared sort D-25 (Appendix D) for a list of the top-ranked salmon recovery BMPs in Puget Sound that take into account these target criteria. Note: For technical criteria, the high correlation between scorer responses for effectiveness and confidence in the science means that only one of these criteria needs to be included in data sorts for representation of both technical merits. EXAMPLE 2

A municipality decides to begin a social marketing strategy to meet select requirements of their NPDES permit. A staff member familiar with social marketing is interested in focusing the campaign by technical merits. Because the municipality hopes to partner with other local groups on this campaign, they are also interested in criteria indicating a regional need for this action and fit for a large number of organizations. They can look to prepared sort E-41 (Appendix E) for a list of the top ranked stormwater BMPs in Puget Sound that take into account these target criteria. EXAMPLE 3

A regional NGO is interested in approaching the Legislature with high-priority regulatory needs for both stormwater and salmon recovery in Puget Sound. Their primary concern is the technical merit of the actions needed, and they would like to know if applicability of a given BMP is relevant throughout a large portion of the region. They can look to prepared sorts D-47 (Appendix D) and E-47 (Appendix E) to compare and contrast suitable BMPs for regulatory approaches applicable to both stormwater and salmon recovery.


9

VI. LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA As with all data collection efforts, there are recognized limitations:

• The data are based on aggregated professional expertise and represent the participants’ knowledge and understanding of salmon recovery and stormwater management at a specific period in time.

• Participation across BMP brainstorming sessions, and technical and interdisciplinary scoring was generally diverse, but a broader or different sample of experts could produce different results.

• Not all participants responded to all criteria for every BMP; the averaging of the BMP responses excluded null values.

• Results capture and average the collective responses from specialists throughout the Puget Sound region; data do not contain the information needed to focus in on smaller areas, such as specific counties or cities.

The BMP rating process used surveys and rating schemes in a structured “expert elicitation” process. The calculations used within the tool should be viewed as mathematical means to characterize and summarize input collected during this process. This data and results should not be viewed as a resource that comprehensively and completely accounts for all considerations. As such, the results should be viewed as one part of a broader decision-making process. Use of intended sorts for select criteria and subsequent program content development will require interpretation and discussion by end-users.

VII. PROPOSED NEXT STEPS FOR USE OF THE TOOL

1. This report and collected data will be submitted to the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council, Puget Sound Partnership Social Science Advisory Committee, and Puget Sound Partnership Science Panel for endorsement.

2. Members of the STORM network may use the stormwater BMP sorts to prioritize outreach and education efforts, inform behavior change strategies, and address municipal stormwater discharge permit requirements.

3. Salmon recovery groups may use the salmon recovery BMP sorts to prioritize outreach and education efforts, and inform behavior change and community engagement strategies in regional and local watershed areas.

4. Updates may be made to the regional Puget Sound Starts Here campaign, State of the Sound, and Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.

5. Business and institutional BMPs could be scored and integrated by using a similar methodology.


10

6. BMPs for the Puget Sound Strategic Initiative for shellfish could be scored and integrate by using a similar methodology.

7. Puget Sound Partnership staff may conduct a crosswalk of the three technical criteria presented here, with information on severity, magnitude, and extent provided in the Puget Sound Pressure Assessment.

8. BMPs that scored low on the criterion for confidence in the science and high in other areas could be prioritized for research in the Puget Sound Biennial Work Plan.

VIII. FOR MORE INFORMATION SALMON RECOVERY:Leah Kintner, Ecosystem Recovery Coordinator, Puget Sound Partnership 360-480-2880 or [email protected] STORMWATER:Peter Holte, Environmental Policy Analyst and Program Administration, City of Redmond 425-556-2822 or [email protected] GENERAL PROCESS QUESTIONS:Dave Ward, Social Strategies Manager, Puget Sound Partnership 425-457-1157 or [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



A-1

APPENDIX A: COMPILED LISTS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SCORED

STORMWATER BMPs

CONDITION OR ISSUE: Stormwater pollution associated with residential gardening and lawn care practices

• Compost livestock manure using approved methods

• Use site-appropriate vegetation (soil, water, light—right place, right plant)

• Avoid using weed and feed, pesticides, herbicides

• Reduce grass and lawn coverage

• Protect catch-basin from beauty bark, garden mulch, sediment, leaf litter, dirt, etc.

• Use slow-release organic lawn fertilizer

• Use compost instead of fertilizer

• Use a mulching mower

• Sweep up overcast fertilizer CONDITION OR ISSUE:Stormwater pollution associated with other residential illicit discharges

and spills • Report spills by using the IDDE hotline

• Keep carpet cleaning wastewater out of stormwater system

• Dispose of household hazardous waste correctly • Manage home improvement contractors, painters, landscapers, etc. to keep pollution out of

stormwater system

• Keep paint and paint cleanup out of the stormwater system

• Divert water from roof moss control from the stormwater system (disconnect downspout during treatment)

• Divert pool/hot tub draining away from stormwater system

• Scoop up pet waste and toss it in trash

• Use kitty litter or absorbent to absorb, sweep, and properly dispose of spills

• Use non-chemical methods to clean driveways, buildings, and walkways

• Keep pressure-washing wastewater out of the stormwater system

• Dispose of concrete waste properly—place unused wet concrete in a box lined with a plastic bag to dry and rinse concrete tools in grass

A-2

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRIORITIZATION TOOL FOR PUGET SOUND APPENDIX A

• Use least toxic household cleaners

• Do not dispose of toxic materials in septic systems

• Regularly inspect septic systems

• Install a rain garden where appropriate to treat pollution

CONDITION OR ISSUE:Stormwater pollution associated with atmospheric deposition

• Install gas fireplace

• Use certified efficient wood stoves

CONDITION OR ISSUE:Stormwater pollution associated with vehicles and transportation

• Wash car on the lawn

• Use waterless carwash products

• Don't top off car when fueling

• Check for and fix vehicle leaks (oil, etc.)

• Find alternatives to charity carwashes or use charity carwash kits

• Use commercial carwashes to wash vehicles

• Dispose of RV greywater and wastewater at an approved facility

• Use alternative transportation—reduce individual automobile trips

CONDITION OR ISSUE: Hydrology—the amount and rate of stormwater runoff from individual residences

• Plant trees

• Retain large trees

• Install a green roof

• Use pervious pavement (e.g. concrete, asphalt, pavers) when appropriate

• Retain topographic complexity (i.e., pit and mound topography) to preserve existing infiltration

• Disconnect roof downspouts from stormwater system to allow for infiltration

• Install a rain garden where appropriate to treat/decrease runoff/increase infiltration

• Retain uncompacted native soils

• Amend soils to increase permeability (mulching, compost, etc.)

A-3


SALMON RECOVERY BMPs

PRESSURES RELATED TO HOUSING AND URBAN AREAS *

• Do not develop in riparian and other critical areas

• Do not disrupt fish passage with new construction

• Protect critical areas by establishing conservation easements

• Respect established critical-area buffers (refrain from incompatible uses, development, yard creep, etc.)

• Use proper yard waste disposal via home or municipal composting

• Retain native soils

• Use site-appropriate vegetation (soil, water, light)

• Remove and properly dispose of invasive plant species that are detrimental to salmon (such as knotweed, reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, etc.)

• Plant native vegetation in riparian areas (canopy-forming plus understory, structurally diverse)

• Plant native vegetation in non-riparian areas (canopy-forming plus understory, structurally diverse)

• Retain and protect native vegetation where it currently exists

• Retain existing dead and fallen trees (including those felled as hazards) on site in riparian areas

• Reduce grass and lawn coverage

PRESSURES RELATED TO ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL NON-TIMBER CROPS*

• Do not till and crop to ditch lines

• Provide cover cropping in winter

• Control pesticide drift on agricultural lands

• Control mud, sediment, and erosion on agricultural lands (e.g., heavy use area protections, roof runoff, sediment basins, filter strips, etc.)

PRESSURES RELATED TO LIVESTOCK FARMING AND RANCHING*

• Purchase appropriate property for livestock

• Protect soil with winter confinement areas for livestock

A-4


• Fence and keep livestock out of streams, rivers, riparian areas, and other critical areas (manure and vegetation management)

• Use proper manure management for livestock (e.g., cover, spread at proper times)

PRESSURES RELATED TO ROADS (INCLUDING CULVERTS)*

• Relocate problem roads and driveways away from sensitive areas

• Replace existing fish blockages to allow fish passage (including culvert blockages)

• Reduce car transit (use public transportation, bike, or walk when possible)

PRESSURES RELATED TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES*

• Avoid anchoring boats in eelgrass

• Use a commercial carwash to wash trailered boats

• Inspect, clean, and drain your boat to prevent the spread of invasive species when exiting waterways • Sanitize boots, gear, tires, etc. to prevent spread of invasive species

• Keep vehicles out of rivers

• Use portable facilities along rivers for human waste

• Stay on trails and keep pets on trails in sensitive areas

• Do not burn or remove marine driftwood

• Do not harass fish and other aquatic wildlife

PRESSURES RELATED TO ABSTRACTION OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER*

• Do not build new berms and levees

• Reduce paved and other impervious surfaces

• Where new pavement is needed, use pervious pavement (e.g., concrete, asphalt, pavers)

• Allow streams to flow in their natural channels (don't divert or impound water)

• Retain topographic complexity (i.e., pit and mound topography) to preserve existing infiltration

• Amend soils to increase permeability (mulching, etc.)

• Allow for dispersal and ground infiltration of stormwater runoff (rather than concentrating flows)

• Disconnect roof downspouts from drain lines to allow for ground infiltration

• Use water-efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures

A-5


• Reduce individual water use

• Water lawns and landscaping infrequently but deeply

• Use water-efficient technology where irrigation systems are needed

• Install rain gardens where appropriate

• Use rain barrels to conserve water

• Tolerate beaver activity

• Accept temporary standing water

PRESSURES RELATED TO FRESHWATER SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE*

• Avoid new bank-armoring and hardening on rivers, streams, and freshwater shorelines

• Replace existing armoring and hardening on rivers, streams, and freshwater shorelines with healthier, bioengineered options

• Use light-permeable materials for over-water structures in freshwaters

• Retain existing large woody debris and other structural components in stream channels

PRESSURES RELATED TO MARINE SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE*

• Avoid new bank-armoring and hardening on marine shorelines

• Replace existing armoring and hardening on marine shorelines with healthier, bioengineered options • Use light-permeable materials for over-water structures in marine waters

PRESSURES RELATED TO POLLUTION*

• Reduce individual (household, small business, etc.) chemical use

• Use non-chemical methods to clean driveways, buildings, and walkways

• Keep pressure- washing wastewater out of the stormwater system

• Use compost rather than chemical fertilizers

• Fertilize and/or spread compost based on soil tests

• Fertilize and/or spread compost at appropriate times

• Use physical, mechanical, and/or biological methods for control of insects and other pests

• Avoid using creosote wood for landscaping, bulkheads, or pilings

• Avoid zinc- and copper-based products for moss and vegetation control

A-6


• Avoid using weed and feed products on lawns

• Properly dispose of pharmaceutical drugs

• Scoop and bag pet waste and place it in the trash

• Inspect and maintain septic system

• Regularly check and fix car fluid leaks

• Use commercial carwashes for vehicles

• Regularly check and fix boat fluid leaks

• Dispose of boat wastewater at an approved pumpout station

• Install erosion-control measures to prevent sediment from entering streams

• Use appropriate litter control methods

• Do not dump waste in riparian and other critical areas

* For more information on the pressure/stressor taxonomy, please see the Puget Sound Pressures Assessment.

http://www.psp.wa.gov/science-puget-sound-pressures-assessment.php

http://www.psp.wa.gov/science-puget-sound-pressures-assessment.php

B-1

APPENDIX B: CORRELATIONS ANALYSES

The correlations analyses for all scores from both stormwater and salmon recovery processes were conducted by Leska Fore, Puget Sound Partnership. The analyses were based on the following nine evaluative measures, abbreviated in Figures B-1 through B-3:

• Effectiveness of the BMP in addressing the intended condition or issue (Effectiveness)

• Confidence in the science behind the BMP (Confidence)

• Local area relevance (Nu_Relevance)

• Audience willingness to act on the BMP (Willingness)

• Need for action (Need)

• Fit for your organization or organizations (Fit_Org)

• Fit for social marketing and behavior change approaches (Fit_BehCh)

• Fit for information and education approaches (Fit_Educ)

• Fit for regulatory and legislative approaches (Fit_Reg)

FIGURE B-1.Correlation between scores for nine evaluative measures of BMPs for stormwater. Blue circles indicate positive correlation. Negative correlation would be signified by red circles—of which there are none in this figure. The larger the circle, the stronger the correlation.

B-2

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRIORITIZATION TOOL FOR PUGET SOUND APPENDIX B

Example results for stormwater BMPs:

• Effectiveness and Confidence correlated strongly. For BMPs deemed highly effective, reviewers expressed confidence in the science. For BMPs deemed less effective, confidence was lower.

• Fit for your organization (Fit_Org) and Local area relevance (Nu_Relevance) correlated strongly; BMPs with high values for fit also had high values for relevance.

• Effectiveness and Fit with regulatory approaches (Fit_Reg) agreed strongly.

• High Fit for education and information approaches (Fit_Edu) agreed somewhat with Willingness, need, and fit for your organization (Willingness).

• No negative correlations were observed.

FIGURE B-2.Correlation for salmon recovery BMPs. Blue circles indicate positive correlation, and red circles negative correlation. The larger the circle, the stronger the correlation.

Example results for salmon recovery BMPs:

• Effectiveness and confidence were highly correlated; BMPs considered highly effective also demonstrated high confidence in the science.

• Fit for your organization had a strong correlation with effectiveness, confidence, and relevance.

• Effectiveness was strongly correlated with fit for regulatory approaches.

• Need was somewhat correlated with effectiveness, fit for behavior change, and regulatory approach.

• Need and willingness were somewhat negatively correlated, high values of need were associated with low values for willingness.

B-3

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRIORITIZATION TOOL FOR PUGET SOUND APPENDIX B

FIGURE B-3.Correlation for both stormwater and salmon recovery BMPs. Blue circles indicate positive correlation, and red circles negative correlation. The larger the circle, the stronger the correlation.

• When salmon recovery and stormwater BMPs are combined, results are very similar to results for salmon recovery alone.

C-1

APPENDIX C: KEY TO SORTED LISTS 1. The scores of all evaluators were averaged to produce a single score for each criteria for each BMP.

Those average scores were the basis for a series of 27 sorted lists of the salmon BMPs and 27 sorted lists of the stormwater BMPs.

2. The Confidence criterion was not included in any of the sorts because it is closely correlated to Effectiveness, as evidenced by the Correlations Analyses (Appendix B). We chose to not over- weight the pair.

3. The average of the scores for all criteria was calculated for each BMP. The BMPs were then sorted from high to low scores, based on the average. ( See the tables on page D-5, in Appendix C, and page E-5, in Appendix E.) Each BMP is identified with the appropriate quartile based on the sort.

A similar calculation was done for the median of the scores for all criteria. (See page D-7, in Appendix D, and page E-7, in Appendix E.)

4. The remaining 24 sorts (pages D-9 to D-55, in Appendix D and pages E-9 to E-55, in Appendix E) are based on various combinations of the criteria (technical and interdisciplinary). The values for each criterion are added together, and the BMPs are then sorted by the sum. Each BMP is identified with the appropriate quartile based on the sort.

5. The 4th Quartile Summary sorts (page D-3, in Appendix D, and page E-3, in Appendix E) show the number of times each BMP landed within the 4th (highest) quartile of the 26 sorts.

6. Since those BMPs that scored low in the technical evaluation for Effectiveness and Confidence in the Science were eliminated from the interdisciplinary evaluation, they are not included in any of the sorts. That means all the BMPs in every sort are presumed to be at least somewhat effective, with at least some confidence in the science.

Therefore, those BMPs that landed in the 1st (lowest) quartile should not be categorically considered ineffective or “bad” BMPs. To the contrary, their presence in the sorts means there is some level of confidence in their effectiveness. That they landed lower than others in some sorts simply means their applicability might be limited to certain conditions.

No sorts with salmon and stormwater combined are presented here. Each set was scored by a different group of people, and the salmon scores generally tended to run a bit higher than the stormwater scores, perhaps reflective of scorer preferences. Therefore any combined scoring should be done with appropriate and balanced weighting in mind.

D-1

Appendix D: Residential best management practices for salmon recovery – sorted lists

RESIDENTIAL

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

for

SALMON

Sorted Lists

Sorted by:

D-3 The Number of Times Each BMP Appears in the 4th Quartile of All Sorts

D-5 The Average of All Criteria

D-7 The Median of All Criteria

D-9 BMP Effectiveness

D-11 BMP Effectiveness and Area Relevance

D-13 BMP Effectiveness and Audience Willingness

D-15 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Audience Willingness

D-17 BMP Effectiveness, Need, and Fit for Our Organizations

D-19 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, and Fit for Our Organizations

D-21 BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

D-23 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

D-25 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

D-27 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

D-2

D-29 BMP Effectiveness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

D-31 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

D-33 BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

D-35 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

D-37 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

D-39 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

D-41 BMP Effectiveness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

D-43 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

D-45 BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

D-47 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

D-49 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

D-51 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative D-Approaches

D-53 BMP Effectiveness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

D-55 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

Number 4th Quartile BMP COUNT

F44Retain existing large woody debris and other structural components in stream

channels26

F16 Replace existing fish blockages to allow fish passage (including culvert blockages) 24

F42Avoid new bank armoring and hardening on rivers, streams, and freshwater

shorelines24

F45 Avoid new bank armoring and hardening on marine shorelines 24

F8Plant native vegetation in riparian areas (canopy‐forming plus understory,

structurally diverse)22

F14Fence and keep livestock out of streams, rivers, riparian areas, and other critical

areas (manure and vegetation management)22

F9 Retain and protect native vegetation where it currently exists 20

F43Replace existing armoring and hardening on rivers, streams, and freshwater

shorelines with healthier, bioengineered options20

F46Replace existing armoring and hardening on marine shorelines with healthier,

bioengineered options20

F36Allow for dispersal and ground infiltration of stormwater runoff (rather than

concentrating flows)18

F2 Do not disrupt fish passage with new construction 15

F1 Do not develop in riparian and other critical areas 14

F21 Avoid using creosote wood for landscaping, bulkheads, or pilings 12

F7Remove and properly dispose of invasive plant species that are detrimental to

salmon (e.g. knotweed, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, etc.)11

F24 Properly dispose of pharmaceutical drugs 10

F33 Reduce paved and other impervious surfaces 9

F34 Allow streams to flow in their natural channels (don't divert or impound water) 9

F26 Inspect and maintain septic system 6

F22 Avoid zinc and copper based products for moss and vegetation control 5

F32 Do not build new berms and levees 5

F50 Clean boots, gear, tires, etc. to prevent spread of invasive species 5

F12Control mud, sediment, and erosion on agricultural lands (e.g., heavy use area

protections, roof runoff, sediment basins, filter strips, etc.)4

F19 Fertilize and/or spread compost at appropriate times 4

F49Inspect, clean, and drain your boat to prevent the spread of invasive species

when exiting waterways4

F4Respect established critical area buffers (refrain from incompatible uses,

development, yard creep, etc.) 2

F6 Use site‐appropriate vegetation (soil, water, light) 2

Sorted by the Number of Times Each BMP Appears in the 4th Quartile of All

Sorts

RESIDENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SALMON

D‐3

F10Retain existing dead and fallen trees (including those felled as hazards) on site in

riparian areas1

F30 Install erosion control measures to prevent sediment from entering streams 1

F48 Avoid anchoring boats in eelgrass 1

F3 Protect critical areas by establishing conservation easements 0

F5 Retain native soils 0

F11 Control pesticide drift on agricultural lands 0

F13 Protect soil with winter confinement areas for livestock 0

F15Use proper manure management for livestock (e.g., cover, spread at proper

times)0

F17 Use compost rather than chemical fertilizers 0

F18 Fertilize and/or spread compost based on soil tests 0

F20Use physical, mechanical, and/or biological methods for control of insects and

other pests0

F23 Avoid using weed and feed products on lawns 0

F25 Scoop and bag pet waste and place it in the trash 0

F27 Regularly check and fix car fluid leaks 0

F28 Use commercial carwashes for vehicles 0

F29 Dispose of boat wastewater at an approved pumpout station 0

F31 Do not dump waste in riparian and other critical areas 0

F35 Amend soils to increase permeability (mulching, etc.) 0

F37 Disconnect roof downspouts from drain lines to allow for ground infiltration 0

F38 Use water‐efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures 0

F39 Use water‐efficient technology where irrigation systems are needed 0

F40 Install rain gardens where appropriate 0

F41 Tolerate beaver activity 0

F47 Use light‐permeable materials for over‐water structures in marine waters 0

D‐4

Number BMP Average Quartile

F44Retain existing large woody debris and other structural components

in stream channels3.1767 Q4

F16Replace existing fish blockages to allow fish passage (including

culvert blockages)3.1479 Q4

F42Avoid new bank armoring and hardening on rivers, streams, and

freshwater shorelines3.1246 Q4

F45 Avoid new bank armoring and hardening on marine shorelines 3.1019 Q4

F8Plant native vegetation in riparian areas (canopy‐forming plus

understory, structurally diverse)3.0513 Q4

F43Replace existing armoring and hardening on rivers, streams, and

freshwater shorelines with healthier, bioengineered options3.0364 Q4

F46Replace existing armoring and hardening on marine shorelines with

healthier, bioengineered options3.0347 Q4

F14Fence and keep livestock out of streams, rivers, riparian areas, and

other critical areas (manure and vegetation management)2.9676 Q4

F9 Retain and protect native vegetation where it currently exists 2.9290 Q4

F7

Remove and properly dispose of invasive plant species that are

detrimental to salmon (e.g. knotweed, reed canarygrass, Himalayan

blackberry, etc.)

2.9270 Q4

F49Inspect, clean, and drain your boat to prevent the spread of invasive

species when exiting waterways2.9084 Q4

F21 Avoid using creosote wood for landscaping, bulkheads, or pilings 2.9035 Q4

F36Allow for dispersal and ground infiltration of stormwater runoff

(rather than concentrating flows)2.9029 Q4

F2 Do not disrupt fish passage with new construction 2.8963 Q3

F1 Do not develop in riparian and other critical areas 2.8884 Q3

F22Avoid zinc and copper based products for moss and vegetation

control2.8678 Q3

F34Allow streams to flow in their natural channels (don't divert or

impound water)2.8668 Q3

F50 Clean boots, gear, tires, etc. to prevent spread of invasive species 2.8581 Q3

F33 Reduce paved and other impervious surfaces 2.8546 Q3

F12Control mud, sediment, and erosion on agricultural lands (e.g., heavy

use area protections, roof runoff, sediment basins, filter strips, etc.)2.8403 Q3

F26 Inspect and maintain septic system 2.8215 Q3

F4Respect established critical area buffers (refrain from incompatible

uses, development, yard creep, etc.) 2.8207 Q3


Sorted by the Average of All Criteria

D‐5

F30Install erosion control measures to prevent sediment from entering

streams2.8016 Q3

F31 Do not dump waste in riparian and other critical areas 2.7730 Q3

F24 Properly dispose of pharmaceutical drugs 2.7527 Q3

F32 Do not build new berms and levees 2.7417 Q2

F40 Install rain gardens where appropriate 2.7351 Q2

F6 Use site‐appropriate vegetation (soil, water, light) 2.7339 Q2

F23 Avoid using weed and feed products on lawns 2.7262 Q2

F10Retain existing dead and fallen trees (including those felled as

hazards) on site in riparian areas2.7254 Q2

F47Use light‐permeable materials for over‐water structures in marine

waters2.7098 Q2

F29 Dispose of boat wastewater at an approved pumpout station 2.6914 Q2

F20Use physical, mechanical, and/or biological methods for control of

insects and other pests2.6861 Q2

F15Use proper manure management for livestock (e.g., cover, spread at

proper times)2.6752 Q2

F48 Avoid anchoring boats in eelgrass 2.6699 Q2

F17 Use compost rather than chemical fertilizers 2.6496 Q2

F41 Tolerate beaver activity 2.6492 Q2

F3 Protect critical areas by establishing conservation easements 2.6057 Q1

F19 Fertilize and/or spread compost at appropriate times 2.5819 Q1

F5 Retain native soils 2.5556 Q1

F35 Amend soils to increase permeability (mulching, etc.) 2.5205 Q1

F11 Control pesticide drift on agricultural lands 2.5061 Q1

F39 Use water‐efficient technology where irrigation systems are needed 2.4934 Q1

F27 Regularly check and fix car fluid leaks 2.4926 Q1

F13 Protect soil with winter confinement areas for livestock 2.4885 Q1

F25 Scoop and bag pet waste and place it in the trash 2.4380 Q1

F18 Fertilize and/or spread compost based on soil tests 2.4345 Q1

F37Disconnect roof downspouts from drain lines to allow for ground

infiltration2.3900 Q1

F38 Use water‐efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures 2.3572 Q1

F28 Use commercial carwashes for vehicles 2.2676 Q1

D‐6

Number BMP Median Quartile






























streams2.9333 Q3







control2.9167 Q3


Sorted by the Median of All Criteria

D‐7











waters2.8571 Q2





F7



blackberry, etc.)

2.7857 Q2

















D‐8

Number BMP Sum Eff Quartile





































streams3.0000 Q3


Sorted by BMP Effectiveness

D‐9






control2.9167 Q2












F7



blackberry, etc.)

2.7857 Q2




waters2.7273 Q1











D‐10

Number BMP Sum Eff, Rel Quartile

































streams4.9000 Q3





Sorted by the BMP Effectiveness and Area Relevance

D‐11





control4.8167 Q2

F7



blackberry, etc.)

4.7857 Q2
















waters4.5573 Q1












D‐12

Number BMP Sum Eff, Wil Quartile

























F7



blackberry, etc.)

5.3571 Q3



streams5.3333 Q3










Sorted by BMP Effectiveness and Audience Willingness

D‐13

















control4.9833 Q1












waters4.5844 Q1





D‐14

Number BMP Sum Eff, Are, Wil Quartile






















F7



blackberry, etc.)

7.3571 Q3





streams7.2333 Q3









Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Audience Willingness

D‐15


















control6.8833 Q2












waters6.4144 Q1






D‐16

Number BMP Sum Eff, Nee, Fit Quartile

























streams9.6000 Q3

F7



blackberry, etc.)

9.5857 Q3










Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Need, and Fit for Our Organizations

D‐17





waters9.0844 Q3









control8.8500 Q2






















D‐18

Number BMPSum Eff, Wil, Nee,

FitQuartile


















F7



blackberry, etc.)

12.1571 Q4




streams11.9333 Q4













Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, and Fit for Our

Organizations

D‐19













waters10.9416 Q2




control10.9167 Q2




















D‐20

Number BMP Sum Eff, Inf Quartile















F7



blackberry, etc.)

6.3190 Q4


control6.2500 Q4



















Sorted by BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Information and Education

Approaches

D‐21













streams5.8000 Q2










waters5.5844 Q1













D‐22

Number BMP Sum Eff, Rel, Inf Quartile












F7



blackberry, etc.)

8.3190 Q4





control8.1500 Q4



















Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Information

and Education Approaches

D‐23













streams7.7000 Q2










waters7.4144 Q1













D‐24

Number BMP Sum Eff, Wil, Inf Quartile







F7



blackberry, etc.)

8.8905 Q4






















control8.3167 Q3







Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for

Information and Education Approaches

D‐25


streams8.1333 Q3





























waters7.4416 Q1





D‐26

Number BMPSum Eff, Are, Wil,

InfQuartile







F7



blackberry, etc.)

10.8905 Q4



















control10.2167 Q3






streams10.0333 Q3




Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, Audience Willingness, and

Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

D‐27




























waters9.2716 Q1








D‐28

Number BMPSum Eff, Nee, Fit,

InfQuartile












F7



blackberry, etc.)

13.1190 Q4



















streams12.4000 Q3




Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability

for Information and Education Approaches

D‐29




control12.1833 Q3





waters11.9416 Q2




























D‐30


Fit, InfQuartile







F7



blackberry, etc.)

15.6905 Q4



















streams14.7333 Q3









Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, Fit for Our

Organizations, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

D‐31





control14.2500 Q3















waters13.7987 Q2

















D‐32

Number BMP Sum Eff, Beh Quartile























control6.3167 Q4














Sorted by BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

D‐33

F7



blackberry, etc.)

6.1857 Q3













streams5.9333 Q2






waters5.7987 Q2















D‐34

Number BMP Sum Eff, Rel, Beh Quartile


























control8.2167 Q3

F7



blackberry, etc.)

8.1857 Q3









Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Behavior

Change Approaches

D‐35















streams7.8333 Q2






waters7.6287 Q2















D‐36

Number BMP Sum Eff, Wil Beh Quartile





















F7



blackberry, etc.)

8.7571 Q3














control8.3833 Q3



Behavior Change Approaches

D‐37









streams8.2667 Q2



















waters7.6558 Q1







D‐38


BehQuartile


















F7



blackberry, etc.)

10.7571 Q4















control10.2833 Q3



Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

D‐39




streams10.1667 Q3

























waters9.4858 Q1








D‐40


BehQuartile




















F7



blackberry, etc.)

12.9857 Q4













streams12.5333 Q3




for Behavior Change Approaches

D‐41





control12.2500 Q3




waters12.1558 Q2



























D‐42


Fit, BehQuartile

















F7



blackberry, etc.)

15.5571 Q4









streams14.8667 Q3









Organizations, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

D‐43









control14.3167 Q2







waters14.0130 Q2






















D‐44

Number BMP Sum Eff, Reg Quartile




















control6.4500 Q4














streams5.9333 Q3



waters5.8701 Q3


Sorted by BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative

Approaches

D‐45














F7



blackberry, etc.)

5.2524 Q2



















D‐46

Number BMP Sum Eff, Rel, Reg Quartile




















control8.3500 Q4












streams7.8333 Q3




waters7.7001 Q3




Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for

Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

D‐47







F7



blackberry, etc.)

7.2524 Q2

























D‐48

Number BMP Sum Eff, Wil, Reg Quartile
























control8.5167 Q3









streams8.2667 Q3







D‐49






F7



blackberry, etc.)

7.8238 Q2



waters7.7273 Q2

























D‐50


RegQuartile























control10.4167 Q3









streams10.1667 Q3







Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

D‐51





F7



blackberry, etc.)

9.8238 Q2




waters9.5573 Q2

























D‐52


RegQuartile




























streams12.5333 Q3





control12.3833 Q3





for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

D‐53


waters12.2273 Q3

F7



blackberry, etc.)

12.0524 Q3
































D‐54


Fit, RegQuartile























streams14.8667 Q3










F7



blackberry, etc.)

14.6238 Q3




Organizations, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

D‐55


control14.4500 Q3





waters14.0844 Q2





























D‐56

E-1

Appendix E: Residential best management practices for stormwater – sorted lists

RESIDENTIAL

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

for

STORMWATER

Sorted Lists

Sorted by:

E-3 The Number of Times Each BMP Appears in the 4th Quartile of All Sorts

E-5 The Average of All Criteria

E-7 The Median of All Criteria

E-9 BMP Effectiveness

E-11 BMP Effectiveness and Area Relevance

E-13 BMP Effectiveness and Audience Willingness

E-15 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Audience Willingness

E-17 BMP Effectiveness, Need, and Fit for Our Organizations

E-19 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, and Fit for Our Organizations

E-21 BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

E-23 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

E-25 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

E-27 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

E-2

E-29 BMP Effectiveness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

E-31 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

E-33 BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

E-35 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

E-37 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

E-39 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

E-41 BMP Effectiveness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

E-43 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

E-45 BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

E-47 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

E-49 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

E-51 BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, Audience Willingness, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative E-Approaches

E-53 BMP Effectiveness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

E-55 BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, Fit for Our Organizations, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

Number 4th Quartile BMP COUNT

S10 Keep carpet cleaning wastewater out of the stormwater system 26

S13 Keep paint/paint clean up out of the stormwater system 26

S11 Dispose household hazardous waste correctly 25

S2 Avoid using weed and feed, pesticides, herbicides 23

S29 Dispose of RV greywater/waste water at an approved facility 23

S26 Check for and fix vehicle leaks (oil, etc.) 18

S16 Scoop up pet waste and toss it in trash 17

S12Manage home improvement contractors, painters, landscapers, etc. to keep

pollution out of the stormwater system14

S23 Regularly inspect septic systems 15

S9 Report spills by using the IDDE hotline 13

S17 Use kitty litter or absorbent to absorb, sweep and properly dispose of spills 12

S32 Retain large trees 11

S20Dispose of concrete waste properly ‐ place unused wet concrete in a box lined

with a plastic bag to dry and rinse concrete tools in grass9

S28 Use commercial carwashes to wash vehicles 6

S19 Keep pressure‐washing wastewater out of the stormwater system 5

S22 Do not dispose of toxic materials in septic systems 4

S14Divert water from roof moss control from the stormwater system (disconnect

downspout during treatment)3

S31 Plant trees 3

S3Protect catch‐basins from beauty bark, garden mulch, sediment, leaf litter, dirt,

etc.2

S37 Retain uncompacted native soils 2

S18 Use non‐chemical methods to clean driveways, buildings, and walkways 1

S30 Use alternative transportation ‐ reduce individual automobile trips 1

S1 Use site‐appropriate vegetation (soil, water, light, right place/right plant) 0

S4 Use slow‐release organic lawn fertilizer 0

S5 Use compost instead of fertilizer 0

S6 Use a mulching mower 0

S7 Sweep up overcast fertilizer 0

S8 Compost livestock manure using approved methods 0

S15 Divert pool/hottub draining away from the stormwater system 0

S21 Use least toxic household cleaners 0

S24 Install a rain garden where appropriate to treat pollution 0

S25 Wash car on the lawn 0

S27 Find alternatives to charity carwashes or use charity carwash kits 0

S33 Use pervious pavement (e.g. concrete, asphalt, pavers) when appropriate 0

RESIDENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR STORMWATER

Sorted by the Number of Times Each BMP Appears in the 4th Quartile of All

Sorts

E‐3

S34Retain topographic complexity (i.e., pit and mound topography) to preserve

existing infiltration0

S35 Disconnect roof downspouts from the stormwater system to allow for infiltration 0

S36Install a rain garden where appropriate to treat/decrease runoff/increase

infiltration0

S38 Amend soils to increase permeability (mulching, compost, etc.) 0

E‐4

Number BMP AVERAGE Quartile

S13 Keep paint/paint clean up out of the stormwater system 2.9393 Q4

S2 Avoid using weed and feed, pesticides, herbicides 2.8775 Q4

S10 Keep carpet cleaning wastewater out of the stormwater system 2.8547 Q4

S11 Dispose household hazardous waste correctly 2.8288 Q4

S9 Report spills by using the IDDE hotline 2.8041 Q4

S29 Dispose of RV greywater/waste water at an approved facility 2.7633 Q4

S16 Scoop up pet waste and toss it in trash 2.7244 Q4

S26 Check for and fix vehicle leaks (oil, etc.) 2.7203 Q4

S23 Regularly inspect septic systems 2.7079 Q4

S12Manage home improvement contractors, painters, landscapers, etc.

to keep pollution out of the stormwater system2.6461 Q3

S32 Retain large trees 2.6094 Q3

S17Use kitty litter or absorbent to absorb, sweep and properly dispose

of spills2.6032 Q3

S22 Do not dispose of toxic materials in septic systems 2.5918 Q3

S20Dispose of concrete waste properly ‐ place unused wet concrete in a

box lined with a plastic bag to dry and rinse concrete tools in grass2.5768 Q3

S3Protect catch‐basins from beauty bark, garden mulch, sediment, leaf

litter, dirt, etc.2.5718 Q3

S28 Use commercial carwashes to wash vehicles 2.5542 Q3

S4 Use slow‐release organic lawn fertilizer 2.5493 Q3

S18Use non‐chemical methods to clean driveways, buildings, and

walkways2.5444 Q3

S37 Retain uncompacted native soils 2.5333 Q3

S14Divert water from roof moss control from the stormwater system

(disconnect downspout during treatment)2.5300 Q2

S35Disconnect roof downspouts from the stormwater system to allow

for infiltration2.5195 Q2

S19 Keep pressure‐washing wastewater out of the stormwater system 2.5105 Q2

S31 Plant trees 2.4743 Q2

S33Use pervious pavement (e.g. concrete, asphalt, pavers) when

appropriate2.4743 Q2

S21 Use least toxic household cleaners 2.4695 Q2

S38 Amend soils to increase permeability (mulching, compost, etc.) 2.4598 Q2


Sorted by the Average of All Criteria

E‐5

S5 Use compost instead of fertilizer 2.4501 Q2

S27 Find alternatives to charity carwashes or use charity carwash kits 2.4462 Q2

S7 Sweep up overcast fertilizer 2.4178 Q1

S36Install a rain garden where appropriate to treat/decrease

runoff/increase infiltration2.4165 Q1

S1Use site‐appropriate vegetation (soil, water, light, right place/right

plant)2.3769 Q1

S25 Wash car on the lawn 2.3763 Q1

S15 Divert pool/hottub draining away from the stormwater system 2.3308 Q1

S24 Install a rain garden where appropriate to treat pollution 2.3093 Q1

S6 Use a mulching mower 2.2379 Q1

S30 Use alternative transportation ‐ reduce individual automobile trips 2.2107 Q1

S8 Compost livestock manure using approved methods 2.1758 Q1

S34Retain topographic complexity (i.e., pit and mound topography) to

preserve existing infiltration2.1613 Q1

E‐6

Number BMP MEDIAN Quartile















of spills2.8438 Q3










walkways2.7059 Q2










Sorted by the Median of All Criteria

E‐7






plant)2.6000 Q1











E‐8

Number BMP Sum Eff Quartile



















of spills2.8788 Q3






walkways2.8065 Q2










Sorted by BMP Effectiveness

E‐9








plant)2.6000 Q1









E‐10

Number BMP Sum Eff, Rel Quartile

















of spills4.8788 Q3






walkways4.8065 Q3













Sorted by the BMP Effectiveness and Area Relevance

E‐11















plant)4.0000 Q1

E‐12

Number BMP Sum Eff, Wil Quartile








of spills5.5455 Q4














plant)5.1556 Q3




walkways4.9241 Q2









Sorted by BMP Effectiveness and Audience Willingness

E‐13

















E‐14

Number BMP Sum Eff, Area, Wil Quartile








of spills7.5455 Q4














walkways6.9241 Q3














Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Audience Willingness

E‐15






plant)6.5556 Q1










E‐16

Number BMP Sum Eff, Nee, Fit Quartile















of spills8.7023 Q3








walkways8.4535 Q3













Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Need, and Fit for Our Organizations

E‐17









plant)7.8778 Q1







E‐18


FitQuartile










of spills11.3690 Q4

















walkways10.5712 Q2







plant)10.4333 Q2


Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Audience Willingness, Need, and Fit for Our

Organizations

E‐19
















E‐20

Number BMP Sum Eff, Inf Quartile












of spills5.9376 Q4




walkways5.8653 Q3


















Sorted by BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Information and Education

Approaches

E‐21







plant)5.4333 Q1











E‐22

Number BMP Sum Eff, Rel, Inf Quartile











of spills7.9376 Q4




walkways7.8653 Q3





















Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Information

and Education Approaches

E‐23













plant)6.8333 Q1



E‐24

Number BMP Sum Eff, Wil, Inf Quartile










of spills8.6043 Q4












plant)7.9889 Q3


walkways7.9829 Q3













Information and Education Approaches

E‐25
















E‐26

Number BMPSum Eff, Area,

Wil, InfQuartile









of spills10.6043 Q4













walkways9.9829 Q3
















Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

E‐27




plant)9.3889 Q1











E‐28


InfQuartile













of spills11.7611 Q4









walkways11.5123 Q3















for Information and Education Approaches

E‐29






plant)10.7111 Q1










E‐30


Fit, InfQuartile









of spills14.4278 Q4













walkways13.6300 Q3












plant)13.2667 Q2



Organizations, and Suitability for Information and Education Approaches

E‐31
















E‐32

Number BMP Sum Eff, Beh Quartile














walkways5.8065 Q3










of spills5.7023 Q3










Sorted by BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

E‐33


plant)5.6000 Q2
















E‐34

Number BMP Sum Eff, Rel, Beh Quartile










walkways7.8065 Q4












of spills7.7023 Q3














Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for Behavior

Change Approaches

E‐35










plant)7.0000 Q1






E‐36

Number BMP Sum Eff, Wil, Beh Quartile








of spills8.3690 Q4









plant)8.1556 Q3







walkways7.9241 Q3












Behavior Change Approaches

E‐37

















E‐38


Wil, BehQuartile








of spills10.3690 Q4












walkways9.9241 Q3















plant)9.5556 Q2



Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

E‐39















E‐40


BehQuartile


















of spills11.5258 Q3


walkways11.4535 Q3

















for Behavior Change Approaches

E‐41


plant)10.8778 Q2














E‐42


Fit, BehQuartile










of spills14.1925 Q4











walkways13.5712 Q3









plant)13.4333 Q2







Organizations, and Suitability for Behavior Change Approaches

E‐43
















E‐44

Number BMP Sum Eff, Reg Quartile




















walkways4.5922 Q3













of spills4.2121 Q2


Sorted by BMP Effectiveness and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative

Approaches

E‐45














plant)3.7250 Q1



E‐46

Number BMP Sum Eff, Rel, Reg Quartile



















walkways6.5922 Q3













of spills6.2121 Q2




Sorted by BMP Effectiveness, Area Relevance, and Suitability for


E‐47















plant)5.1250 Q1

E‐48

Number BMP Sum Eff, Wil, Reg Quartile

















of spills6.8788 Q3






walkways6.7098 Q3














E‐49




plant)6.2806 Q2













E‐50


Wil, RegQuartile

















of spills8.8788 Q3






walkways8.7098 Q3















Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

E‐51













plant)7.6806 Q1


E‐52


RegQuartile



















walkways10.2392 Q3










of spills10.0357 Q2






for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

E‐53














plant)9.0028 Q1




E‐54


Fit, RegQuartile














of spills12.7023 Q3






walkways12.3569 Q3
















Organizations, and Suitability for Regulatory/Legislative Approaches

E‐55







plant)11.5583 Q1










E‐56

F-1

APPENDIX F: LIST OF PUGET SOUND EXPERTS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO SCORING PROCESSES

STORMWATER EXPERTS

STORM MEETING BRAINSTORMING PARTICIPANTS (FEBRUARY 13, 2014) Apryl Hynes, City of Everett Betsy Adams, City of Kirkland Bill Dowe, Skagit County Bill Sansbury, City of Mercer Island Cara Ianni, Puget Sound Partnership Carlene Teterud, City of Auburn Chris Thorn, City of Auburn Doug Rice, King County Doug Stark, City of Bellingham Hollie Shilley, City of Federal Way Idris Beauregard, City of Seattle Public Utilities Janet Geer, City of Bothell Jayna Ericson, Kitsap County Jennifer Adams, City of Shoreline Justine Asohmbom, WA State Dept. of Ecology Kathy Minsch, City of Seattle Public Utilities Kerry Eastwood, City of Bellingham

Laurie Devereaux, City of Bellevue Leah Grassl, City of Lynnwood Lisa Werre, City of Sammamish Maythia Airhart, City of Seattle Melanie May, City of Auburn Mike Cawrse, City of Edmonds Mike Johnson, City of Edmonds Mike Livingston-Hall, Pierce County Peggy Campbell, Snohomish County Richard Sawyer, City of Kenmore Stef Frenzl, Snohomish County Steve Fisher, City of Edmonds Suzi Wong Swint, Snohomish County Tiffany O’Dell, Pierce County Tony Doucette, City of Federal Way Tyler Beekley, City of Des Moines Vince Bertrand, City of Monroe

TECHNICAL SCORING PARTICIPANTS (SEPTEMBER 2014)

Andy Loch, City of Bothell Anne Dettelbach, WA State Dept. of Ecology Chance Berthiaume, City of Bremerton Chris Thorn, City of Auburn Corrie Lee, Pierce County

Dana Zlateff, City of Issaquah

Dan Handa, City of Puyallup David McDonald, City of Seattle Doug Hutchinson, City of Seattle

F-2

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRIORITIZATION TOOL FOR PUGET SOUND APPENDIX F

Eli Mackiewicz, City of Bellingham Evan Swanson, City of Kent Heather Kibbey, City of Everett Jeff Barney, Peirce County Jennifer Adams, City of Shoreline Kate Rhoads, City of Seattle Marci Chew, City of Mill Creek Mark Higginson, City of Puyallup Melanie May, City of Auburn Melva Hill, City of Bainbridge Island Mieke Hoppin, City of Tacoma Mindy Frohm, Kitsap County

Richard Jack, King County Rosie Strom, Pierce County Ryean-Marie Tuomisto, City of Kirkland Scott McQuary, City of Redmond Shuhui Dun, Pierce County

Stacey Rush, City of Kirkland Steve Britsch, Snohomish County Steve Carstens, City of Puyallup Sylvia Graham, City of Bellingham Tim Clark, King County Tracy Gilson, Snohomish County Windy Kruse, Pierce County

INTERDISCIPLINARY SCORING PARTICIPANTS (DECEMBER 2014)

Apryl Hynes, City of Everett Anne Dettelbach, WA State Dept. of Ecology Betsy Adams, City of Kirkland Donnelle Dayan, City of Sumner Greg Villanueva, City of Tukwila Janet Geer, City of Bothell Jeff Parsons, Puget Sound Partnership Jennifer Adams, City of Shoreline Karen Stewart, Snohomish County

Laurie Devereaux, City of Bellevue Lisa Welle, City of Sammamish Mike Halliday, Pierce County Peggy Campbell, Snohomish County Peter Holte, City of Redmond Stef Frenzl, Snohomish County Susan Harper, City of Seattle Suzi Wong Swint, Snohomish County Tina Kendall, City of Shoreline

SALMON RECOVERY EXPERTS BRAINSTORMING WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS (FEBRUARY 2014)

Alison Studley, Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group Amy Kaeser, Friends of the Cedar River Watershed

Bobbi Lindemulder, Snohomish Conservation District Brooke Clement, Streamkeeper

F-3


Chuck Timblin, Whatcom Conservation District Coleman Byrnes, Retired Dana Ecelberger, Jefferson Conservation District Emily Derenne, Skagit County Erik Nelson, affiliation unknown Frank Corey, Whatcom Conservation District Jason Anderson, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Natural Resource Dept. Joe Holtrop, Clallam Conservation District Kate Riley, Snohomish Conservation District

Kevin Lee, Sound Salmon Solutions Linda Lyshall, San Juan Islands Conservation District Lisa Nelson, Mountains to Sound Greenway Lou Beck, King Conservation District Owen French, Washington State Dept. of Ecology Paul Dorn, Suquamish Tribe Dept. of Natural Resources Scott Moore, Snohomish County Tami Pokorny, Jefferson County Walter Rung, Streamkeepers

TECHNICAL SCORING PARTICIPANTS (SEPTEMBER 2014)

Aimee Fullerton, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Amy Hatch-Winecka, WRIA 13 & 14 Lead Entities Brandy Reed, Puget Sound Conservation District Caucus Bruce Gregory, San Juan Islands Conservation District Gordon Thomson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jay Davis, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Jed Moore, Nisqually Dept. of Natural Resources

Josh Kubo, Tulalip Tribes Natural Resource Dept. Kit Crump, Stillaguamish Lead Entity Kristin Marshall, Snohomish Conservation District Leska Fore, Puget Sound Partnership Lou Beck, King Conservation District Luis Yanez, Pierce County Conservation District Teresa Sjostrom, City of Bremerton

INTERDISCIPLINARY SCORING PARTICIPANTS (FEBRUARY 2015)

Carin Anderson, Kitsap Conservation District Darric Lowery, WA State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Douglas Palenshus, WA State Dept. of Ecology Elissa Ostergaard, WRIA 9 Lead Entity, King County Emily Sanford, Puget Sound Partnership Jason Anderson, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Natural Resource Dept.

Leihla Scharlau, Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Leska Fore, Puget Sound Partnership Lisa Nelson, Mountains to Sound Greenway Michelle Myers, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Peggy Campbell, Snohomish County Ryan Williams, Snohomish Conservation District

F-4


Sarah Gage, Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office Stewart Reinbold, WA State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Susan Key, San Juan County Tami Pokorny, Jefferson County

G-1

APPENDIX G: INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW CRITERIA DEFINITIONS

1. AUDIENCE WILLINGNESS

HOW WILLING IS THE TARGET AUDIENCE TO DO THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE?

In other words, is the BMP an easy sell or not?

People are generally less willing to do some practices and more willing to do others. This varies with the practice and the audience. For example, research has found homeowners resistant to the idea of replacing their existing driveways with permeable pavement, even free of charge. This BMP should therefore score lower on the willingness-scale. On the other hand, dog owners tend to be generally receptive to a “scoop the poop” message (although water quality is rarely the motivator). This BMP should score higher on the willingness-scale.

This question should be scored without regard to why the target audience is generally willing or not willing to do the practice.

The target audience is the specific group or class of people who are in a position to do a given BMP. For example, given a septic system BMP, the target audience would be septic system owners because they are the people who are able to do the BMP. People on municipal wastewater systems would not be part of the target audience because they cannot do the BMP. The target audience is never “the general public”.

2. NEED

ARE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ALREADY PROMOTING THE PRACTICE?

This criterion assesses whether we are filling gaps or doing something that is already being done by another group. If the BMP is already promoted by other organizations, then we might not need to invest there. For example, transportation can be an important factor for water quality. But other agencies already invest heavily to promote transportation alternatives, so our investments might make a bigger impact elsewhere.

If nobody else is promoting the practice, then the need is higher. If others are already effectively promoting it, then the need is lower.

This is not an assessment of the effectiveness, technical merits, or need for the BMP.

3. FIT FOR OUR ORGANIZATION(S)

HOW ALIGNED IS THE PRACTICE WITH OUR ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION AND PRIORITIES?

Does promotion of the BMP seem like a logical thing for our organization(s) or does it seem like an odd fit? When challenged, would leadership in our organization(s) continue support of the BMP? Would the target audience for this BMP wonder why our organization(s) would even be interested?

If the practice is a clear, obvious fit for our organization(s), it should score higher. If it’s an odd fit with little internal support, then it should score lower.

G-2

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRIORITIZATION TOOL FOR PUGET SOUND APPENDIX G

4. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION APPROACHES

DOES EVIDENCE SUGGEST THAT INCREASED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE COULD INFLUENCE

ADOPTION OF THIS PRACTICE?

Information and education approaches are generally designed to build public awareness and make people smarter about problems and solutions. Public awareness is generally considered desirable, but it does not necessarily result in implementation of BMPs. Generally speaking, we can estimate that between 5 and 15 percent of a target audience will implement a BMP based on information alone.

• Is the BMP addressing a relatively new, emerging issue that the public knows little about?

• Is lack of information a primary barrier preventing the target audience from doing the BMP?

• Is less than 25 percent of the target audience familiar with the BMP?

• Is the target audience composed of innovators and early adopters (see the Diffusion Approaches below)?

If yes to any of these questions, then information and education approaches should score higher.

If public awareness of the issue is already high and public education has been ongoing for a decade or more, then information and education approaches should score lower (regardless whether sufficient numbers of people are doing the BMP).

5. BEHAVIOR CHANGE APPROACHES

ARE SOCIAL MARKETING AND OTHER BEHAVIOR CHANGE APPROACHES LIKELY TO BE AN

APPROPRIATE FIT FOR THIS PRACTICE?

These approaches focus exclusively on producing BMP implementation. They emphasize a strong target audience orientation, requiring that we think of the BMP from the audience perspective. These approaches do not assume that education or public awareness will produce BMP implementation. Instead, they emphasize breaking down the barriers preventing the target audience from doing the BMP and enhancing motivators for the target audience to do the behavior. In essence, social marketing is the application of the scientific method to public outreach: developing a data-driven hypothesis of change, conducting controlled tests, measuring BMP adoption, and validating assumptions.

• Are there clear barriers preventing the practice or clear motivators that encourage the practice?

• Is some sort of nudge, assistance, or exchange generally needed for the target audience to adopt the BMP?

• Has adoption of the BMP by the target audience stopped or reached a plateau using information and education approaches?

• Do we still need more people to adopt the BMP after 20 years of public outreach?

• Are social marketing, behavioral economics, and related approaches likely to produce BMP implementation?

If yes to any of these questions, then behavior change approaches should score higher.

G-3


6. REGULATORY/LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES

ARE REGULATORY/LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES AN APPROPRIATE FIT FOR THIS PRACTICE?

Legislative approaches can sometimes be used to break down infrastructure barriers to BMP implementation. For example, legislation establishing facilities to collect used motor oil or compact fluorescent light bulbs can facilitate proper disposal of household hazardous waste and improve BMP implementation.

Legislative approaches can also be effective in situations where the target audience is not equipped or otherwise capable of addressing a problem. For example, even if most drivers knew that metallic brake pads are a problem, they are virtually incapable of implementing a solution. Legislation phasing out metallic brake pads therefore proved to be a logical solution.

Regulatory approaches may be appropriate 1) to force BMP implementation where other methods repeatedly fail, 2) to force BMP implementation among specific recalcitrant target audiences, and 3) as a companion to a well-researched social marketing effort where audience barriers are well-understood.

Regulatory approaches by themselves do not necessarily produce BMP implementation, especially where there is not an effective enforcement mechanism. For example, car washing effluent and pet waste are already regulated in many jurisdictions, yet offenses are still common. Regulatory approaches can also create public backlash if not carefully managed. For example, stronger car washing and critical areas ordinances in some jurisdictions resulted in public backlash that made dissemination of BMPs even more difficult.

• Does audience research show that regulatory measures could be a motivating factor for the target audience to do the practice?

• Has research identified barriers within public institutions that prevent adoption of the practice?

• Have most of the target population adopted the practice and only a few laggards remain?

• Have bona-fide attempts at social marketing and information-based approaches failed to produce the desired adoption of the practice?

If yes to any of these questions, then regulatory/legislative approaches should score higher.

G-4


Prioritization Tool for Puget Sound Salmon Recovery ... Recovery & Stormwater Individual & Residential-Scale Best Management Practices ... social marketing and behavior change strategies,

Documents