09:01:57 From  Lisa Beatty, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Lisa Beatty, PA DEP CBO
09:02:13 From  Mollee Dworkin - DE DNREC  to  Everyone:
	Mollee Dworkin, DE DNREC 
09:03:10 From  PThompson  to  Everyone:
	Pat Thompson, EnergyWorks Group
09:03:13 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Are the votes for decisional items?
09:04:51 From  Pierre Glynn  to  Everyone:
	Pierre Glynn: USGS Science and Decisions Center (Reston, VA) & ASU Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes (Wash. DC)
09:07:30 From  Ruth T. Cassilly  to  Everyone:
	Ruth Cassilly UMD
09:07:41 From  karlblankenship  to  Everyone:
	Karl Blankenship, Bay Journal
09:07:53 From  Hilary Swartwood, CRC  to  Everyone:
	Hi Jill, we potentially have 2 decisional items for today, depending on how our discussions go: 1)WQGIT Decision Requested: Agreement on overall Phase 7 Model development timeline and review process; 2) WQGIT Decision Requested: Consensus on initial prioritized list of Phase 7 Model updates. These can be found in the agenda.
09:10:12 From  Suzanne Trevena  to  Everyone:
	Suzanne Trevena, EPA
09:10:20 From  Carlington Wallace  to  Everyone:
	Carlington Wallace - ICPRB
09:10:21 From  Ted T  to  Everyone:
	Ted Tesler, PA DEP
09:10:24 From  Scott Heidel PA DEP CO  to  Everyone:
	Scott Heidel PA DEP
09:10:24 From  Jeremy Hanson, CRC (he/him)  to  Everyone:
	Jeremy Hanson, CRC
09:10:29 From  Lauren Townley  to  Everyone:
	Lauren Townley, NY DEC
09:10:30 From  Greg Albrecht-NYSAGM  to  Everyone:
	Greg Albrecht - NYS AGM (NY AgWG rep)
09:10:34 From  Madeline Lambrix- EPA  to  Everyone:
	Madeline Lambrix- EPA Region 2
09:10:34 From  David Wood  to  Everyone:
	David Wood, Chesapeake Stormwater Network
09:10:37 From  Vanessa Van Note, EPA CBPO  to  Everyone:
	Vanessa Van Note, EPA
09:10:39 From  Emily Dekar - Upper Susquehanna Coalition  to  Everyone:
	Emily Dekar, Upper Susquehanna Coalition
09:10:42 From  Joe Wood  to  Everyone:
	Joe Wood, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
09:10:57 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	John Bell, At Large Member (PA Farm Bureau). I am here. Good morning, everyone.
09:10:58 From  Loretta Collins  to  Everyone:
	Loretta Collins, UMD, Agriculture WG Coordinator
09:10:58 From  Cassie Davis, NYSDEC  to  Everyone:
	Cassie Davis, NYS DEC
09:11:00 From  Jenna Schueler  to  Everyone:
	Jenna Schueler, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
09:11:05 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP
09:11:22 From  dave montali  to  Everyone:
	Dave Montali, Tetra Tech and WV
09:11:22 From  Jess Blackburn, CAC Coordinator  to  Everyone:
	Jess Blackburn, CAC Coordinator
09:12:14 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE
09:13:58 From  Hilary Swartwood, CRC  to  Everyone:
	Link to Jamboard "Parking Lot" (this is a space to place items that don't pertain to Phase 7 but should be discussed further): https://jamboard.google.com/d/1zGXkSwOOxsewPDwHRwepA0PSCiHMaQhhKl7Y6SvK1FA/edit?usp=sharing
09:14:59 From  Gurpal Toor  to  Everyone:
	Gurpal Toor, Environmental Science & Technology, UMD
09:15:29 From  Jackie Pickford (she/her)  to  Everyone:
	Link to Day 2 Calendar Page: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/what/event/day_2_water_quality_goal_implementation_team_conference_call_october_26_202
09:19:37 From  Greg Allen, EPA  to  Everyone:
	Wouldn't the cone of uncertainty narrow over time if we presume that we learn more about management actions and response of the system over time?
09:22:38 From  Ed Dunne  to  Everyone:
	Within the framing question, what is meant by the social system?
09:26:21 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	This is a critical point to our discussions today!  If what we are doing is not producing the affects we anticipate, what does that say about our models?
09:28:03 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	I would hope the "social system" includes primarily those that the Partnership wants/expects  to perform the land use/management tasks needed for attainment of water quality goals.
09:34:30 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	The unknown level of uncertainty seems to be an issue.
09:36:33 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	How have/do these implications been considered in the preliminary list of priority items that we are to decide on today?
09:45:29 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	Given that STAC is on track to finalize CESR on the same parallel timeline of developing this set of priorities for the workplan, how do we ensure that the decisions on priorities everyone is making today and in the next few weeks aligns?
09:48:46 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	To Lew - How are the uncertainties of IMPLEMENTATION addressed???
09:50:05 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Jill - watershed model priorities aimed at reducing uncertainties - physical process simulation, nutrient application calculation, climate modeling
09:50:07 From  George Onyullo (DC-DOEE)  to  Everyone:
	Good question Christine.
09:50:59 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Jill - uncertainty quantification is aimed at better understanding of the uncertainty we have
09:51:44 From  Normand Goulet  to  Everyone:
	@james.. I just think Kurt answered your comment, maybe it time to rethink how model as opposed to continuing to refine current model
09:52:16 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Revolution not Evolution
09:52:18 From  Llinker  to  Everyone:
	@ John.  Good point there are uncertainties in implementation.
09:54:09 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	To Lee's point, there is a lot of general interest among several goal teams to focus more on the shallow areas, particularly because that is where people most interact with the resource
09:54:44 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@James and Norm - P6 was revolution.  STAC review of P6 and STAC workshop on future of modeling recommended evolution for P7.  Always open to big changes, though, so will be interested in what STAC is proposing in CESR
10:00:48 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Time for WQM revolution
10:04:58 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	Sorry, had a work conflict and am just now able to join the meeting.  When will be be able to review the recording?
10:07:51 From  Ed Dunne  to  Everyone:
	Any context if action and policy options in the STAC report will be weighted? In other words, what options are more important than others.
10:09:08 From  Denice Heller Wardrop  to  Everyone:
	@Ed, we don’t expect to present formally weighted recommendations, but will clearly state the implications.  We are trying to inform decision-making.
10:09:54 From  Karl Berger  to  Everyone:
	It seems what the current modeling system can’t tell us is where we actually reside within the cone of uncertainty that Kurt and Denise described.
10:11:39 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Karl - That is one of the proposed priorities - "Uncertainty Quantification".  It has not been done previously because it is difficult and time-consuming, although we are starting to make some progress toward it.
10:11:44 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Well, the uncertainty in James's question (which I think is legitimate) is what will be the likely outcome and confidence under Phase 7. I would essentially apply Karl's observation in the other end of the spectrum.
10:13:23 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	Won't CAST23 put us in a better situation to assess where we are for 2025? Can this help in the decision-making for putting things on pause?
10:14:40 From  Marel King, CBC  to  Everyone:
	Really appreciate this topic.  We need to consider opportunities that will keep stakeholders engaged and feeling like they are making -- and can continue to make -- a positive difference. . . . and they need to have confidence about the impact of their actions.
10:15:54 From  Karl Berger  to  Everyone:
	@Gary n- Does an uncertainty quantification tell us where we are or does it just quantify the size of the cone?
10:17:31 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Karl - either or both, depending on what you want to know and how you go about it.
10:19:21 From  Carin Bisland, EPA CBPO  to  Everyone:
	While the STAC report focuses on water quality, it feels that the STAC report is important for the whole CBP to consider as we look at how we move forward on several fronts, and not just water quality and the living resource response.  How we do things differently is a question we should be asking for all goals and outcomes and is an appropriate step in our evolution to meet our overall vision.
10:20:20 From  Denice Heller Wardrop  to  Everyone:
	@Carin, absolutely agree, that is one of the main implications that emerged in the report.
10:21:17 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Can I give an "Amen" to James's comments??
10:22:07 From  George Onyullo (DC-DOEE)  to  Everyone:
	The "system" that has a high public engagement content should inform our decision(s).
10:23:15 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	This is a very informative and much appreciated discussion.  When considering moving forward, we should be considering all alternatives and opportunities presented to us.
10:23:20 From  George Onyullo (DC-DOEE)  to  Everyone:
	And a low hanging fruit in that regard is focusing on shallow waters.
10:25:06 From  Ed Dunne  to  Everyone:
	@Denice and Kurt. Thanks for sharing a truly impact report.
10:43:52 From  Julie Reichert-Nguyen  to  Everyone:
	How is land use being considered, (e.g., marsh migration)?
10:45:10 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	Can you scroll back up please
10:45:20 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	So, this seems like the work would transpire "in" 2025, not prior to 2025.  Does a 12 month time frame make sense for this kind of work to be done?
10:47:33 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	As a way to encourage Natural resource BMPs that provide climate resilience for transpiration, carbon sequestration. stream bank and tidal shoreline erosion control, should we develop and formalize a list of these BMPs to encourage or prioritize their use?
10:48:17 From  George Onyullo (DC-DOEE)  to  Everyone:
	Denice and Kurt introduced the need to consider the "social system."  Would it be a good idea to add this to the bullet points?
10:48:24 From  Julie Reichert-Nguyen  to  Everyone:
	There's a lot of research in the marsh migration space the CRWG is looking into with the Wetlands Workgroup
10:49:25 From  Normand Goulet  to  Everyone:
	Should we be imparting a greater message of uncertainty to the PSC especially with a compounding climate change?
10:51:59 From  Pierre Glynn  to  Everyone:
	Can someone confirm (or not) that a 2-year critical period (for the 1995 reference state) represents well average climate conditions at that time. It seems to me that variability in climate change (esp. in precip, hydrologic flows, and  loads) is usually bigger than what can be represented over a 2-year period.  Maybe this will discussed later which is fine.
10:53:30 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	Clarifying question, is climate change applied to the watershed model, estuarine model, both, or is it a separate model?
10:55:41 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Can the list that Olivia mentioned be sent around to everyone as a follow-up action item from this meeting?
10:56:30 From  Olivia Devereux  to  Everyone:
	I will send the list to Hillary Swartwood and Jackie Pickford.
10:58:21 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	How does Conowingo get into all this? CC also affect impacts of COnowingo dam in WQ. And just Conowingo itself, is there anything considered for improving the understanding of the Conowingo impacts?
11:01:24 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@Pierre - the 1993-1995 period is a 3-year wet period with a 10-year return period based on the previous 70 years of data.  Climate change analysis is placed on top of this, essentially projecting 1993-1995 30 years into the future.
11:02:02 From  Gary Shenk  to  Everyone:
	@KC - climate change is applied to the atmospheric deposition, watershed, and estuarine models
11:05:51 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Why don't we have a choice. Are initial PSC decisions not subject to change?
11:08:45 From  Pierre Glynn  to  Everyone:
	Thanks Gary, James and Lew for your responses!
11:08:50 From  Julie Reichert-Nguyen  to  Everyone:
	I see a decision matrix forming that includes climate uncertainty of BMP performance (nutrient/sediment reduction), uncertainty of BMP resilience (ability to still exist under changing climate conditions), climate change mitigation attributes of BMP (e.g., carbon sequestration), climate resilience building attributes (e.g., flood mitigation), and social system. For instance tidal wetlands offer carbon sequestration and flood mitigation, but there's greater uncertainty with performance (need research) and conserving tidal wetlands with sea level rise. There are also land ownership challenges associated with allowing marsh migration. 
11:09:41 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	and not only in terms of CC, also as just improving Conowingo modeling, dredging impacts, etc
11:11:13 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	ok, thanks Lew and Gary
11:12:20 From  Sam Merrill  to  Everyone:
	maybe more frequent and intense storms from CC would change nutrient surge results downstream?
11:24:14 From  Ed Dunne  to  Everyone:
	Can tool and webinar links be put into chat?
11:30:35 From  Llinker  to  Everyone:
	Here's the link to the CBP county-based IDF Tool: https://midatlantic-idf.rcc-acis.org/
11:33:01 From  Llinker  to  Everyone:
	The webinar for technical background and how to use the tool can be found in the link https://midatlantic-idf.rcc-acis.org/
11:34:05 From  Llinker  to  Everyone:
	Oops! The webinar for technical background and how to use the tool can be found in the link https://midatlantic-idf.rcc-acis.org/ under the Technical Resources tab.
11:34:23 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	One of the most striking items to come out of the presentations from that meeting was to find out that FEMA flood maps don't cover smaller watersheds or account for intense rainfall, and that if local managers or planners are using those FEMA maps, they underestimate flood risk significantly. If we are going to plan for flood resilience at the local level or be successful at flood plain reconnection, this needs to be made clear to policy makers and planners.
11:39:40 From  Joe Wood  to  Everyone:
	Have HABs been incorporated in any way into the future climate change considerations?  I know right now we only have James River HAB based chlorophyll standards, but with those complete, it seems that the consideration of HABs in other tidal waterways should now be a next step.  That is not explicitly a climate change question, but science suggests, it is expected to be exacerbated by climate change.
11:43:29 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	Joe, Old Dominion University in VA is doing a lot of work on HABs.  Do you want a contact?
11:46:15 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Sorry, but any proposed number that is higher than zero may create high level of social uncertainty and negative social reaction. Based on anecdotal experiences, confidence of farmers with projections of climate change impacts is not that high.
11:54:43 From  Olivia Devereux  to  Everyone:
	It is technically possible to add different 10-yr hydrology versions to CAST to assess different climate change scenarios.
11:58:34 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Additional items proposed for 2035 Climate assessment:  Consideration of land use change forecasted to 2035, including wetland/marsh loss/migration; consider how land policy actions might reduce climate impacts; consider additional margin of safety to represent BMP performance and/or BMP "bucket" approach; consider change to critical period/average hydrology period to be representative of modern climate and shorten the climate forecast period.
11:59:12 From  Sarah Lane she/her  to  Everyone:
	Olivia, could CAST technically apply a relative x% reduction to BMP effectiveness?  If a planner wanted to apply a reduction factor to BMP performance in light of climate change.
12:01:32 From  Olivia Devereux  to  Everyone:
	@Sarah, yes, that is possible. It would take some development time to do that. It does not require a new model phase to do what you suggest or to add different 10-yr average hydrologic data for surface/base flow (in/year).
12:31:40 From  Hilary Swartwood, CRC  to  Everyone:
	www.menti.com
	1499 5867
12:33:19 From  Hilary Swartwood, CRC  to  Everyone:
	Forgot who the voting members are? Here is a link to the list: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/22735/wqgit_voting_members_(signatory,_at-_large,_git_leadership)_2.pdf
12:35:45 From  Guido Yactayo  to  Everyone:
	is this question related to the  priority list 
12:42:29 From  Katie Walker (CC)  to  Everyone:
	Loretta, I appreciate you so much.
12:44:49 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Thank you, Loretta.
12:56:57 From  Loretta Collins  to  Everyone:
	Can the parking lot Jam Board link be put in the chat again?
12:57:12 From  Chris Brosch  to  Everyone:
	Looking for new functionality or emphasizing most used functionality that already exists?
12:57:18 From  Hilary Swartwood, CRC  to  Everyone:
	Link to Jamboard "Parking Lot" (this is a space to place items that don't pertain to Phase 7 but should be discussed further): https://jamboard.google.com/d/1zGXkSwOOxsewPDwHRwepA0PSCiHMaQhhKl7Y6SvK1FA/edit?usp=sharing
13:01:47 From  Teresa Koon WV DEP  to  Everyone:
	Re: I meant using the tools (CAST) as we have to show our progress toward the targets - nothing really new.
13:02:09 From  Olivia Devereux  to  Everyone:
	To demonstrate progress toward target, use this tool to compare any scenario (https://cast.chesapeakebay.net/PlanningTargets) To see graphs of progress toward the WIP3, visit here (https://cast.chesapeakebay.net/TrendsOverTime/Loads)
13:04:58 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	and I think I'll be the only one voting
13:05:22 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	sorry, not for this chat
13:09:16 From  Lucinda Power, EPA CBPO  to  Everyone:
	To clarify, voting WQGIT members include the 9 signatory members and 6 at large members. So, 15 total. There will be a second Mentimeter for all other participants.
13:15:20 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Include anything that has not been discussed as part of the presentations from Olivia (CAST), Peter (Land Use), Lew (Estuarine Model), and Gary (Watershed Model)
13:18:56 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	Update accounting for air credits, how to take credits from Air actions beyond what is required by the CAA.
13:19:53 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Yes Dinorah!
13:40:17 From  Hilary Swartwood, CRC  to  Everyone:
	2 and 3 will appear when you are sliding along the scale.
13:40:58 From  Hilary Swartwood, CRC  to  Everyone:
	1- Not a priority / 2- Back burner / 3- Actively work toward for a future model / 4- Complete by 2023
13:41:19 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	calculation?
13:44:41 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Nutrient Application Calculation seems to be an Ag Sector question, correct?
13:45:06 From  Loretta Collins  to  Everyone:
	That is my understanding, Jill
13:45:38 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	So voting members that are non-jurisdictional may not see the need for it.
13:46:52 From  Loretta Collins  to  Everyone:
	Not sure. It is about simplifying the calculations- which advocates see as helpful for communication in general.
13:48:03 From  Chris Brosch  to  Everyone:
	Is it about simplification or tweaking or a complete rewrite?  It is unfortunate to not have that context.
13:48:49 From  Loretta Collins  to  Everyone:
	We discussed this in the AgWG last week. In the "Workplan Options" doc is describes simplifying.
13:50:04 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	What may non-jurisdictional voting members not see the need for? Trying to vote, listen, and read at the same time is tricky.
13:53:35 From  Kristin Saunders, UMCES at Chesapeake Bay Program  to  Everyone:
	Sherry, you may want to take the list of the higher scoring ones here, and add into it the missing items so you can do pairwise comparison?
13:55:42 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	I agree with James's recommendation. There may be significant differences among individuals in their understanding of these very broad terms.
13:58:19 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Agree.  If only provided this list versus a more full and complete list based on discussions from the last two days, there would be differences in prioritization.
13:59:17 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	I would add the results of this poll be taken with a pretty huge grain of salt.
13:59:42 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	I think I heard earlier a pitch to consider how to engage more private landowners in Bay restoration.  I would encourage folks to consider how their answers would facilitate that action.
14:03:14 From  Normand Goulet  to  Everyone:
	Oh no!! she said Phase 8!!
14:06:18 From  Loretta Collins  to  Everyone:
	I am a trouble-maker. Sorry about that!
14:06:44 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Must be the BooBerries kicking in
14:06:57 From  Normand Goulet  to  Everyone:
	😂
14:09:38 From  Sherry Witt  to  Everyone:
	If you are voting on the timeline in our next Menti, you may want to take a photo of this slide for reference.
14:10:25 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	Great idea
14:11:57 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	Link to Dave's pdf: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/43868/phase_7_model_development_timeline_oct_wqgit_mtg.pdf
14:15:05 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	2022-2023 Milestones = CAST-21; 2024-2025 = CAST-23  So assessment of 2025 uses CAST-23 right?
14:16:28 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	I can't imagine logistically developing and reviewing the two year CAST and a new model in the same time frame?
14:17:09 From  Suzanne Trevena  to  Everyone:
	So is the proposal that the Ph 3 WIPs are evaluated using CAST 23?
14:24:10 From  KC Filippino  to  Everyone:
	Just to add in something else to think about, the cooperative agreement with Chesapeake Conservancy only includes this current year of land use data to be included, presumably for CAST23, not sure if this will also serve as the latest data set for Phase 7 too.
14:26:29 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Which is the limiting factor / highest priority - what we do or when it needs to be done?
14:29:37 From  Jennifer Walls  to  Everyone:
	I do think any changes should be made before we take a vote.
14:29:47 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	When was the timeline posted for our consideration?
14:31:58 From  Lucinda Power, EPA CBPO  to  Everyone:
	@Jill - it was posted on 10/18
14:33:52 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	Thanks, Lucinda
14:34:41 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Firm deadlines are helpful; arbitrary "drop dead" lines are not necessarily helpful.
14:38:47 From  Chris Brosch  to  Everyone:
	Agree with the lastest comments.  It seems imprudent to agree or otherwise on a timeline after cataloging preferences on importance of documented issues.  We have also been painstakingly developing a list of issues NOT on the prioritization surveys.
14:39:26 From  Suzanne Trevena  to  Everyone:
	Do we need consensus on not creating a CAST 6 2025?
14:41:26 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	I don't know if we would be ready to make that decision, Suzanne.  There may be a need to discuss on if there will be  Phase 7 at the same time, or at a later date.
14:41:34 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	But that's just from what I heard.
14:43:33 From  Kevin Du Bois  to  Everyone:
	yes
14:43:35 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	I don't know how it was before so I can't say if it is good or bad at this time.
14:44:32 From  Chris Brosch  to  Everyone:
	generally, yes, but it is over-engineered as a result of competing timelines from annual progress, milestones and 3 WIPs thus far...
14:46:07 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	2 years seems short enough to ensure that relevant and timely updates are made.
14:55:06 From  Adrienne Kotula, Chesapeake Bay Commission  to  Everyone:
	I would agree with that assessment, James.
14:55:38 From  Peter Claggett  to  Everyone:
	From a tech perspective, updating the models more frequently than 2 years would create an endless cycle of work with no time to devote to other outcomes and goals.
15:00:53 From  Jill Whitcomb, PA DEP  to  Everyone:
	It depends on when that year is occurring I think?
15:01:10 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	I would opt for at least a one-year review.
15:04:55 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Regardless of the "accepted timetable" can we not build a bit of flexibility into the "deadlines" that are initially established? What are the consequences for allowance of some flexibility?
15:19:22 From  Ted T  to  Everyone:
	Agreed Ed, PA would like to see this schedule incorporate today's discussion and a clear timeline.
15:29:43 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	We just need to make sure we all understand the numerics of scoring  (i.e. whether  "1"is valued most important and "4"is valued as  least important or vice versa).
15:31:01 From  Hilary Swartwood, CRC  to  Everyone:
	Agreed @ John.  We will make very clear so there is no confusion.
15:31:08 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	And to Dave's point, I don't have a problem with a more lengthy discussion of each subject.
15:41:15 From  Teresa Koon WV DEP  to  Everyone:
	Yes - good meeting! Helpful information and discussion.
15:41:49 From  Teresa Koon WV DEP  to  Everyone:
	Good path forward
15:42:23 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	James's and Ed's path forward is a very good and reasonable one.
15:52:04 From  Chris Brosch  to  Everyone:
	Good fit James, congratulations.
15:52:36 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	Congratulations James, you will be missed!
15:52:40 From  Jeremy Hanson, CRC (he/him)  to  Everyone:
	congrats, James
15:52:46 From  Ted T  to  Everyone:
	Sounds fun, good luck James!
15:53:01 From  Cassie Davis, NYSDEC  to  Everyone:
	Congrats, James!
15:53:06 From  Loretta Collins  to  Everyone:
	Congrats James!
15:53:08 From  Suzanne Trevena  to  Everyone:
	Congratulations James!
15:53:11 From  John Bell  to  Everyone:
	Godspeed, James.
15:53:23 From  Heidi Bonnaffon  to  Everyone:
	James and Ed, thanks for your leadership, and best of luck in your new position James.
15:53:24 From  Denice Heller Wardrop  to  Everyone:
	Congrats James!
15:53:35 From  Lauren Townley  to  Everyone:
	Congratulations, James!
15:53:41 From  George Onyullo (DC-DOEE)  to  Everyone:
	Congrats James!
15:54:42 From  Loretta Collins  to  Everyone:
	Thanks Lucinda for your years of coordination!
15:54:52 From  Dinorah Dalmasy - MDE  to  Everyone:
	Thanks Lucinda!
15:54:56 From  James Martin  to  Everyone:
	Thanks All.
15:54:57 From  Loretta Collins  to  Everyone:
	Good luck Jeremy!
15:54:58 From  Teresa Koon WV DEP  to  Everyone:
	Well done to the chairs, organizers, facilitator and presenters.
15:55:06 From  Teresa Koon WV DEP  to  Everyone:
	Congrats James
