Management Decisions

Request:

Department of Education representatives/Management Board Members: We need to understand the cost required to implement and sustain systemic MWEEs in your state. CBP could assist by providing the sample survey we have prepared and/or hiring a contractor to interview district reps. Would like numbers by the end of the calendar year.

Decision:

ACTION 5a: Management Board Jurisdiction Representatives who agree to providing the requested information will do so by Dec 31, 2022.

Request:

We need to understand the cost required to implement and sustain systemic MWEEs in your state. CBP could assist by providing the sample survey we have prepared and/or hiring a contractor to interview district reps. Would like numbers by the end of the calendar year. By the next Management Board meeting, we are seeking a “yes” or “no” from each state as to whether they will provide a number by the end of the calendar year and what assistance they need. Email Shannon Sprague (shannon.sprague@noaa.gov).

Decision:

ACTION 5: Management Board Jurisdiction Representatives are asked to email Shannon Sprague (shannon.sprague@noaa.gov) by June 9 indicating whether they will provide the estimated cost of implementing and sustaining systemic MWEEs in their jurisdiction (Yes or No), by the end of the calendar year. Jurisdiction Reps are asked to include what if any assistance they need to accomplish this action in their email.

Request:

Management Board Members: Establish an Action Team at the Chesapeake Bay Program to focus on Workforce pathways (Education Workgroup, Diversity Workgroup, Stewardship Workgroup, STAC, other Outcomes across CBP).

Decision:

Request:

Management Board Members: If you choose, nominate staff from the jurisdiction you represent to participate in a conversation around diversifying the environmental workforce through youth programs (high school/first jobs/college), including exploring intentional pathways involving CTE/STEM. Email names to Shannon Sprague (shannon.Sprague@noaa.gov) by May 26th.

Decision:

ACTION 4: CBPO Staff and cohort representatives will follow up with the Management Board Representatives to remind them of this voluntary action and seek responses by the May 26th deadline. Management Board members who agree to this action will respond by the deadline.

Request:

Management Board Members: If you choose, nominate staff from the jurisdiction you represent to participate in a conversation around diversifying the environmental workforce through youth programs (high school/first jobs/college), including exploring intentional pathways involving CTE/STEM. Email names to Shannon Sprague (shannon.Sprague@noaa.gov) by May 26th.

Decision:

DECISION 1: The Management Board agreed to nominate staff from each of their jurisdcitions to discuss diversifying the environmental workforce through youth programs, including exploring intentional pathways involving CTE/STEM.

Request:

It is Maryland’s opportunity to host the 2023 Environmental Literacy Summit. PSC is the co-host of the event with Education Workgroup. Seeking agreement from Maryland PSC representative to co-host, and staff level contact(s) to begin planning in Fall.

Decision:

ACTION 2a: Cohort staff will follow up with staff level Maryland representatives to determine if the new MD governor’s administration will commit to hosting the 2023 Environmental Literature Summit.

Request:

Department of Education representatives: Send the Environmental Literacy Indicator Tool (ELIT) survey to district superintendents and content supervisors for each of the school districts in your states.

Decision:

ACTION 1: CBPO staff and cohort staff will follow up with the Department of Education Representatives to remind them of this action.

Request:

Explore solutions for the ongoing issue of maintenance in individual agencies.

Decision:

Action 10: Katherine Antos will prepare a presentation for the April Management Board Meeting to share a D.C. example of identifying creative solutions for public access maintenance funding. If creative solutions to address the challenge of public access maintenance funding exist in other states, the Management Board members are invited to share in March. After Katherine's presentation it will be determined if a follow-up meeting is necessary.

Request:

Help Promote use of behavior change website. • Encourage your agency staff to attend training and use the site/data • Advise a mechanism for local government buy-in to 2022 data collection

Decision:

Action 8: MB Staff will schedule time at future MB meeting for Suzanne Etgen, Steve Raabe, Amy Handen and others to demonstrate behavior change website post launch. At this meeting, the Management Board will discuss how best to move forward on sub-asks. Local government LGAC representatives will be invited to this discussion.

Request:

Direct staff to identify cross-Outcome opportunities to engage people in stewardship.

Decision:

Action 9: Britt Slattery will draft an email inviting partners to identify cross-outcome opportunities to engage people in stewardship in advance of the showcase for the new behavior change website.

Request:

Internal to CBP: Report demographic information of participants in the Bay Program from signatories to improve accuracy and reliability of current Diversity Indicator data. • Encourage individual response to the survey • Each signatory agency provide data on the diversity of their representatives participating in the CBP o Data collected by agency HR and sent to DWG coordinator by at the same time their milestones are due (annually).

Decision:

Action 4: Language can be shared with jurisdictions to guide conversations with HR departments. This will be confirmed following the meeting.

Request:

External to CBP: Support Development of new tracking initiative • Submit narrative responses annually • Report out semi-annually at MB meetings on efforts to address DEIJ

Decision:

Action 5: Diversity Workgroup will provide template for Narrative Responses to the Management Board

Request:

External to CBP: Support Development of new tracking initiative • Submit narrative responses annually • Report out semi-annually at MB meetings on efforts to address DEIJ

Decision:

Action 6: Management Board will begin submitting annual narrative responses on June 30th using template provided by Diversity Workgroup.

Request:

Internal to CBP: Report demographic information of participants in the Bay Program from signatories to improve accuracy and reliability of current Diversity Indicator data. • Encourage individual response to the survey • Each signatory agency provide data on the diversity of their representatives participating in the CBP o Data collected by agency HR and sent to DWG coordinator at the same time their milestones are due (annually)

Decision:

Action 3: Diversity workgroup, Katherine Antos (DC), Wendy O’Sullivan (NPS), Jill Whitcomb (PA) and others will work offline to identify potential paths forward for possibly obtaining data on the government agencies’ diversity.

Request:

Internal to CBP: Report demographic information of participants in the Bay Program from signatories to improve accuracy and reliability of current Diversity Indicator data. • Encourage individual response to the survey • Each signatory agency provide data on the diversity of their representatives participating in the CBP o Data collected by agency HR and sent to DWG coordinator by June 30 (annually)

Decision:

Action 2: Encourage individual response to the survey once approved by OMB

Request:

External to CBP: Support Development of new tracking initiative • Submit narrative responses annually • Report out semi-annually at MB meetings on efforts to address DEIJ

Decision:

Action 7: Management Board staff will reserve time for semi-annual reports on the Management Board work-plan in collaboration with the Diversity Workgroup

Request:

Improve DEIJ considerations when making appointments to participate in the Bay Program • Revise governance documents • Consider people from diverse backgrounds

Decision:

Action 1: GIT 6 and Diversity Workgroup will meet to discuss proposed changes to governance document (see narrative analysis) and report progress back to the Management Board at the May 12 meeting.

Request:

“Emphasize the need for shallow-water fish surveys and plankton monitoring to explore possible correlations between living resource data with water quality parameters”

Decision:

The Forage Action team will coordinate with Peter Tango and Lee McDonnell to ensure that forage needs are adequately considered in the ongoing monitoring needs assessment in advance of their presentation to the PSC in February.

Request:

“Connect information on forage status and trends to habitat conservation, land use, and other policy decisions (e.g., incorporate findings into CBC meetings)”

Decision:

Forage Action Team will contact the Chesapeake Bay Commission to schedule a presentation to CBC on recommended forage related topics when appropriate for both groups.

Request:

“Provide endorsement for research funding opportunities (e.g., GIT funding) that can address blue crab science needs”

Decision:

Management Board agrees to write letters of support as appropriate to realize funding for identified blue crab population research and assessment needs.

Request:

“The SAV Workgroup asks that the Management Board advocate for further reduction of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Sediment loads to the Bay. Improving water clarity will be the most effective way to improve SAV resilience to climate stressors and the only means of maintaining viable eelgrass populations in the lower Bay.” Addendum 11/23: Specifically, we ask the MB to help ensure that funding from the Infrastructure Bill is directed to programs and projects that support BMPs shown to have significant effects on N, P, and TSS load reductions to the Bay (that benefit SAV growth), such as technology improvements to wastewater treatment plants and stormwater run-off systems. Additional funding should be allocated to more site-specific projects that improve water quality and land-shore connections like riparian buffers and living shorelines. Finally, to support efforts to directly restore SAV where needed as water quality improves, infrastructure funding should be allocated to the construction and management of a large-scale SAV nursery to ensure that seeds are available when conditions are conducive to success."

Decision:

Maryland will explore options for creating a legal framework for participation in blue carbon markets similar to Virginia’s example.

Request:

“The SAV Workgroup asks that the Management Board advocate for further reduction of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Sediment loads to the Bay. Improving water clarity will be the most effective way to improve SAV resilience to climate stressors and the only means of maintaining viable eelgrass populations in the lower Bay.” Addendum 11/23: "Specifically, we ask the MB to help ensure that funding from the Infrastructure Bill is directed to programs and projects that support BMPs shown to have significant effects on N, P, and TSS load reductions to the Bay (that benefit SAV growth), such as technology improvements to wastewater treatment plants and stormwater run-off systems. Additional funding should be allocated to more site-specific projects that improve water quality and land-shore connections like riparian buffers and living shorelines. Finally, to support efforts to directly restore SAV where needed as water quality improves, infrastructure funding should be allocated to the construction and management of a large-scale SAV nursery to ensure that seeds are available when conditions are conducive to success."

Decision:

Management Board recognizes that achieving our water clarity goals via reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and total suspended sediment loads identified in our TMDLs is the most effective action toward realizing our SAV goals. As a result, the Management Board commits to taking benefits to SAV into consideration when applying funds (including the new federal Infrastructure Funding) to BMP implementation and welcomes input from the SAV Workgroup in identifying BMP types and locations (ex. co-location with SAV beds, oyster/mussel projects) that may be particularly co-beneficial to SAV restoration.

Request:

“Support science and research needs for blue crab population assessment and management needs identified in SSRF.”

Decision:

CBSAC and STAR will review current blue crab population assessment and management research needs identified in SSRF and update as appropriate.

Request:

“Support for DEIJ efforts”

Decision:

The Oyster Workgroup will work with the Diversity Workgroup to evaluate lessons learned on the restoration projects on the Lafayette River and Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River for applications to other projects over their next 2-year LAP.

Request:

“Reaffirm commitment from states, other partners, to ensure we complete planned work” “Amplify success to date” “Support for DEIJ efforts”

Decision:

ACTION 4: The Oyster Workgroup will include actions in their next 2-year LAP to collaborate with the Education, Stewardship, and Communications Workgroups on approaches to amplify/broadcast their success in achieving the outcome goals, including their benefits to the public and commercial fisheries and broader ecosystem services.

Request:

“Support science and research needs for blue crab population assessment and management needs identified in SSRF.”

Decision:

ACTION 7: Based on the Action 6 review, CBSAC will report back to MB on: a) their highest priority blue crab research, assessment, and workshop needs and timelines in order to achieve the Blue Crab Outcome. Included in this evaluation should be CBSAC’s recommendation on the value of conducting a new blue crab benchmark stock assessment, and b) estimated costs and recommended jurisdictional contributions for each of the above including a new blue crab benchmark stock assessment (if recommended).

Request:

The Fish Passage workgroup requests that program partners continue advocating for the benefits of policies that promote fish passage.

Decision:

Action: The Fish Passage workgroup will work with LLWG, LGAC, Comms, and MB representatives as appropriate to disseminate knowledge from GIT-funded Road Stream Crossings project, USACE crediting calculator, and others to state/local highway departments and other appropriate audiences to promote fish passage and other environmental benefits of dam removal and culvert design.

Request:

Renewed engagement from signatory partners including locating a new GIT chair.

Decision:

Action: Management Board Chair will reach out to partnership seeking necessary chair. UPDATE Jeff Lerner was installed as the new HWGIT Chair at their October 12 meeting. Outcome is still seeking increased engagement from Jurisdictions.

Request:

Provide staff support to update of the Chesapeake Conservation Atlas habitat map layers

Decision:

Action: MB members will provide points of contact within the jurisdiction / agency they represent of appropriate technical / GIS expertise who can provide advice to PLWG (John Griffin and Renee Thompson) on available data layers and approaches to updating the Chesapeake Conservation Habitat Atlas. Points of contact to include, but not limited to Maryland DNR (Christine Conn) and USFWS. Other jurisdictional POCs are particularly needed. If at all possible, points of contact needed by Aug 26, 2021 in order to inform GIT Funding process.

Request:

Identification and support for scientific provider to continue updates to Chessie BIBI ▪ The workgroup has been able to secure CBP funding to implement a key priority action of identifying stressors and BMPs impacting stream health ▪ Sustaining funding through the remaining phases will be critical to achieving this action ▪ Continued support from the Management Board to support membership and GIT-based funding

Decision:

Postponed until Sept 23, 2021 MB meeting. All materials must be posted to MB website by Sept 9, 2021

Request:

Help determine how to address 2020 MDHWA GIT funding project shortfall (approximately $30,000).

Decision:

Action: EPA will check and report back on funding as soon as that information is available. Action: Renee Thompson will draft a description of the project and the current shortfall to be distributed to MB members to assist in the search for funding. MB members will review and report back at Sept 23, 2021 meeting.

Request:

Work with the BTWG and the appropriate agencies and organizations to increase efforts to implement the large-scale priority action items with the greatest impact. This includes providing CBP staff support to better coordinate with other CBP GITs on connected actions (e.g., reforestation, aquatic connectivity, eDNA monitoring) that address multiple Outcomes

Decision:

Action: Healthy Watershed cohort Outcome leads and MB volunteers will work together offline to develop cross cohort strategy for aligning efforts to achieve goals efficiently. Identified MB volunteers are Dave Goshorn, Scott Phillips, Michelle Price-Fay, Sally Claggett, others are encouraged to join. Stephen Faulkner is lead for scheduling a meeting to discuss.

Request:

Engage land conservation efforts to aid wetland and forest buffer BMPs

Decision:

Action: PLWG will draft language as action items in their next LAP which addresses land conservation efforts to aid wetland and forest buffer Outcomes and other water quality BMPs. MB members will review the draft language and come prepared to discuss how their jurisdiction / agency can contribute in their respective programs.

Request:

Assist with facilitating a focus on health and equity to help meet multiple Watershed Agreement outcomes

Decision:

Action: PLWG will draft language for these bullets to be action items in their next LAP. MB members will review and be prepared to offer comments at the October MB meeting.

Request:

Endorse an updated target of protecting 30% of valuable lands in the watershed by 2030

Decision:

Action: Given the likelihood of achieving the current Protected Lands Outcome, the Protected Lands workgroup (PLWG) will present to the MB recommended language, conditions, and timeline for potentially updating the Outcome target at October MB meeting. Materials will be submitted by September 30, 2021

Request:

Due to time constraints, the Stream Health workgroup presented its progress materials at the September 23 Management Board Meeting. Following the Stream Health presentation, the partners discussed aligning requests across the Healthy Watershed Cohort’s outcomes to create action items to address each outcome’s needs. Gina Hunt, Allison Santoro and Stephen Faulkner were tasked with assembling a document with the questions, members, and member contacts for Stream Health and Fish Habitat workgroups.

Decision:

The Healthy Watersheds cohort leads, and Management Board Volunteers will share the finalized document with the Management Board by October 15, 2021. Management Board Jurisdiction representatives are asked to carefully the review the document and thoughtfully engage with the members of the workgroups whose contacts are provided to help meet the needs of and foster long term support of each outcome.

Request:

Support the long-term monitoring of land use conditions by re-soliciting a Cooperative Agreement to monitor land use/cover change every 4-5 years through 2030 (e.g., adding 2025/26 and 2029/30 dates).

Decision:

Peter Claggett will provide a briefing memo to the Management Board describing the current cooperative agreement, estimated costs, timeline, and recommended modifications for a renewed agreement, and suggestions on possible funding/cooperative partners. The briefing memo will be posted to the MB website by Feb 25. MB members will review and come prepared to discuss and identify a specific path forward at the March 11 MB meeting.

Request:

In each state, Management Board members were asked to work with State Tree Canopy Lead to document existing programs/policies that could help maintain and expand tree canopy

Decision:

The Forestry Workgroup will provide a “one-pager” to the Management Board 1) identifying tree canopy leads in each jurisdiction, and 2) providing a brief description of the information requested from each jurisdiction. This document will be posted on the MB website no later than Feb 25 for discussion at the Mach 11 MB meeting. Soon following the March 11 MB meeting, MB members will meet with their tree canopy leads and Julie Mawhorter to discuss, with the possible goal of developing a GIT Funding proposal to address this need. DEIJ considerations should be included as appropriate.

Request:

Management Board Members were asked to accept an invitation from LLWG to attend a meeting with their (the MB member's) jurisdictional/regional trusted sources

Decision:

The LLWG will touch base with each jurisdiction to identify tailored next steps for increasing the knowledge and capacity of local officials, including identifying key strategies/actions for implementation in 2021 -2023. These “next steps” will be identified and documented in advance of the March 11th Management Board meeting.

Request:

Establish a team to work with the local action outcome cohort to: ● Identify key messages and audiences; ● Identify translators and trusted sources; ● Refine messages and audience with help from translators and trusted sources; ● Develop interpretative communication products ● Develop objective measures of success that the CBP can influence

Decision:

The Local Leadership Action Cohort and the Local Engagement Team (with assistance from GIT 6) will discuss how to address insufficient jurisdictional (state and local) involvement. This group will provide an update at the March MB meeting and, based on those discussions, will present a proposal for discussion and decision at the April MB meeting. A strawman proposal will be published to the MB website by March 25. Garrett Stewart can provide staffing if need be. Proposed Next Steps summary will be posted to the MB website by March 25 for discussion and decision by the MB at the April 8th meeting.

Request:

Support more staff resources to Climate Resiliency Workgroup • Fulltime staffer • Technical analyst

Decision:

The CRWG and the Management Board discussed the CRWG's request to 'Support more staff resources for Climate Resiliency Workgroup (CRWG full-time staffer, technical analyst)' during the December 10, 2020 Management Board meeting. The Management Board requested that the CRWG articulate the actions where more staff resources would be required in their final revised Logic and Action plan so they could be discussed at a future meeting. This action is articulated in the request: "Identifying areas where increased resources are required in order to meet two year goals." on Chesapeake Decisions.

Request:

Engage managers and other CBP partners for use of Bay-Wide Climate Resilience Scorecard • Identify potential stakeholder users

Decision:

The CRWG will be prepared to present and the Management Board will be prepared to discuss the CRWG's request to identify potential stakeholders to participate in the virtual scorecard development feedback sessions with the contractor during the December 10, 2020 Management Board meeting. A 2-page factsheet describing the purpose and targeted audience for the scorecard will be provided.

Request:

Recruit Stakeholders for Virtual Engagement Sessions regarding Bay-Wide Climate Resilience Scorecard.

Decision:

Management Board members will submit names and contact information of recommended stakeholders to participate in virtual engagement sessions to provide input on the Bay-Wide Climate Resilience Scorecard to Breck Sullivan (bsullivan@chesapeakebay.net) by the January 21, 2021 Management Board meeting.

Request:

Wetland • Direct Collaboration among State Agencies on Wetland Data. • Support and collaboration to ensure accuracy. Assign/commit/finance personnel.

Decision:

The Habitat GIT will work with Jeff Sweeney and others as appropriate to draft a brief description of the estimated expertise, analytical steps, costs, and timeline (i.e. “Scope of Work”) required to develop an actionable watershed-wide data call for the information necessary to track progress on 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Vital Habitats Outcomes. This description will be submitted to Garrett Stewart (stewart.garrett@epa.gov) in time for posting to the January Management Board Meeting page by January 7, 2021 and for discussion at the January 21, 2021

Request:

Black Duck • Support and Coordination in Tracking the Acres of Restored Wetlands (both tidal and non-tidal) • Reach out to Partners individually to collect the last 5 years of wetland restoration data has had little success. • Help coordinate this data collection by instituting a formal data call or by encouraging the partners in their respective jurisdictions to provide their restoration numbers each year.

Decision:

The Habitat GIT will work with Jeff Sweeney and others as appropriate to draft a brief description of the estimated expertise, analytical steps, costs, and timeline (i.e. “Scope of Work”) required to develop an actionable watershed-wide data call for the information necessary to track progress on 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Vital Habitats Outcomes. This description will be submitted to Garrett Stewart (stewart.garrett@epa.gov) in time for posting to the January Management Board Meeting page by January 7, 2021 and for discussion at the January 21, 2021

Request:

Indicator Guidance: • Identify utility behind climate indicators being selected

Decision:

At the request of the CRWG, this action was postponed until the April 8th Management Board meeting. The Climate Resiliency Workgroup, in coordination with STAR leadership and the Status and Trends Workgroup, will provide a descriptive list of which climate indicators have been prioritized based on requests from other GIT workgroups, recommended timeframes for updating, and potential responsible party for maintaining. This list will be submitted to the CBP office for posting on the Management Board website no later than March 25th, 2021. The Management Board will review the posted list and timeframes in advance and come prepared to decide whether they agree with the selected indicators and timeframes at their April 8, 2021 meeting.

Request:

Establish funding plan for research agenda on climate change impacts to BMP performance to inform needed resilience actions • BMP uncertainties affect achievement of desired WQ, habitat and living resource outcomes • Ask ag workgroup and climate resilience workgroup and reps from CBC to meet to identify two to three top priorities and provide a brief description of each to pursue for potential federal funding.

Decision:

The Climate Resiliency Workgroup will provide a list of existing CBP-funded BMP climate resilience assessment efforts and coordinate with other CBP Workgroups as appropriate to review the "Phase III WIP BMP's: Drivers for Implementation between 2019-2025" (attached) to identify which BMPs have the greatest need for climate change research based on workgroup judgement. At the request of the CRWG, the deadline for this action was extended. The resulting information for this action will be submitted to the CBP office for posting in advance of the April 2021 Management Board Meeting. The Management Board reviewed the posted information in advance and came prepared to discuss, prioritize, and identify next steps at their April 8, 2021 meeting for subsequent submission to the PSC. Included in "Next Steps" was the option to schedule brief working sessions between the CRWG, CBC, and appropriate Workgroups to scope out specific research needs on the highest priority BMPs." Results from currently funded BMP climate resilience assessments (Virginia Tech projects with STAC and NOAA) will be available by September 2021 and can be used to help bolster this research agenda. Following the April 8th meeting, members of the Management Board were asked to provide feedback to the CRWG on how to prioritize and secure funding BMP climate change research, and how the Climate Action team can secure support for BMP climate change research. Michelle Price-Fay will reach out to Kelly Schenk to discuss strategies for achieving support for BMP climate change research.

Request:

Identifying areas where increased resources are required in order to meet two year goals.

Decision:

The Climate Resiliency Workgroup was granted an extension for submitting their SRS materials. They will prepare their next two year Logic and Action Plan as per the SRS process for public and signatory review by April 30, 2021, and for Management Board acceptance at the June 10th, 2021 Management Board meeting. The draft Logic and Action Plan prepared by April 30th will include actions that the Climate Resiliency Workgroup feels necessary to maintain progress toward achieving both climate resiliency outcomes. The version provided to the Management Board will also identify those actions which the Workgroup feels that they do not have the resources to complete within the 2 year timeframe. In preparing this Logic and Action Plan, the Workgroup is encouraged to work with partners to identify any actions which partners may be able to take on, and to suggest any other solutions for Management Board consideration. The Management Board will be prepared to help identify and discuss resource solutions that can support a path forward for both the climate resiliency outcomes at the September 23, 2021 Management Board meeting. This discussion was originally planned for the June 10th meeting but was postponed due to scheduling conflicts among the Climate Adaptation Outcome staff.

Request:

MB members are asked to provide points of contact who are experts in PFAS science to coordinate with WQGIT Toxic Contaminants Workgroup in research in this area.

Decision:

Dave Goshorn will draft an email with requests for points of contact for each work group and send out to MB members by October 19. Names should be submitted to Hilary Swartwood (swartwood.hilary@epa.gov).

Request:

Identify specific assistance to accelerate implementation particularly in the agricultural sector • Additional staff, increased funding, finer-scale decision tools? • What will help implement BMPs that are more effective to reduce nitrogen loads?

Decision:

Those jurisdictions that can easily provide the following information will review their WIPs to identify needs for additional staff, increased funding and finer-scale decision tools to accelerate implementation particularly in the agricultural sector. And if possible, determine what would be gained if the need was met. This will be shared with the rest of the MB.

Request:

Jurisdictional involvement: Maintain existing funding support Commit to providing a list of jurisdictional participants for Criteria Assessment Protocol Workgroup Work with jurisdictions on making their technical staff available to help improve use of monitoring results to inform 2-year milestones

Decision:

Workgroup will provide a one-page document on these sub-bullets. MB will review in advance and discuss at October meeting.

Request:

Policy: Encourage jurisdictions and federal agencies to consider toxic contaminants 2-year milestones in N, P, sediment management actions Approve and implement CBP responses to STAC CEC reports

Decision:

The TCW will return to the MB in September for their approval of the CBP response to STAC’s Contaminants of Concern (CEC) Workshop recommendations. The TCW will provide the necessary documents ahead of time.

Request:

Science: Coordinate the monitoring network for mercury Coordinated Science approach for PFAS

Decision:

Jurisdiction staff who work on mercury monitoring will provide the TCW with what they’re working on and suggestions on how to coordinate monitoring.

Request:

Prioritize Buffer Programs: - Identify 1-2 landowner assistance programs that could include or require buffers, amend the program and pilot the improved program. - Develop comprehensive statewide buffer strategy for all partners.

Decision:

The Management Board approved action for this request was not determined until the October Management Board meeting. At the October meeting. The Management Board approved the requests of the Forest Buffers Workgroup aimed at securing leadership and support for Riparian Forest Buffer goals throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Specifically, MB jurisdictional members are asked to a) identify two or more landowner assistance programs that could potentially be altered to include a stronger forest buffer component; b) flag potential state or federal funding streams that could be leveraged with private funding for a Natural Filters Restoration Program (NFRP)-type program; and c) nominate a high-level point of contact (MB, fiscal, Bay restoration, or water quality person) who will help investigate whether an NFRP-type program would work their state; and d) produce a high-level strategic action plan for RFB to better coordinate across partner affiliates and that incorporates improved technical assistance efforts Responses should be sent to Sally Claggett and Garrett Stewart.

Request:

Criteria to help prioritize actions. Does the action: • Address a priority identified by the partnership during the next two-year period? • Result in a benefit that is applicable to more than one jurisdiction? • Support/accelerate implementation to achieve water quality goals?

Decision:

Two weeks before the October 15 MB meeting, the WQGIT will provide proposed prioritization criteria and actions to be prioritized. The MB will review in advance of the October 15 meeting and come prepared to discuss and then vote during their October meeting.

Request:

MB member institutions involved in providing monitoring support maintain existing support levels. Monitoring support: Maintain existing monitoring support - Request the MB commit to a future discussion on alternative financing strategies for monitoring - Commit to assessing application of matching funds in 117e grants and adjust matching portfolio - Request WQGIT and STAR formally incorporate new data streams into attainment assessments - Request STAC and STAR to work with partnership community to extend monitoring capacity

Decision:

The MB continues to support monitoring programs in the face of difficult budget decisions due to COVID-19. Workgroup will provide a one-page document explaining these sub-bullets for the MB. MB will review in advance and discuss at October meeting

Request:

Support the new Natural Filters Restoration Program - Identify public funding that could be leveraged, - Dedicate a staff person to help develop the program and stay engaged

Decision:

The Forestry Workgroup leadership will create a one-page document describing the Natural Filters Restoration Program and the attributes for the points of contact. After creating this document, the Forestry Workgroup will host an informational webinar for the Management Board. Based on this information, jurisdictions will identify potential public funding sources that could be leveraged to support the new Natural Filters Restoration Program.

Request:

Initiate conversations with State Secretaries and Governors to increase recognition and visibility of Sustainable Schools programs.

Decision:

This management challenge in dependent upon an updated list of appropriate contacts for the Education Workgroup. The Education Workgroup shared a list of cleaning products that are both sustainable and approved by the EPA to be effect against the novel coronavirus. This list can then be shared with schools as a way to highlight sustainable schools.

Request:

Better connect regional and state environmental literacy efforts by updating a preliminary network analysis of state environmental education networks with contacts provided by Management Board members.

Decision:

The Education Workgroup provided the Management Board with a description of their request for contacts. The workgroup requested a contact from both the state natural resource and education agencies at the Division Director or higher level. By the June Management Board meeting, each member identified one to two contacts for the Education Workgroup. Following the June Management Board meeting, the Education Workgroup will share their preliminary network analysis with the Management Board.

Request:

Identify funding to support Meaningful Watershed Education Experiences (MWEEs).

Decision:

The Education Workgroup distributed the list of existing funding sources to Management Board members. The Management Board will review the list, discuss with relevant partners and return to the June meetingJune meeting to discuss.

Request:

Build strategic statewide efforts to reduce barriers to schools using public lands by convening ed. and natural resource leaders.

Decision:

Two weeks before the July 9 Management Board meeting, the Education Workgroup will provide the MB with descriptions on potential actions for the MB, including details on current barriers to schools using public lands. MB will then identify actions during their July meeting. MB members agreed to convene jurisdiction meetings with the parks/natural resource contacts and education leadership contacts they identified.

Request:

Increase in-service and pre-service teacher professional development by increasing funding opportunities and engaging partners

Decision:

Britt Slattery (MD DNR) will share the results from her team’s meeting on teacher training with the Management Board mid-to-late August. MB members can use this guidance and, if they so choose, hold similar teacher training meetings in their jurisdictions. The Education Workgroup will also add an action in their logic and action plan to draft a letter for the Management Board to send to land grant universities about increasing funding opportunities.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Stewardship GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of the Environmental Literacy Planning Management Strategy and Logic and Action Plan.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Stewardship GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of the Environmental Literacy Planning Management Strategy and Logic and Action Plan.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Stewardship GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of the Environmental Literacy Planning Management Strategy and Logic and Action Plan.

Request:

Use environmental literacy data to aid in decision making and increase participation in 2021.

Decision:

The Management Board will discuss using environmental literacy data to aid decision making after the list of environmental literacy contacts has been updated.

Request:

Management Board commit to attending Diversity Equity Inclusion and Justice (DEIJ) trainings

Decision:

The Diversity Workgroup is working with the Management Board to align a future DEIJ training with an upcoming Management Board meeting so that more members can participate.

Request:

Development and implementation of programming that expands the number and diversity of public access site users by prioritizing programming.

Decision:

Within their Logic and Action Plan, the Public Access Workgroup will incorporate opportunities to engage with the Diversity Workgroup to discuss a better metric for tracking public access available for underserved communities. The workgroup will investigate tracking a quality target within the outcome as they develop their next two-year Logic & Action Plan.

Request:

New funding strategies by Federal and State agencies to include funding for maintenance, planning, and development of public access sites.

Decision:

The Public Access team chair will provide Management Board members with a breakdown of jurisdiction and federal funding sources, as well as a charge with what information would be helpful from the Management Board. The Public Access team chair provided the list to the Management Board at their May meeting.

Request:

Review and discuss the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice (DEIJ) Strategy and establish the process for implementation

Decision:

At their May 14 meeting, the Management Board reviewed the CBP DEIJ Strategy, and an accompanying Strategy Endorsement Statement, and recommends the Principals’ Staff Committee formally endorse the strategy at their May 22 meeting May 22 meeting.

Request:

Be champions for funding related to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice, including grants and workforce development

Decision:

MB members could compile the DEIJ opportunities they are aware of for entry level positions. A future MB agenda topic could be discussing examples of grant guidance that effectively incorporates DEIJ considerations. The Diversity Workgroup provided MB with an initial tracking sheet in April 2020.

Request:

Make social science an increasing priority in the CBP partnership.

Decision:

There is a new EPA CBPO staff position focused on behavior change. This staff member will coordinate with the Citizen Stewardship workgroup to identify opportunities for collaboration. The staff member and workgroup will determine the scope of social science work needed for the partnership and report back to the Management Board in fall 2020. Incorporating social science into the Strategic Science and Research Framework will be a component of this scope of work. Amy Handen has been on-boarded to her new position and will serve as lead for this action.

Request:

Utilize social science frameworks and stewardship data to better design public engagement, education and behavior change programs.

Decision:

Technical leads for upcoming, currently GIT funded workshops could commit to incorporating social science into the delivery of their workshops. The Citizen Stewardship and Diversity workgroups, in particular, should explore regular opportunities for closer collaboration. This will be a component of the social science scope assessment that the Citizen Stewardship workgroup will report on to the Managemetn Board in fall 2020.

Request:

Adjust the diversity in leadership target based on the correct baseline data

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to revise the leadership target. The Diversity Workgroup will return to the Management Board with a recommended target.

Request:

Increase opportunities for underrepresented groups to participate in the CBP

Decision:

During the September or October Management Board meetings, there will be a round robin on what members are doing and will do to address DEIJ. During the May meeting, the Management Board approved a CBP DEIJ Statement and recommended it to the PSC for approval and recommendation for adoption by the Executive Council during its August 2020 meeting.

Request:

Continue to support future data collections in the once/3-5 year frequency.

Decision:

In 2022, the workgroup will return with a request to start another cycle of data collection as a GIT-Funded project. To prepare for this request, Citizen Stewardship workgroup leadership will collaborate with Tuana Phillips (EPA) on the Information Collection Request.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Habitat GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of the SAV Management Strategy and Work Plan.

Request:

Nearshore habitat monitoring, shoreline hardening

Decision:

Representatives from this cohort (and a few other workgroups) will meet with the SRS Planning Team to figure out next steps. This could be a topic of discussion at a future GIT chairs meeting. The SRS Planning Team recommended that nearshore monitoring be a topic of discussion at the December STAR meeting. After the meeting, STAR reported to the Management Board that these nearshore monitoring efforts do not overlap.

Request:

Continue to support efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution to the Bay.

Decision:

The SAV Workgroup will identify resilient, long-term SAV beds for protection. Modeling Workgroup will then provide estimated watershed sub-basins that most influence the SAV beds. Lew Linker (EPA) and Brooke Landry (DNR) will report a plan of action to the Management Board at their December meeting. At the December meeting, Brooke Landry (MD DNR) and Lew Linker (EPA) presented an assessment tool that used geographic isolation runs to estimate where the nutrients are coming from that would impact the area where SAV beds are located The Modeling Workgroup tool would help identify areas on the land where focused BMPs could be prioritized that would most impact these unique SAV areas. The tool used to do this analysis may be found at the following link: https://gis.chesapeakebay.net/modeling/geoisoruns/

Request:

Acknowledge the success of oyster restoration efforts.

Decision:

Sean Corson (NOAA) will meet with Rachel Felver (CBP Communications Director) to identify “digestible, memorable bites” for sharing oyster success stories. At the December 12 Management Board meeting, they reported that they will continue to meet on a quarterly basis to share NOAA's work on oysters. These oyster success vignettes could be shared at Management Board meetings, as well as other meetings.

Request:

Support in addressing the major barrier to oyster restoration success: funding.

Decision:

Sean Corson (NOAA) and Sarah Diebel (DOD) will discuss how the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program could be used to aid oyster restoration. At the December 12 Management Board meeting, they reported back and will continue to investigate how REPI could be used to help oyster restoration.

Request:

Linking forage indicators to other relevant workgroups/outcomes (e.g. habitat, water quality)

Decision:

STAR and the Forage Action Team will identify where there is monitoring, mapping, and nearshore data being collected outside of the Forage Action Team efforts. Based on this review, they will identify geographic priority action areas for nearshore monitoring. This could be accomplished through a mapping exercise. STAR will then host a meeting that will include other Outcomes with interests in shallow water monitoring and generate a list of recommendations back to the MB on next steps. At the December 12 Management Board meeting, STAR reported that the nearshore monitoring needs of the various Aquatic Life cohort outcomes do not overlap.

Request:

Analytical training for staff

Decision:

Training needs will be discussed at the December 17 STAR meeting.

Request:

Modeling and analytical training for staff.

Decision:

EPA region 3 staff offer training and are interested in providing this training to CBPO staff. Bill Jenkins (EPA) will work with region 3 staff to schedule training. Bill Jenkins will first check with GIT 1 Executive Committee staff on specifics and then work with EPA to schedule appropriate training if available. EPA hosted an R training for CBPO staff in May 2020.

Request:

Continue to support science and research needs for blue crab population assessment and management

Decision:

There may be alignment with the National Park Service in creating an e-reporting/mobile tracking app. After further examination, there was not alignment between the National Park Service tracking app and the goals for tracking blue crab population.

Request:

Consider the implications of competing goals related to shallow water uses.

Decision:

Topic of discussion at future GIT Chairs meeting. Relevant workgroup chairs will be invited to this meeting.

Request:

Awareness of the SAV Workgroup's GIT Funding project that reviewed policies, statutes and regulations that protect SAV in the Chesapeake Bay.

Decision:

The SAV Workgroup will present the results of the GIT Funding project to the Management Board in September or October 2020. Before then, Matt Fleming (MD DNR) will organize a small meeting of PRFC, USACE, and the appropriate regulatory reps from DC, MD, and VA to review recommendations.

Request:

The Management Board requested an extension of the public and signatory review period for the Healthy Watersheds cohort management materials.

Decision:

The review period was extended to January 3, 2020 due to the large number of documents that need to be reviewed in this cohort. Also under review are two outstanding sets of documents from the first cycle of the SRS (Wetlands outcome and Land Use Methods and Metrics outcome). The changes in document deadlines are reflected on the Document Status page of ChesapeakeDecisions.

Request:

Continue to support science and research needs for blue crab population assessment and management.

Decision:

Signatories who are committed to the Blue Crab Abundance outcome will continue to support science and research needs for blue crab population assessment and management. Management Board members will ensure that appropriate decision makers within their jurisdiction are aware of the value of blue crab monitoring and research to continued management of the species.

Request:

Limit and simplify workgroup reporting to focus on implementing logic and action plan

Decision:

The Management Board recommended the Stream Health workgroup work with their Habitat GIT coordinator/staffers and GIT 6/SRS support team.

Request:

Evaluate options and make recommendations for revising the Stream Health outcome

Decision:

The Stream Health workgroup will return to the Management Board, if they would like to recommend a change to the outcome.

Request:

Ensure active participation from all jurisdictions

Decision:

The Management Board recommended the Stream Health workgroup share their membership list with GIT 6.The Stream Health workgroup shared their membership list with GIT 6 and is working on their membership structure..

Request:

Renewed engagement of HWGIT members

Decision:

The Healthy Watersheds workgroup provided the Management Board with a list of which partners are participating in the workgroup.

Request:

Support for BIBI Data call for 2012-2017

Decision:

The Stream Health Workgroup shared with Management Board members a list of whom they contacted at each agency and what requested information is missing on September 19. Management Board members will follow-up with appropriate staff in their jurisdictions to ensure that the correct staff are receiving the request.

Request:

Fund science and research on trends influencing land protection

Decision:

The Management Board recommended the Protected Lands outcome collaborate with the Modeling Workgroup's efforts on climate change, water quality trends, and whether land use modeling can inform the loss of habitat. The Protected Lands outcome provided an update at the September 19 Management Board meeting. Management Board members suggested USGS, FWS, LGAC and the diversity workgroup as potential groups for collaboration.

Request:

Assistance with pursuing FEMA authorization and funds that promote land conservation as a flood mitigation tool.

Decision:

Ann Swanson, Chesapeake Bay Commission, volunteered to be the Management Board member that will help facilitate the conversation between the Protected Lands outcome and FEMA.

Request:

Research on trends influencing land protection

Decision:

The CBPO GIS team could conduct a mapping exercise to see where brownfields, median strips or rooftops could be used to site solar fields rather than on conserved lands. The Protected Lands outcome provided an update at the September 19 Management Board meeting and will work with the CBP Modeling Team and Chesapeake Conservancy on these efforts.

Request:

Bring awareness to dam safety programs that dam removal is a viable option to consider.

Decision:

The Management Board discussed fish passage actions at the October 17 Management Board meeting.

Request:

Intern support for stressor white paper

Decision:

The US Geological Survey can provide a staff person to write the white paper. The Management Board recommends the Stream Health Workgroup meet with USGS to determine project details. USGS provided the intern support and the white paper is in progress.

Request:

Setting shoreline hardening limits.

Decision:

The CBPO GIS team could conduct a mapping exercise to identify target areas for shoreline restoration. This was discussed during the September 2019 STAR meeting. Based on this exercise and the GIT Funding projects, Management Board members could share information on softening shorelines to state and local representatives.

Request:

Increased collaboration between “sister” outcomes to help with awareness, timing and capacity.

Decision:

The October 29 GIT Chairs meeting will be dedicated to identifying ways to increase collaboration between outcomes, focusing first on the Stream Health and Fish Habitat outcomes.

Request:

Modify outcome language.

Decision:

After requesting public feedback, the Principals' Staff Committee approved the outcome modification at their January 2020 meeting.

Request:

CBPO staff support to help develop and maintain tracking spreadsheet/tool

Decision:

CBPO staff will determine if this is feasible within current CBP data tracking tools. A meeting with Brook Trout outcome leads and EPA staff to discuss a new analyst position is scheduled for late September. The Brook Trout workgroup determined there is sufficient resources within CBPO to maintain and manage a tracking tool.

Request:

Sustain and grow public financing for land conservation and facilitate new sources of financing

Decision:

The Management Board recommended the Protected Lands outcome participate in the SRS Financing Forum. Protected Lands staff participated in the March 2020 Finance and Investment Forum.

Request:

Increase outcome connection to local leadership engagement

Decision:

There are three previous and ongoing efforts that are related to increasing outcome engagement with local leaders: The EcoLogix report that identified local level priorities, the local leadership engagement strategy presented to the Management Board in May 2019, and an upcoming GIT funding project on creating cross-watershed education materials. Once there is more progress on these efforts, the local leadership workgroup coordinator will report to the Management Board.

Request:

Evaluate the success of the WIP engagement fact sheets in the short-term

Decision:

Lewis Linker (EPA) and Sean Corson (NOAA) met to use current Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) implementation information in the input decks to identify where the Fish Habitat co-benefit fact sheet was used in the WIPs. Upon further examination, the Phase 6 watershed model is at too coarse a resolution to determine if the Fish Habitat co-benefit fact sheet was used in the WIPs. The next generation of model may be at a fine enough scale to handle the requested analysis. Based on the success of the fish habitat pilot, Management Board members will decide whether to pursue the same exercise with the other eleven outcomes that requested inclusion in the Phase III WIPs. Lewis Linker (EPA) and Emily Trentacoste (EPA) will provide an update to the Management Board at their October meeting.

Request:

Increase funding for monitoring and travel support within the agencies represented on the workgroup.

Decision:

The Management Board will determine if it is worth the investment to increase monitoring frequency. The workgroup will incorporate the steps necessary to answer this question into their logic and action plan and will return to the MB with more information to help this decision. The 2020 data was delayed, and the Brook Trout workgroup will report back to the Management Board at their October 2020 meeting.

Request:

Evaluate the success of the WIP engagement fact sheets in the long term

Decision:

CBP modeling team could conduct a fine scale gap analysis and return to Management Board with some prototypes on how to identify where the WIPS used the twelve co-benefit fact sheets. Lew Linker (EPA) and Emily Trentacoste (EPA) will provide an update to the Management Board on this analysis and other co-benefits projects occurring at the Chesapeake Bay Program at the Management Board's October meeting.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Maintain Healthy Watersheds GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of the Land Use Options Evaluation Management Strategy and Work Plan. A new deadline has not been set.

Request:

To insure local and partner engagement in tree canopy strategies and tracking progress.

Decision:

The Management Board asked the Forestry Workgroup to notify them once a date is selected for the Tree Canopy Summit 2.0 so they can coordinate and prevent scheduling conflicts.The workgroup will return to the MB as needed with updates and requests as they plan the Tree Canopy Summit. The Summit is scheduled for January 2020.

Request:

Modify outcome language.

Decision:

After requesting public feedback, the Principals' Staff Committee approved the outcome modification at their January 2020 meeting.

Request:

Support in recognizing the role that local governments play in meeting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

Decision:

The Management Board asked the Local Leadership Workgroup to draft a strategy including how to integrate requests from all relevant outcomes regarding engaging local leadership (in particular, the Land Use Options Evaluation, Land Use methods and Metrics Development, and Tree Canopy outcomes). The draft CBP Local Engagement Strategy was presented to the Management Board at its May 2019 meeting. The Management Board supports the approach outlined in the draft strategy and will stay informed of progress on the pilot initiative.

Request:

To delegate maintenance of jurisdiction-specific datasets to the jurisdictions.

Decision:

The Management Board recommended that the Land Use Workgroup meet with the Water Quality Goal Implementation Team and Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 GIS team to discuss its needs and available resources. The workgroup will draft a document for the Management Board detailing clear requirements and specifications about the needed datasets, lessons learned, common errors, frequent challenges that delay finalization, impacts on Chesapeake Bay Program staff and priorities, and recommended next steps. The Land Use Workgroup met with the EPA Region 3 MS4 team and plans to request assistance from the Region 3 MS4 Lead.

Request:

Promote tree canopy more vigorously through Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) efforts and state/local stormwater programs. Assure agency teamwork in integrating tree canopy goals in WIP planning and stormwater program delivery.

Decision:

The Management Board asked the Forestry Workgroup to assess if the Chesapeake Stormwater Network could be provided with funding to help with needed additional capacity. The workgroup will return to the Management Board as needed with updates and requests as they plan the Tree Canopy Summit 2.0 for either Fall 2019 or Spring 2020.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Maintain Healthy Watersheds GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of the Land Use Methods and Metrics Development Management Strategy and Work Plan. The management materials were submitted on November 8, 2019 for public and signatory review.

Request:

Prioritization of the monitoring needs that could be met by and therefore inform the work of citizen science programs.

Decision:

The Management Board committed to reviewing and prioritizing all of the science and data needs expressed by Goal Implementation Teams (GITs) and workgroups during the first cycle of the Biennial Strategy Review System (SRS) after this cycle ends in November. STAR presented the strategic science and research framework at the 2019 Review Meeting.

Request:

Incentives for Goal Implementation Teams (GITs) to consult the partnership’s Climate Smart Framework and Decision-support Tool before updating their management strategies and work plans.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT to incorporate the use of this tool into its instructions for updating these guiding documents. Climate Resiliency Workgroup staff will attend the SRS cohort check-in meetings and SRS STAR presentations to help incorporate the use of this tool into the SRS process.

Request:

Help meeting a Principals’ Staff Committee request to provide Chesapeake Bay Program partners with more information about the impact climate change could have on best management practice siting and design.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Climate Resiliency Workgroup to work with the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) to develop a detailed statement of needs, a list of short-term and long-term suggestions for how the Management Board might meet this request, and a list of critical contacts (e.g., National Science Foundation). The workgroup updated the Management Board on the status of this work at its February 2019 meeting. The Management Board recommended the workgroup work with the Water Quality GIT and STAC to begin compiling short-term guidance and long-terms plans to address climate impact on BMPs.

Request:

Incentives for planners and practitioners to use existing decision-support tools to ensure wetland restoration occurs on high-priority rather than merely available land.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Wetland Workgroup to work with the Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT to determine how wetland-specific decision-support tool(s) can fit into and be promoted alongside the partnership’s existing decision-support tool suite.

Request:

The Black Duck Action Team asked the Management Board to agree to its decision to develop a new indicator of progress toward the Black Duck outcome.

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to this decision, as long as this habitat-based indicator describes both wetland acreage and the black duck population this acreage could support. The development of this indicator is expected to require staff support, partner coordination and the promotion of a related decision-support tool to decision-makers and funders. The Management Board directed the Black Duck Action Team to work with the Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT to determine how black duck-specific decision-support tools can fit into and be promoted alongside the partnership’s existing decision-support tool suite.

Request:

The incorporation of climate considerations into the narrative portions of Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs).

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Climate Resiliency Workgroup to send its draft guidelines for fulfilling this request to the Management Board and the Water Quality GIT for review, feedback and approval. The Management Board approved the sample climate narrative guidance at its October 2018 meeting.

Request:

New leaders of and more active participation on the Wetland Workgroup.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Wetland Workgroup to provide it with a list of current workgroup members and a summary of its proposed workgroup changes. The Management Board reported on its efforts to recruit workgroup members and confirm the appropriate staff from their own agencies are serving on the workgroup at its September 2018 meeting. The Wetlands Workgroup now has a chair and held a revitalization meeting in February 2018.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted STAR's request for an extension on the deadline of the Climate Resiliency Management Strategy and Work Plan.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted STAR's request for an extension on the deadline of the Climate Resiliency Management Strategy and Work Plan.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Habitat GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of the Black Duck Management Strategy and Work Plan.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Habitat GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of the Wetlands Management Strategy and Work Plan.

Request:

Improved forest buffer implementation.

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to discuss how Lean Government could be used to identify broken or missing links in the forest buffer implementation process at its June 2018 meeting. At its June 2018 meeting, the Management Board agreed to form a Forest Buffers Action Team to identify high-priority actions that may be taken by the Management Board and/or Principals’ Staff Committee to accelerate progress toward the Forest Buffers Outcome.

Request:

Greater emphasis on reducing toxic contaminants in the stormwater, wastewater and agriculture sectors.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Water Quality GIT to use the expertise of its sector-specific workgroups to encourage partners to implement best management practices that will reduce toxic contaminants and nutrient and sediment pollution within these sectors.

Request:

Approval of the decision to focus next two-year work plan on developing Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) and achieving the partnership-driven commitments that emerged from the Midpoint Assessment.

Decision:

The Management Board approved this request.

Request:

To retire the 2017 Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) outcome.

Decision:

The Management Board did not agree to consider this outcome retired, but did agree to allow the GIT to refrain from developing a corresponding two-year work plan and instead focus on making progress toward the 2025 Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) outcome.

Request:

Alignment of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s schedule for verifying best management practices and the accepted schedule for re-enrolling landowners in forest buffer programs.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Watershed Technical Workgroup to recommend a response to this request at its June 2018 meeting. At its June 2018 meeting, the Management Board agreed to form a Forest Buffers Action Team to identify high-priority actions that may be taken by the Management Board and/or Principals’ Staff Committee to accelerate progress toward the Forest Buffers Outcome.

Request:

The elevation of forest buffer needs.

Decision:

At its June 2018 meeting, the Management Board agreed to form a Forest Buffers Action Team to identify high-priority actions that may be taken by the Management Board and/or Principals’ Staff Committee to accelerate progress toward the Forest Buffers Outcome.

Request:

The signing of a Citizen Science and Nontraditional Partner Memorandum of Understanding.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Scientific, Technical Assessment and Reporting Team (STAR) to share this MOU for discussion at its June 2018 meeting and approval at its July 2018 meeting. The Management Board approved the MOU at its August 2018 meeting, and the Principals’ Staff Committee approved the MOU at its October 2018 meeting.

Request:

An understanding of Management Board interest in determining whether existing regulations are sufficiently reducing mercury pollution.

Decision:

The Toxic Contaminants Workgroup recommended the Chesapeake Bay Program conduct a trends analysis to document changes in mercury pollution over time, synthesize available data and deliver a report on possible management implications. The Management Board did not agree with this recommendation, but did agree the workgroup should assess the relevant monitoring data Chesapeake Bay Program partners have already collected and determine how gaps in this data could inform future monitoring efforts.

Request:

Further analyses to increase our understanding of observed and expected trends in water quality standards attainment.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Water Quality GIT and the Scientific, Technical Assessment and Reporting Team (STAR) to explain how these analyses may align and/or balance with other Chesapeake Bay Program priorities at its July 2018 meeting.

Request:

To share the Chesapeake Bay Program’s fish consumption advisory poster.

Decision:

At its June 2018 meeting, the Management Board recommended this poster be placed at public health centers; Women, Infants and Children (WIC) clinics; and fishing license purchase points. The Management Board also suggested this poster be incorporated into print and/or digital materials partners use in issuing fish consumption advisories and agreed to provide the Toxic Contaminants Workgroup with points of contact to further discuss poster placement and promotion.

Request:

Approval of the decision to investigate the value and feasibility of establishing a PCB Consortium.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the workgroup to provide more details about this idea and explain how its investigation would be conducted at its July 2018 meeting. The Toxic Contaminants Workgroup developed a briefing paper to describe the need for a PCB Consortium and the potential benefits, structure and sustainability of such a group. The Management Board raised concerns over the resources this consortium could require, and agreed to review the briefing paper and indicate whether it would approve the formation of an exploration team to identify potential consortium members, outcomes, costs and funding options. The Management Board approved the Toxic Contaminants Workgroup to move forward with the exploratory phase of their PCB consortium approach.

Request:

Accelerated partnership efforts to achieve cross-outcome benefits by reducing both toxic contaminants and nutrient and sediment pollution.

Decision:

The Management Board advised each of the outcome leads in the Clean Water cohort to include actions that will accelerate progress toward the Water Quality, Toxic Contaminants and Forest Buffer outcomes in their next two-year work plans.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Water Quality GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of 2025 Watershed Implementation Plan Strategy and Work Plan.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Water Quality GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of the 2017 Watershed Implementation Plan Management Strategy and Work Plan.

Request:

Extension of the deadline for submitting final management materials.

Decision:

The GIT 6 chair and vice chair accepted the Water Quality GIT's request for an extension on the deadline of Water Quality Standards Attainment and Monitoring Management Strategy and Work Plan.

Request:

Additional financial resources to support the achievement of the 2025 Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) outcome.

Decision:

At the June 2018 meeting of the Management Board, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia indicated their likelihood of incorporating implementation costs into their Phase III WIPs. (New York, West Virginia and the District of Columbia expressed concern about doing so.) The Management Board indicated it would not be necessary for the Chesapeake Bay Program to add implementation cost data to the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST) because it would not be critical to Phase III WIP development.

Request:

To nominate jurisdictional representatives to serve on the Education Workgroup’s Sustainable Schools team.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Education Workgroup to provide a list of the kinds of individuals who should serve on this team (e.g., school nurses or facilities managers) at its March 2018 meeting. Upon reviewing this list, the Management Board agreed to suggest contacts for this team.

Request:

To nominate a representative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as coordinator of the Education Workgroup’s Sustainable Schools team.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration send a formal request for a team lead to EPA Region 3. Clean, Green and Healthy Schools Coordinator. Lorna Rosenberg assumed the role of Sustainable Schools team coordinator.

Request:

Approval of an environmental literacy directive to be signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Education Workgroup to revise the directive for discussion at its March 2018 meeting. Upon reviewing the revised directive, the Management Board recommended it be sent to the Principals’ Staff Committee (PSC) for consideration and approval before being sent to the Chesapeake Executive Council. The PSC decided it would not advance the directive, but would encourage Executive Council members to highlight their agencies’ environmental education initiatives during the talking points delivered at their August 2018 meeting. The PSC also agreed to support a biennial, Chesapeake Bay Program-led environmental education conference.

Request:

An inventory of state and federal funding sources that could help schools, school districts and education providers advance the implementation of Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs).

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Education Workgroup to develop a submission template to ensure a consistent format for each item in this inventory. The workgroup created a form for the Management Board to complete prior to its March 2018 meeting.

Request:

To appropriately and sufficiently staff state agencies to advance the implementation of Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs).

Decision:

The Education Workgroup identified critical staff positions in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Those Management Board members representing these jurisdictions reported on the status of these positions at their March 2018 meeting.

Request:

Approval of a letter to the U.S. Department of Education to commend its support and administration of the Green Ribbon Schools program and to express a commitment to promoting this program throughout the region.

Decision:

The Management Board determined this letter should be sent on behalf of the Principals’ Staff Committee (PSC) and directed the workgroup to present a draft at its March 2018 meeting. The Management Board reviewed the draft and suggested changes. The PSC reviewed and approved a revised letter at its July 2018 meeting.

Request:

Modify outcome language.

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to recommend this request to the Principals’ Staff Committee in 2018. After requesting public feedback, the Principals' Staff Committee approved the outcome modification at their January 2020 meeting.

Request:

To support future efforts to collect citizen stewardship data.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Citizen Stewardship Team to provide more information about the costs associated with data collection at its December 2017 meeting. The Citizen Stewardship Team reported that data collection costs around $200,000 and should take place every three to five years. This decision will be ongoing based on funding availability.

Request:

To share and promote the availability of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s citizen stewardship data.

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to discuss how its partners could use this data and directed the Citizen Stewardship Team to develop a list of stakeholders that should be made aware of this information.

Request:

To advance social science approaches to environmental restoration and to use the Chesapeake Bay Program’s citizen stewardship data to design public engagement, education and behavior change campaigns.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Citizen Stewardship Team to develop a plan to integrate this data into the Chesapeake Bay Program’s work. The Citizen Stewardship Team included the following action in its 2018-2019 two-year work plan: Identify opportunities to increase stakeholder understanding of the Citizen Stewardship Indicator and use of supporting data. It will engage the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) as needed.

Request:

To consider adopting a new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement outcome to increase the number and diversity of users and stewards of access sites.

Decision:

The Management Board advised the Public Access Planning Team to explore whether a new management approach or action(s)—rather than a new outcome—would be enough to achieve this objective. The team decided it would not recommend the adoption of a new outcome at this time.

Request:

Approval of the decision to work toward increasing both the quantity and quality of public access sites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Decision:

The Management Board approved this decision, and the Public Access Planning Team has committed to adopting management approaches and actions that will enhance public access for a diverse population and increase the capacity of and amenities at access sites.

Request:

Funding for the planning, development and maintenance of public access sites.

Decision:

The Management Board advised the Public Access Planning Team to turn to the Budget and Finance Workgroup or to other financing strategies for support. The Public Access Planning Team included the following action in its 2018-2019 two-year work plan: Identify and work with potential funders in the private or corporate sectors who could contribute to the development of public access sites.

Request:

To expand the Diversity Workgroup's outreach efforts.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Diversity Workgroup to provide more details about the assistance needed at its December 2017 meeting. Several Management Board members volunteered to provide the workgroup with more information about their own outreach events, and the Diversity Workgroup agreed to follow up with these members as needed.

Request:

To report on the status of a previously issued request to states to revise their grant guidance to address diversity and environmental justice.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Diversity Workgroup to clarify the kind of changes that would constitute a revision and agreed to use this information to determine whether state grant guidance is effectively addressing diversity and environmental justice. States submitted written status updates by March 31, 2018.

Request:

To establish a 2025 target for the Chesapeake Bay Program’s diversity indicator.

Decision:

At the June 2018 meeting of the Management Board, the Diversity Workgroup recommended the following targets be established: (1) Increase the percentage of people of color in the Chesapeake Bay Program to 25 percent by 2025, and (2) Increase the percentage of people of color in Chesapeake Bay Program leadership positions to 15 percent by 2025. Both the Management Board and the Principles’ Staff Committee have approved this recommendation.

Request:

A position or committee dedicated to fostering diversity, equity and inclusion within each of the federal agencies and jurisdictions that have committed to the Diversity outcome.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the workgroup to develop a list of those participating partners that have already created such a position or committee. The Diversity Workgroup developed this list and worked with various Management Board members to create a spreadsheet of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) position points of contact.

Request:

To promote the benefits of underwater grasses.

Decision:

The Management Board advised the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Workgroup to turn to the Communications Workgroup for this request, and the Communications Workgroup agreed to develop a strategy to change the public perception of underwater grasses in the region.

Request:

A strategy to support a sustainable SAV monitoring program.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Budget and Finance Workgroup to develop a strategy to finance progress toward the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) outcome. This strategy will serve as a “proof of concept” for financing progress toward the Blue Crab Abundance, Forage Fish and Oyster outcomes. The strategy was presentation at the November 14, 2019 Management Board meeting and may be viewed on the November Management Board meeting page.

Request:

To emphasize the regional, national and international significance of the partnership’s efforts to restore native oyster reefs.

Decision:

The Communications Workgroup agreed to develop talking points to encourage Management Board members to promote this work to their Principals’ Staff Committee representative(s).

Request:

To brief the Chesapeake Executive Council on the partnership’s efforts to restore native oyster reefs.

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to consider this topic as a potential item for discussion at the next Executive Council meeting and asked the Sustainable Fisheries GIT and Communications Workgroup to develop a strategy to support the distribution of a forthcoming report on alternative reef substrate.

Request:

A strategy to finance oyster reef restoration.

Decision:

The Management Board advised the Sustainable Fisheries GIT to suspend this request until the Budget and Finance Workgroup has developed a strategy to finance progress toward the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) outcome. Following the Budget and Finance Workgroup's work with the SAV outcome, the Budget and Finance Workgroup hosted a Finance and Investment Forum in March 2020. Oysters outcome staff attended and participated in planning the forum.

Request:

A strategy to finance shallow-water forage monitoring.

Decision:

The Management Board advised the Forage Action Team to suspend this request until the Budget and Finance Workgroup has developed a strategy to finance progress toward the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) outcome. Following the Budget and Finance Workgroup's work with the SAV outcome, the Budget and Finance Workgroup hosted a Finance and Investment Forum in March 2020. Forage Fish outcome staff attended the forum.

Request:

A threshold analysis for the Chesapeake Bay’s tidal shoreline.

Decision:

This project will be supported by the GIT Funding program and is expected to be completed by January of 2019.

Request:

To consider the Blue Crab Management outcome complete.

Decision:

The Management Board asked the Sustainable Fisheries GIT to share the results of its work to achieve this outcome and turned to the Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT to recommend a process for recognizing an outcome as achieved. In September of 2017, the Management Board agreed it has the authority to accept outcomes as complete. In November of 2017—upon reviewing Blue Crab Management Outcome: Evaluation of Allocation-based Management Framework—the Management Board accepted the Blue Crab Management Outcome as complete.

Request:

A strategy to finance the next blue crab stock assessment.

Decision:

The Management Board advised the Sustainable Fisheries GIT to suspend this request until the Budget and Finance Workgroup has developed a strategy to finance progress toward the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) outcome. Following the Budget and Finance Workgroup's work with the SAV outcome, the Budget and Finance Workgroup hosted a Finance and Investment Forum in March 2020. Blue Crab outcome staff attended the forum.

Request:

Incentives for best management practice (BMP) implementation on permanently protected land.

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to form an action team to encourage Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia to include conservation-friendly best management practices (BMPs) in their Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), and published a series of fact sheets that illustrate how select BMPs could benefit 12 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement outcomes, including Protected Lands, Fish Habitat, Brook Trout, Forest Buffers, Stream Health, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Tree Canopy, Wetlands, Toxic Contaminants Policy and Prevention, Healthy Watersheds, Public Access and Climate Adaptation.

Request:

More active participation on the Maintain Healthy Watersheds GIT.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT to evaluate action team, workgroup and GIT participation across the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT distributed a survey to GIT coordinators and staffers to better understand how low action team, workgroup and GIT participation is impacting progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. The GIT discussed the results of this survey during its March 2018 meeting, in the context of a broader “organizational analysis.”

Request:

To ensure local stakeholders are aware of the status of state-identified healthy waters and watersheds and the tools that are available to protect these waters and watersheds.

Decision:

The Management Board flagged this request for fulfillment by the Communications Workgroup.

Request:

To support the monitoring and assessment of state-identified healthy waters and watersheds.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Scientific, Technical Assessment and Reporting Team (STAR) to determine how the monitoring of healthy waters and watersheds might be improved.

Request:

To include healthy watersheds-friendly best management practices (BMPs) in Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs).

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to form an action team to fulfill this request, and published a series of fact sheets that illustrate how select BMPs could benefit 12 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement outcomes, including Healthy Watersheds, Fish Habitat, Brook Trout, Forest Buffers, Stream Health, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), Tree Canopy, Wetlands, Toxic Contaminants Policy and Prevention, Protected Lands, Public Access and Climate Adaptation.

Request:

To nominate two co-chairs of and press for more participation on the Stream Health Workgroup.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT to evaluate action team, workgroup and GIT participation across the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT distributed a survey to GIT coordinators and staffers to better understand how low action team, workgroup and GIT participation is impacting progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. The GIT discussed the results of this survey during its March 2018 meeting, in the context of a broader “organizational analysis.” Neely Law and Matt Myers assumed the roles of Stream Health Workgroup co-chairs.

Request:

To secure $18,000 to establish a baseline for and document progress toward the Stream Health outcome.

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to earmark this sum as part of its GIT Funding program.

Request:

To establish local dam removal incentive programs.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Fish Passage Workgroup to work with the Chesapeake Bay Commission to review existing incentive programs and recommend state legislation that would address this issue. This request was specific to the State of Maryland, which has been actively working on ways to improve communication between the Maryland Dam Safety and Department of Natural Resources.

Request:

More active participation on the Brook Trout Action Team.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT to evaluate action team, workgroup and GIT participation across the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Enhancing Partnering, Leadership and Management GIT distributed a survey to GIT coordinators and staffers to better understand how low action team, workgroup and GIT participation is impacting progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. The GIT discussed the results of this survey during its March 2018 meeting, in the context of a broader “organizational analysis.”

Request:

To communicate the importance of brook trout conservation to local decision-makers.

Decision:

The Management Board flagged this request for fulfillment by the Communications Workgroup.

Request:

To expand efforts to monitor brook trout.

Decision:

The Management Board directed the Scientific, Technical Assessment and Reporting Team (STAR) to determine how brook trout monitoring might be improved. The Brook Trout Action Team is working with STAR to explore whether eDNA can be used a cost-saving measure.

Request:

To include fish habitat-friendly best management practices (BMPs) in Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs).

Decision:

The Management Board agreed to form an action team to fulfill this request, and published a series of fact sheets that illustrate how select BMPs could benefit 12 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement outcomes, including Fish Habitat, Brook Trout, Forest Buffers, Stream Health, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), Tree Canopy, Wetlands, Toxic Contaminants Policy and Prevention, Healthy Watersheds, Protected Lands, Public Access and Climate Adaptation.

Request:

FHAT Requests that Management Board Members • Review current FHAT priorities, their alignment with jurisdictional priorities and identify associated information and science needs. • Identify additional fish habitat nontidal or tidal priorities. • Align Fish Habitat Action Team membership to those priorities. With such a broad outcome it may be that additional or different expertise is needed from the jurisdiction to focus on that priority.

Decision:

Action: Scott Phillips Gina Hunt, and Sean Corson will have an offline discussion to realign request in advance of September Management Board Meeting, MB will provide feedback in advance of October Meeting

Request:

“The SAV Workgroup asks that the Management Board advocate for further reduction of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Sediment loads to the Bay. Improving water clarity will be the most effective way to improve SAV resilience to climate stressors and the only means of maintaining viable eelgrass populations in the lower Bay.” Addendum 11/23: Specifically, we ask the MB to help ensure that funding from the Infrastructure Bill is directed to programs and projects that support BMPs shown to have significant effects on N, P, and TSS load reductions to the Bay (that benefit SAV growth), such as technology improvements to wastewater treatment plants and stormwater run-off systems. Additional funding should be allocated to more site-specific projects that improve water quality and land-shore connections like riparian buffers and living shorelines. Finally, to support efforts to directly restore SAV where needed as water quality improves, infrastructure funding should be allocated to the construction and management of a large-scale SAV nursery to ensure that seeds are available when conditions are conducive to success.

Decision:

SAV Workgroup will include actions in their next 2-year Logic and Action Plan (LAP) to collaborate with STAR, the Fisheries GIT, and others as appropriate to improve our understanding of: • Co-location of land-based BMPs, oyster/mussel restoration, and SAV • Local effect of flow/Stormwater run-off on SAV density and acreages and options for targeting BMPs that would protect priority SAV areas.

Request:

Decision:

ACTION 3: Management Board and Dept of Ed reps are invited to recommend mentors for the 2022 Youth Ambassador Program.

Request:

It is Maryland’s opportunity to host the 2023 Environmental Literacy Summit. PSC is the co-host of the event with Education Workgroup. Seeking agreement from Maryland PSC representative to co-host, and staff level contact(s) to begin planning in Fall.

Decision:

ACTION 2: Maryland agreed for staff to begin plans for hosting the 2023 Environmental Literacy Summit with the recognition that they cannot guarantee this commitment on behalf of the gubernatorial administration that will be elected this November. Maryland will report back at the June 2022 Management Board meeting with a Point of Contact for staff to begin working with on the 2023 ELIT Summit.