1.  Review/compare effectiveness monitoring categories and approve a set  Review and compare hypotheses-driving questions and provide guidance or approval  Review prioritization of approved hypotheses-driving questions and vote  Review details of approved hypotheses- driving questions. Are details sufficient?

2.  Developed Hypotheses-Driving Questions rather than working hypotheses.  Modified from November’s language based upon sub-committee review of workshop comments and peer reviews.  Literature review and more input is needed to evolve broader questions into working hypotheses.

3. November 2009 Language Proposed March 2010 Language LID Retrofit Non-structural (i.e., operational, behavior- change) approaches Fill Key Data Gaps New and Emerging Techniques  NPDES Permits  Agriculture BMPs  LID  Land Use Regulation  Industrial  Programmatic/Basin- wide/Compliance, Roads  New and Emerging Techniques  Fill Key Data Gaps

4. Are current erosion and sediment control programs effective? Are targeted education programs significantly changing behaviors to reduce stormwater pollutants? Beyond counting catchbasins cleaned, are lbs. removed an adequate measure of protection (removed from environment), habitat protection (sand away from fish gills) or is more needed (particle size distribution, depth of sump, etc.)? What is the optimum level/regime of ditch maintenance to protect water quality? Can mycological remediation techniques be effective in reducing fecal coliform and heavy metals in certain applications? Does the SWG agree with moving these hypotheses/questions outside this group for further development and design?

5. November 2009 Language Proposed March 2010 Language LID approach and techniques implemented as the primary/sole method of flow control in a new residential development not only meet Western Wash Stormwater Manual requirements for flow control but also a) maintain values of surface discharge volumes, durations, and peak flow rates observed in undisturbed Puget Sound Lowland catchments of similar size and surficial geology; and b) achieve flow control performance superior to that measured on a similar size and type of project where ponds and/or vaults are used. LID on infiltrative soils are more effective, and more cost-effective, at achieving measureable flow control and meeting flow control standards than LID on non-infiltrative soils. How effective are LID BMPs at flow control and pollutant removal for stormwater, and are they protective of groundwater? Flow in small streams over time – Is application of Ecology manual, or local technical equivalents, making a difference? Can a full complement of the LID approach and techniques, used throughout a watershed, prevent measurable harm to watersheds (as measured by flow changes and/or pollutants)?

6. November 2009 Language Proposed March 2010 Language LID techniques used for high-capacity roadways on favorable sites achieve water-quality and water- quantity of runoff superior to that provided by stormwater ponds and/or vaults, and groundwater quality is not measurably compromised Accumulation of metals in bioretention soils does not reach levels of concern after 10 years of use. What is the relative effectiveness, in terms of flow control and/or pollutant control, of certain land use planning practices (e.g., retention of native vegetation, reduction of impervious surfaces, clustering, reduced building footprint, etc.) How effective is LID along state highways, for flow control and treatment?

7. November 2009 Language March 2010 Language Runoff-treatment technologies adapted to retrofit conditions achieve long-term reductions in pollutants commensurate with presumptive regulatory performance Stormwater treatment retrofits in existing residential developments achieve long- term reductions in pollutants and meet water quality standards at the point of discharge. Retrofitting existing residential areas with bioretention swales in the street right-of- way significantly reduces stormwater discharge volume and loadings of pollutants. Stormwater flow control retrofits in existing areas of high density urban development not only meet Western Washington Stormwater Manual requirements for flow control but maintain values of surface discharge volumes, durations, and peak flow rates observed in undisturbed Puget Sound Lowland catchments of similar size and surficial geology LID stormwater treatment retrofits adjacent to existing highways achieve long-term reductions in pollutants and meet water quality standards at the point of discharge. Flow in small streams over time – Is application of Ecology manual, or local technical equivalents, making a difference? Does retrofit of older residential development (no or inadequate flow control, no water quality) produce statistically significant results for flow control and pollutant removal over one with no retrofits? Which mix of BMPs (LID and conventional) provide the greatest flow control and pollutant removal benefits in retrofit projects?

8. November 2009 Language March 2010 Language Intensive pollutant source control programs at industrial sites achieve long- term reductions in pollutants and meet water quality standards at the point of discharge. Intensive public educational outreach efforts related to pollution control in existing residential developments achieve long-term reductions in pollutants relative to residential developments not receiving commensurate outreach (in NPDES) Enhanced enforcement of “good- housekeeping” practices at industrial sites achieves significant reduction in pollutant releases. Street sweeping and other source control methods are more cost effective at reducing pollutants from existing developments than stormwater treatment retrofits. Full implementation of all recommended waste management best management practices from the Natural Resources Conservation Service at existing livestock/dairy farm sites achieve long- term reductions in pollutants and meet water quality standards at the point of discharge. What is the optimal mix of industrial non- structural/operational BMPs to reduce targeted pollutants at point of compliance? What are the optimal industrial structural BMPs and/or mix of BMPs for reducing targeted pollutants at point of compliance? What is the relative effectiveness of street cleaning? Is the current set of implemented Natural Resources Conservation Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) at existing agricultural sites achieving long-term reductions in pollutants and meeting water quality standards at points of discharge?

9.  Hypothesis-Driving Question  Who: The Conservation Commission will work with Puget Sound conservation districts, the Washington Department of Agriculture, and members of the Agriculture/Water Quality Workgroup (NRCS, DOE, EPA, WA Dept. Ag) to further refine the methodology and implementation of the effectiveness monitoring of agricultural BMPs. The Conservation Commission will seek funding, lead, and coordinate the project.  When: This is a high priority need as elevated by the Agriculture/ Water Quality Workgroup, and the results of this study are germane to the Stormwater Work Group.  Methodology: Either a paired-watershed or an upstream/downstream, before/after design would be used (Clausen and Spooner 1993; Plotnikoff et al. 2006). Suggested parameters are: water temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, total suspended solids, nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite, phosphorus, turbidity, fecal coliform, ammonia, and pesticides with more refined tailoring after choosing the specific monitoring areas and examining the current land use and type of agriculture production at each site.  Geographic Scope: It is recommended that monitoring target areas of more intense agricultural activity. The methodology used to determine these priority areas can be found in Appendix 1. The priority areas include:  Ideas for resources: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Puget Sound Partnership, Department of Ecology, Conservation Commission.