09:05:20 From  Mollee Dworkin  to  Everyone:
	Mollee Dworkin -- DE DNREC
09:06:10 From  Jackie Pickford (she/her)  to  Everyone:
	Link to Calendar Page – WQGIT Day 1: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/what/event/water_quality_goal_implementation_team_conference_call_october_25_2021
09:06:15 From  Jackie Pickford (she/her)  to  Everyone:
	Link to Agenda: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/42030/wqgit_phase_7_final_agenda_10.25-26.2021_updated.pdf
09:06:26 From  Hilary Swartwood, CRC  to  Everyone:
	In case we miss someone during roll call, please make sure to either change your "name" to your first and last name and affiliation by hovering over your name, clicking on the blue "More" and select "change name" OR you can also type your name and affiliation in the chat. Thank you!
09:06:31 From  Lisa Beatty, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Lisa Beatty, PA DEP CBO
09:06:33 From  Arianna Johns  to  Everyone:
	Arianna Johns VADEQ
09:07:22 From  dave montali  to  Everyone:
	Dave Montali, Tetra Tech and WV
09:08:25 From  Greg Albrecht-NYSAGM  to  Everyone:
	Greg Albrecht, NYSAGM (Chesapeake Ag Workgroup Rep)
09:09:24 From  sravi  to  Everyone:
	Sucharith Ravi UMCES-CBPO
09:09:38 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	Kristin Saunders UMCES
09:10:28 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	Sorry Ed, Had trouble connecting this morning.  Kevin Du Bois, DoD Chesapeake Bay Program Coordinator here.
09:10:29 From  Sean Corson  to  Everyone:
	Sean Corson: NOAA
09:10:52 From  Pierre Glynn  to  Everyone:
	Pierre Glynn USGS Science and Decisions Center & ASU/CSPO.
09:11:23 From  Scott Heidel PA DEP CO  to  Everyone:
	Scott Heidel, PA DEP
09:11:48 From  Ted T  to  Everyone:
	Ted Tesler PA DEP
09:11:54 From  Clint Gill  to  Everyone:
	Clint Gill Delaware Dept of Agriculture
09:12:13 From  Guido Yactayo  to  Everyone:
	Guido Yactayo MDE
09:27:54 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	OK, I’ll start out with dumb question #1.  If we’re talking beyond 2025, does that work require a new Watershed Agreement?  If so, can someone outline that process and when it would begin (a rough timeline).
09:29:08 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Can there be a task list written down that identifies what Lee noted here - as far as what has been committed to already?
09:38:28 From  ed.dunne  to  Everyone:
	@Kevin Du Bois. Thanks for question. Please raise this tomorrow as we will have time to discuss.
09:38:43 From  Mohsin Siddique  to  Everyone:
	Any plan to deal with forever chemical?
09:39:52 From  Jackie Pickford (she/her)  to  Everyone:
	www.menti.com
	1499 5867
10:06:19 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	I would like to know if and how partners use the airshed model without going through the modeling team. I saw a few responses saying the airshed model is useful.
10:06:38 From  Guido Yactayo  to  Everyone:
	Where does HSPF fits in the model description?
10:13:17 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	Thanks James, that made sense. And thanks Lew for your explanation.
10:14:30 From  Sherry Witt  to  Everyone:
	If anyone that responded with "Watershed Model" for the first question, please add context in the Chat to provide clarification. Thanks!
10:16:08 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	How has the evaluation of Phase 6 when it was first rolled out and the assessment of ideas for future phases being taken into consideration for Phase 7?
10:20:15 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Where can we find the documentation of those evaluations?
10:20:45 From  Olivia Devereux  to  Everyone:
	https://cast.chesapeakebay.net/Documentation/ModelDocumentation
10:24:39 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	So is it safe to say that average loads and N sensitivity haven't been updated since 5.3.2?
10:26:07 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@KC.  The average loads were updated for P6 based on multiple models, including P5.3.2, USDA's CEAP model, and USGS's Sparrow model.  N sensitivities were based on the average for P5.3.2, which were found to fall within the ranges predicted by CEAP and SPARROW models.
10:27:38 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Can CAST be used to compare against the findings/results in the Dynamic Watershed Model?
10:29:05 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Jill - The DM is constrained to match the output of CAST, so they are the same load for scenarios.  The DM can be used to add lag times to CAST output so that you can better compare against monitoring data analyses
10:33:37 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Jill (continued) there is also a section of the CAST interface where you can see annual loads estimated by the Dynamic Model and by USGS
10:36:41 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Does a Phase update necessitate an update to targets? Does an update to targets necessitate new WIPs?
10:36:45 From  Denice Heller Wardrop  to  Everyone:
	Will a new estuary model require a change in the spatial resolution of the dynamic model?
10:38:00 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@James - A phase update would require new targets.  I think your answer to the new WIP question was a good one...could be new WIPs, could be milestone updates
10:38:25 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	Can you provide a list of what would definitively lead to a change in planning targets? (i.e. change in critical period, new delivery factors, etc.)
10:39:42 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Denice - smaller-scale estuarine tributary models would require finer inputs.  The Dynamic Model would need to be at a smaller scale.  With the new land use methods that are proposed, it could be spatially downscaled as well as temporally downscaled.
10:40:02 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Planning Targets for WIP III explicitly accounted for forecasted growth through 2025.  If the Partnership wanted to continue to explicitly account for growth beyond 2025, targets would need to be updated.
10:46:24 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	Can you discuss how CAST would incorporate co-benefits.  I may have missed this.
10:48:54 From  Greg Allen, EPA  to  Everyone:
	We can identify the key PCB congeners.
10:49:54 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	Whats a congener?
10:50:46 From  Greg Allen, EPA  to  Everyone:
	209 different PCB forms with different chlorination profiles. Each are referred to as congeners.
10:57:16 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	How does it work though with BMPs that drop out due to lack of re-verification?  It is assumed then that the BMP no longer exists, so if it is then "found" at a later date, then it should be able to be put back into the system, correct?
10:58:21 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Potential changes for P7 - Update to critical period to be more reflective of current/changing climate.
10:59:21 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	If we are looking at aerial imagery, informed users can identify the difference between hay, pasture, and cropland.
11:02:25 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	If we update the Phase in 2025, would that reset all and the items currently in the adjustment factor?
11:02:32 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	@Ed, to add to Olivia's answer, many of the living resource goal workgroups recognize the importance of being represented or linked to CAST so that users who are making decisions about BMP selection or placement are also able to consider important considerations to living resources (you will hear this when talking to the other goal teams later this month).
11:03:18 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	Likely the co-benefits and ecosystem services work could go a long way toward that nexus with living resources in the eyes of planners
11:03:40 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@James - if we update the planning targets that resets the starting point, 1995, so there would be no adjustment factor until we start making more changes for CAST-2027
11:04:56 From  Jackie Pickford (she/her)  to  Everyone:
	Link to JamBoard for "Parking Lot" Ideas: https://jamboard.google.com/d/1zGXkSwOOxsewPDwHRwepA0PSCiHMaQhhKl7Y6SvK1FA/edit?usp=sharing
11:05:54 From  ed.dunne  to  Everyone:
	Thanks for sharing Kristin.
11:18:49 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	A link to the original hydraulic model built at Matapeake by USACE. We have come a long way!  https://clui.org/newsletter/spring-1998/chesapeake-bay-hydraulic-model
11:24:13 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	With all of the significant modeling enhancements over the last 25 years, since 1997, our load estimates have remained largely unchanged.  What does that tell us?
11:29:19 From  Llinker  to  Everyone:
	@ Kristin. Wow the  link to the original hydraulic model on Kent Island is really cool.  I visited that 17 acre physical model on a Middle School field trip. We were like giants striding across the Chesapeake!
11:31:12 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	@Lew, me too! Probably planted the seed for us and many others
11:34:05 From  Llinker  to  Everyone:
	@ Kristin.  Oh yes, I do remember thinking during that field trip, "I'm sure we can do better with Phase 7!"
11:50:06 From  Scott Phillips, USGS  to  Everyone:
	@James Your question will need policy input. The current approach of EPA and the CBP strived to meet WQ standards in all segments of the Bay with a focus on deep channel. However, monitoring data suggests it could take over 100 years to attain standards in deeper waters. So a more strategic approach could be considered in 2025 for trying to reach attainment sooner in a segments most important for living resources (shallow and open water). This approach would influence the "most effective" basins map.
11:52:14 From  Olivia Devereux  to  Everyone:
	See WRTDS compared to the predicted WSM here: https://cast.chesapeakebay.net/documentation/NonTidalWaterQualityDashboard
11:54:05 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	No more Lucky Charms for Gary!
11:54:27 From  Katie Walker (Chesapeake Conservancy)  to  Everyone:
	HAHA - I was just thinking that, James
11:55:50 From  Peter Tango  to  Everyone:
	I see you Ken
11:56:28 From  Sherry Witt  to  Everyone:
	I'll adjust our lunch break time, to allow for a full 30 minutes.
11:57:29 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Gary - When does step 4 in the process flow happen?  Each year with Annual Progress? During calibration? Ad Hoc?
12:02:41 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@James - step 4 (the comparison with monitoring data) happens twice.  The first is during calibration.  Calibration is primarily a matching with spatial loads.  The factors that produce the trends (nutrient inputs, BMPs, land use, WWTP loads) are not adjustable during calibration so we can't calibrate to trends.  The second is when we try to assess whether we are seeing the expected load reductions.  This has been a goal for many years, but it turns out to be very difficult due to uncertainty, lag times, and conflicting factors.  We are finally making some progress but we have a way to go.
12:04:40 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Do you have a list of the source(s) of the data that you are using?
12:06:34 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	...And how are the data (formulas, etc.) being evaluated in projecting land use and water quality impacts??
12:06:40 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Jill - I think we can get the list of sources.  USGS (PA office) compiles data from multiple sources.  Once we get it, we don't have a need to separate by source, so I'm not sure we have that information handy.
12:07:16 From  Joe Wood  to  Everyone:
	Do the macro-invertebrate indices include Freshwater Mussels?
12:07:51 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	How frequently will we be provided updates?
12:08:40 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	I get confused when you talk about co-benefits.  Do you mean co-benefits of WQ BMPs or do you mean non-BMPS that affect the ultimate goal of improving aquatic organism?
12:08:44 From  Peter Tango  to  Everyone:
	Joe - we could go to the species list in the macroinvert data set to answer that question.
12:11:19 From  Peter Tango  to  Everyone:
	Data source lists are part of the metadata and the developing data releases. For example, in our temperature workshop, phase 1 of John Clunes work shows the data reference "NWIS" as their source, while in phase 2 of the developing data compilation, other data sources are being referenced (e.g. SRBC, Chesapeake Monitoring Cooperative, etc.). I anticipate that as data are compiled and formally released as published data sets that the source of any given data point will be available.
12:11:33 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Great examples. I'm assuming determinations to be made will be partially policy driven.
12:13:28 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	That’s where I thought this conversation was going.  Thanks for picking up the thread James.
12:14:01 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Again, per James's comments, the determinations per data will be at least policy driven...
12:14:29 From  Sherry Witt  to  Everyone:
	Return by 12:45pm - thanks!
12:14:31 From  Scott Phillips, USGS  to  Everyone:
	There have been multiple efforts over the years to explain water-quality trends. With a large effort several years ago for the mid-point assessment of the TMDL. As Gary mentioned, the approaches keep improving, but don't want to leave the impression these have not been occurring.
12:16:44 From  Karl Berger  to  Everyone:
	After the meeting, can the chat be issued as a separate document? There’s been a lot of good Q & A in it.
12:23:59 From  Peter Tango  to  Everyone:
	Regarding the data used in existing comparisons, you are largely speaking to the Chesapeake Bay Program's nontidal monitoring network stations. We presently have 123 stations with 10 or more years of data used to assess status and trends across the watershed. This network was fully established by MOU in 2004 where jurisdictions agreed that at 85 stations at the time the same form or sampling and analyses would be conducted so that we had watershed-wide consistency for computing loads and trends. The network expanded between 2009-2012 to upwards of 127 stations. Our jurisdictions often have other monitoring with other protocols and targeting other purposes so it is a good question to understand which sites are included in any particular analysis. And as Gary pointed out, targeted project areas may have monitoring in place to address specific questions involving for example a very local influence of BMP efforts to improve water quality like in some of the small watershed studies that have been conducted.
12:43:13 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	There seems to be an assumption made with the EOS relativity to EOT loads.  If, in very simple terms, EOS is "local water quality" based and EOT is "Bay tidal waters" based, then why wouldn't / couldn't we use local monitoring and assessment data to better inform EOS loads?
12:43:50 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Wouldn't it then help to inform EOT and/or delivery factors?
12:45:17 From  Jackie Pickford (she/her)  to  Everyone:
	@Karl - I've been documenting the comments in the chat into the meeting minutes for future reference but I'm sure we can send it out separately as well if needed
12:46:18 From  Jackie Pickford (she/her)  to  Everyone:
	www.menti.com
	1499 5867
12:49:40 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Jill - We absolutely use monitoring and monitoring-based products to inform the EOS loads.  The difference between EOS and EOT is the river and stream delivery that is based on USGS SPARROW and calibration of the Watershed Model to observations.
12:50:26 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Does USGS SPARROW incorporate state-derived data that is not non-tidal network?
13:09:59 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	Why not the Lynnhaven?  With the the VA CBF located there and it’s own watershed organization LR Now, seems like a glaring omission.
13:13:36 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	Big picture question: do we have a sense of what resource investments we might be forgoing by investing in a 6-fold increase in tidal model practitioners? In other words, what will we NOT invest in for other parts of the program (implementation, technical analysis/synthesis, monitoring, etc) in order to fully outfit this approach if it is selected as the priority? As we go through this process of prioritization, it would help all of us to understand by selecting x priority, you are forgoing y and z (which may also be a priority for others). The context and competition are important.
13:16:12 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	How will the MTMs improve or influence the MBM, i.e. are they value added to the MBM or stand alone?
13:16:57 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	In terms of the geographic areas to focus on for MTMs, you may want to compare the list of geographic priority areas that jurisdictions identified as their priorities in the USACE Comprehensive Plan as well as the Tidal trends analysis work for the 12 tribs that were selected. Assume they were picked for specific reasons and may be instructive to us.
13:22:11 From  Bryant Thomas  to  Everyone:
	I think Kristin's first comment/question about costs and trade-offs is excellent and would help us to frame the discussion and make recommendations.
13:23:44 From  Julie Reichert-Nguyen  to  Everyone:
	I could see this approach possibly being more useful to compare with habitat suitability information for fish species and SAV under changing climate conditions, but would need further discussion with the modeling team.
13:26:17 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	Thanks, I am channeling several personalities right now and the MB leadership seems to be asking for that level of detail.
13:26:45 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Other outcomes could also be an important driver of MTM selection
13:34:18 From  George Onyullo (DC-DOEE)  to  Everyone:
	Developing structure that would accommodate future extensions, as Lew has pointed out, is very important.
13:38:23 From  Scott Heidel PA DEP CO  to  Everyone:
	Is there a map of the MTM watersheds? Anything going on in the upper basin?
13:40:42 From  Julie Reichert-Nguyen  to  Everyone:
	Would you essentially be comparing results of the coarse Bay model with the finer trib model scale results to help with decisions. Is that what is meant by trib model results feeding into the Bay model? 
13:44:55 From  ed.dunne  to  Everyone:
	Options for MTMs. Are there certain MTMs that rank higher than others to support advancing partnerships wq goals?
13:46:54 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	I would think those that cover the problem tribs (particularly is not resolved by the MBM) would be the priority as well as those that help resolve the Climate questions in shallow open water
13:48:55 From  George Onyullo (DC-DOEE)  to  Everyone:
	Agree with James Martin^.
13:50:51 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	We should think about timing...can we get the MBM done and see which problem areas are resolved with that alone, then choose where additional resolution from MTM are needed?
13:56:04 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	If we pursue MTMs, would the partnership be better served by allowing maximum flexibility in their development.  Not constrain them the way Lew described, rather allow them to be developed to best represent the specific needs for that Trib.
13:58:57 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	Agree w/ James comments, need more transparency on the push for MTMs, specific benefits to the MBM, schedule, stakeholders providing input on those MTMS, and when priorities will be set.
14:28:41 From  Gregorio Sandi - MDE  to  Everyone:
	How would a spatially explicit CAST compare with other targeting tools that exist? (Field Doc, Watershed Resources Registry)
14:29:01 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Should some of them go into the CAST-23 updates?
14:33:22 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Isn't one of the deliverables in the Chesapeake Conservancy grant a system to assess BMP implementation opportunities?  How does this align with Spatially Explicit CAST?
14:33:59 From  Gregorio Sandi - MDE  to  Everyone:
	I believe they use Field Doc, but not 100% sure.
14:35:57 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	Might there be a way to utilize the GIS tool developed as the Data Dashboard in tandem with CAST to do the spatial specific work Olivia spoke about? Just a thought to explore
14:37:10 From  Katie Walker (CC)  to  Everyone:
	@James and Greg - yes, the Conservancy is working to include BMP opportunity mapping layers into a planning module in FieldDoc
14:39:49 From  Ruth T. Cassilly  to  Everyone:
	@James, yes you are correct, Objective 3 of the Cooperative Agreement between the CBP and Chesapeake Conservancy does include a BMP Opportunity Mapping component for several agricultural and as yet undecided stormwater BMPs, not exactly sure how this would overlap with a spatially explicit CAST, this is a topic for future conversation
14:40:47 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	@Kristin I was wondering about the Bay Data Dashboard connection as well
14:41:53 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	How do you map temporary earth disturbance activities in real-time?
14:46:56 From  Olivia Devereux  to  Everyone:
	We can certainly incorporate Data Dashboard into CAST. We have already begun that discussion with the data updates that are needed for the Data Dashboard. That becomes possible with adding in the geographic mapping and land use capacity that is part of the proposed Spatially Explicit CAST.
14:49:14 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	We know? With what degree of certainty?
14:51:32 From  Chris.Hartley  to  Everyone:
	Need to know crop changes as well as land in Ag
14:53:16 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Chris - The thought is that Peter's group will set the total amount of cropland, but the types of crops within the footprint will vary based on other data (historically CBP has used ag census).
14:53:29 From  Peter Claggett  to  Everyone:
	We can't map disturbance in real time but we can map it retrospectively at an annual level.  We can do that with the LCMAP data (Sarah's about to talk about it) and our high-res data from 2013-2021.
14:55:05 From  Peter Claggett  to  Everyone:
	We will need to rely on a combination of the annual Cropland data layer and annual tabular reporting of crops to discern annual crop changes.
14:56:19 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Can we improve the use of State data on forest harvest, septic permits, and constructions activity to inform the future forecast?
14:57:58 From  Peter Claggett  to  Everyone:
	Yes- use of state forest harvest data coupled with insight from state foresters should inform our future forecast.  Data on septic permits and construction should also be used to inform, calibrate, and validate our mapped estimates.
15:00:30 From  Chris.Hartley  to  Everyone:
	Gary- Understood... however, the location of the crops are typically not provided at the same resolution as Peter's data, making for a potential mismatch between agricultural acres and crop type. (i.e. 30 acres of corn/soy has a very different footprint than 30 acres of alfalfa and has a very different footprint that 30 acres of rye. It is just something to be aware of when extrapolating the results.
15:02:12 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Chris. agreed.
15:17:47 From  Lisa Beatty, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Please include ways to improve extractive lands like oil and gas and AMD lands
15:18:27 From  Olivia Devereux  to  Everyone:
	Lisa, so we are all on the same page, please define AMD lands. It has been defined different ways over the years.
15:19:29 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Lisa - Does 'improving' them amount to mapping them, or determining the effect on nutrient loads, or both?
15:20:30 From  Lisa Beatty, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Both
15:35:37 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Should we try to address changing Growing Seasons?
15:39:39 From  Llinker  to  Everyone:
	@ James Martin.  Yes, that really makes sense in both the watershed w/ hydrology & loads and the tidal water simulation of water quality response.
15:42:03 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	Jackie or Hilary can you please update Gary's presentation on the calendar page with the one he's presenting now? I think they're different. Thanks!
15:45:13 From  Jackie Pickford (she/her)  to  Everyone:
	@KC - I think Gary wanted to leave the one up on the calendar page (a longer version of the one he is presenting now) to give folks more detail/background. But I can upload this shorter version in addition to the longer version if it's easier to follow along
15:47:05 From  Joe Wood  to  Everyone:
	Are we limited to this list? or are we also looking to consider other options to add to the list?
15:49:09 From  Llinker  to  Everyone:
	@ Joe Wood.  No, not limited to the presented list.  The field is open for good ideas for Phase 7 application.
15:49:41 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	Re scale question, can you list out what inputs are at what scale (maybe that exists somewhere) to be able to make a more informed decision? Inputs and land use are on very different scales.
15:53:53 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Rainfall?  ET?  Air N?
15:59:54 From  Jackie Pickford (she/her)  to  Everyone:
	www.menti.com
	1499 5867
