Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee December 14-15, 2010 Quarterly Meeting Minutes O’Callaghan Hotel Annapolis, MD December 14 Attendance:

Members: Brian Benham, VT, Donna Bilkovic, VIMS, Charles Bott, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Russ Brinsfield, UMD, Randy Chambers, College of William and Mary, Carl Friedrichs, College of William and Mary, Marjy Friedrichs, College of William and Mary, Kurt Gottschalk, USDA Forest Service, Ted Graham, WashCOG, Kirk Havens, VIMS, Bob Hirsch, USGS, Douglas Lipton, UMD, Mark Lukenbach, VIMS, Jack Meisinger, USDA-ARS, Ray Najjar, PSU, Michael Paolisso, UMD, Vikram Pattarkine, PEACE USA, Jim Pease, VT, Chris Pyke, USGBC, Ali Sadeghi, USDA-ARS, Dave Sample, VT, Lisa Wainger, UMCES-CBL, Denice Wardrop, PSU, Donald Weller, SERC

Guests: Carin Bisland, Victoria Kilbert, Rachel Streusand, Rick Keister, Karl Blankenship, Sarah Lane, Mark Dubin, Jeni Keisman, Renee Thompson, Peter Claggett, Bruce Michael, Rob Wood, Jennifer Volk, Diane Davis, Jennifer Greiner, David Paylor, Alana Hartman, Jeff Horan, Jonathan Doherty, Verna Harrison Administration: Matt Johnston, Liz Van Dolah, Melissa Fagan, Kevin Sellner December 14 Minutes Introduction STAC Chair, Denice Wardrop, called the meeting to order shortly following 9:00 AM. Wardrop explained that all future meetings would begin with a vote on the consent agenda. The consent agenda is a summary of all actions taken by the Executive Board (EB) between STAC quarterly meetings. Wardrop explained that since the last STAC quarterly meeting the EB developed a spreadsheet to track progress on goals agreed on at the STAC Retreat and discussed STAC’s governing documents and a concern over member recusal policy. There was no further discussion regarding the EB actions. Members, guests, and staff then introduced themselves. Wardrop brought the September STAC Quarterly Meeting minutes up for approval. The minutes were approved by a motion. Wardrop concluded the introductory portion of the meeting by asking members to look over the meeting agenda and, if required, announce any conflicts of interest they had with agenda items. No conflicts were announced.

CRC Environmental Management Program Staffer Presentations Victoria Kilbert, CRC, and Rachel Streusand, CRC, presented an overview of their work with the Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Water Quality Goal Implementation Team (GIT) and the Agriculture Workgroup. Kilbert and Streusand also discussed their career development plans. Discussion Following the presentations, Doug Lipton, UMD, asked the presenters how soon the CBP might have a user interface for Scenario Builder. Streusand responded that the user interface was still a few years away and it may not be ready until 2017. Bob Hirsch, USGS, asked the presenters how BMPs are approved for the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model. Kilbert explained there is a formal BMP review and approval process that requires review of refereed and other technical manuscripts estimating BMP effectiveness.

New STAC Website Liz Van Dolah, STAC Coordinator, introduced the new STAC website and its proposed capabilities. Van Dolah explained the site will be divided into two sections, a public section and a ‘MySTAC’ section where only STAC members and invited guests will be able to visit. The public will be able to: • View a calendar of events and register for those that they are eligible to attend • Use enhanced search capabilities to find STAC reports , media products, and access official correspondence between STAC and the CBP • Access resource links to pertinent CBP activities and to ongoing research and tools within the broader scientific community • Better track STAC workshop, meeting, and review activities, and follow STAC on priority science initiatives • Virtually participate in select meetings through webinars • Apply for STAC assistance • Network with individual STAC members on relevant Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts Additionally, the MySTAC portion will allow members to: • Internally share documents related to committee activities • Coordinate workshops, workgroups, and peer reviews, and post relevant information to the public website • Follow STAC EB discussions and respond to decisions • Track the status of STAC commitments and action items • Collaborate through blog-style discussions on committee activities, recommendations, and actions in between meetings Van Dolah indicated STAC Staff should be able to complete the entire site by STAC’s March meeting. STAC Staff will work with Bill Dennison, Dave Secor, Jim Pease, and Susan Julius to review the website prior to its launch. STAC Governing Documents Review Kirk Havens, VIMS, explained that he and a few other STAC members just completed a thorough review of STAC’s governing documents. Havens explained the proposed changes allow readers to quickly reference other documents through hyperlinks, remove outdated institutional language, and incorporate important new language regarding STAC’s conflict of interest and publications policies. Wardrop asked members to review the documents in preparation for a vote the following day.

Recusal/ Conflict of Interest Policy Kirk Havens, VIMS and Denice Wardrop, STAC Chair, led a discussion regarding STAC’s Recusal and Conflict of Interest Policy. Havens explained that members need to recuse themselves prior to a vote if they have a conflict of interest. Because STAC’s actions are governed by a simple majority rule, dissenting opinions will not automatically halt an action. However, there are cases where STAC members may want to express a minority opinion. Minority opinions can be submitted to the CBP, but will not be printed on STAC letterhead or carry the STAC Chair’s signature. Bob Hirsch, USGS, suggested that many minority opinion issues could be addressed by allowing all STAC members the chance to review STAC documents prior to submittal to the CBP. This discussion was continued in detail on the following day.

Chesapeake Bay Goal Line 2025 Workshop Report Mark Dubin, EPA CBPO, provided an overview of the workshop, its goals, and the steering committee’s proposed timeline for completing a workshop report. Dubin explained that over 120 individuals and experts gathered for the conference in Hunt Valley, MD. Speakers at the conference discussed ‘the next generation’ of best management practices that could help producers better manage nutrient and sediment runoff from agricultural lands. Following presentations, attendees were given a chance to discuss which management practices they believed should be emphasized over the short-term (by 2017) and over the long-term (by 2025). Dubin also promised that a more thorough report would be completed in the coming weeks and presented to STAC at its March quarterly meeting.

Discussion: Multiple STAC members, including workshop steering committee members Jim Pease, VT, and Jack Meisinger, USDA-ARS, expressed disappointment and frustration that the report has not been completed sooner. While Dubin discussed a timeline for publishing the report, Pease and Meisinger indicated they had no knowledge of the proposed timeline, and received almost no correspondence from Dubin following the workshop. The workshop proposal and subsequent steering committee meetings caused STAC and steering committee members to believe that the workshop report needed to completed as soon as possible to inform states as they completed their Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) and prepared for Phase II WIPs. Both Pease and Meisinger expressed concern that the states did not receive valuable information following the workshop because the report was delayed. Russ Brinsfield, UMD, indicated that Maryland used some of the recommendations from the conference as they prepared their WIPs.

Verna Harrison, Keith Campbell Foundation, also requested that STAC discuss how to help hold the CBP accountable. Harrison argued that the CBP and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed need STAC to keep pressuring the CBP to act upon sound science rather than allowing politics to take over. STAC agreed there was a need to urge the CBP to include science in all decision-making. STAC also requested Dubin meet together with his steering committee and complete the workshop report by the STAC March quarterly meeting.

ACTION ITEM – Jim Pease, VT, Russ Brinsfield, UMD, Jack Meisinger and the Chesapeake Bay Goal Line 2025 steering committee will continue to work with Mark Dubin, UMD-CBPO, to produce a conference report by the STAC March quarterly meeting. Dubin will present the report findings and recommendations at that time. Alignment Action Team Update Carin Bisland, EPA CBPO, described the purpose of the CBP’s Alignment Action Team and its most recent discussions. The CBP Executive Council requested the creation of an alignment team to compare similarities and differences between goals and outcomes in both the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Prior to the Executive Order, the CBP was guided by the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Soon, however, state partners will be guided by a regulatory TMDL while Federal partners are currently guided by the Executive Order. Due to the confusion between the different goals and outcomes, GITs currently have no clear guidance.

After initial analysis the Alignment Action Team determined the goals and outcomes of the two strategies are very similar. Bisland cautioned STAC that the future of the Partnership may depend upon the Alignment Action Team discussions. Bisland requested that a STAC member help the Alignment Action Team create a process for prioritizing goals. Wardrop reiterated the importance that the Alignment Action Team would have on the future shape of the Partnership. STAC agreed to have a representative at future Alignment Action Team meetings.

ACTION ITEM – STAC Staff will identify a member(s) to serve on the CBP’s Alignment Action Team, which has been charged with aligning the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, Chesapeake Action Plan, and the Executive Order. Interested members should notify Liz Van Dolah, vandolahe@si.edu. STAC’s Land Use Model Review Peter Claggett, USGS, thanked STAC for its recent review of the Land Use Model’s land-use and land cover datasets. Claggett explained that a large amount of low-density development is not accounted for in the land cover dataset leading to a discrepancy in low-density development between land cover and land-use data. Claggett explained that STAC’s review included the following major comments: • Conduct a systematic sensitivity analysis • Develop multiple plausible scenarios • Incorporate mechanistic understanding of land market dynamics • Growth rate may be underestimated • Explicitly address scale issues • Use STAC throughout the development process rather than at the very end as a ‘rubber stamp.’ According to Claggett, USGS is conducting a sensitivity analysis on Montgomery County, Maryland’s land cover and land-use datasets. Claggett indicated USGS is also creating alternative future scenarios for growth and USGS is trying to characterize uncertainty. However, literature values for uncertainty are not appropriate because they result in very large differences in land cover acreage. Claggett stressed that the scenarios must give decision-makers a limited range of options to be useful.

Discussion Ray Najjar, PSU, asked if USGS was able to run different land cover scenarios in the Watershed Model to see how each scenario affects water quality. Claggett responded that not even USGS was able to enter the ‘queue’ to run scenarios in the Watershed Model. USGS would like to use this model, but the states, EPA, and TMDL developers are busy running scenarios of their own. However, USGS is able to use different models to run scenarios.

Russ Brinsfield, UMD, cautioned Claggett not to assume that Montgomery County’s sensitivity analysis would properly inform the remaining watershed land cover analysis. Brinsfield said Montgomery County’s four percent of available land for rezoning was atypical compared to many other portions of the Watershed. STAC’s Public Comments on the TMDL Rob Wood, EPA CBPO, thanked STAC members for putting together a review of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed TMDL’s nutrient trading and offsets section. Wood explained that STAC’s public comments were among over 7,000 public comments received by EPA. Wood indicated the EPA would answer each of STAC’s comments specifically in a letter to the Committee. The review specifically suggested that EPA allow states flexibility in their trading programs, allow programs to periodically adapt and change, and provide incentives for NPDES permitted facilities to encourage point source trades. According to Wood, the EPA hopes the state trading programs will be very adaptive. Because of this understanding there will probably not be any change to the current TMDL language. Additionally, the reviewers asked EPA to include STAC in ongoing activities such as nutrient trading policy development, rather than simply requesting quick reviews of finished policies. Wood said the EPA would like to work with STAC throughout 2011 to determine what an evaluation of state trading programs might look like.

Wood also addressed a new USDA/Word Resources Institute (WRI) conservation innovation grant. The USDA, EPA, and WRI are very interested in incentivizing credits for the agricultural sector through this grant. By doing this, they hope to expand environmental markets. Wood asked STAC to meet with him and WRI’s Mindy Selman in early 2011 to discuss the grant and state trading policy reviews. ACTION ITEM – STAC Staff will identify member(s) to work with CBPO’s Deputy Director Rob Wood, EPA, and Mindy Selman, MD DNR – WRI, to assist with reviewing state nutrient trading policy through several forthcoming workshops scheduled for early 2011. Interested members should notify Liz Van Dolah, vandolahe@si.edu. State Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) Panel Each jurisdiction within the watershed was invited to participate in a state WIP panel. The panelists were asked to give a brief overview of their state’s WIP and address how STAC could help inform their Phase II WIP process by providing scientific and technical guidance. Following their brief presentations, the panelists made the following requests of STAC: Diane Davis, DC Department of the Environment • Send a letter to the Executive Council about the federal agencies and their lack of cooperation in DC and throughout the Watershed • Provide a summary of innovative stormwater management ideas Alana Hartman, WV DEQ • Provide a summary of how the model works and how monitoring data works within the model • Help West Virginia understand a Phosphorus-Index if one is implemented • Provide a list of simple models for localities to use during Phase II WIP development • Review West Virginia’s monitoring program to ensure that we are spending money efficiently by placing monitoring sites where they need to go David Paylor, Director, VA DEQ • Provide an explanation of the “one percent precision” requirement used in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model • Help Virginia identify the correct chlorophyll a indicator for the James River • Identify cost-effective urban stormwater BMPs Jennifer Volk, DNREC • Help Delaware understand irrigation management efficiency • Pressure CBP to ensure the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model gives the correct credit for P-based nutrient management plans • Send a STAC member to a Delaware offsets program workshop in 2011 Jeff Horan, MD DNR • Explain why Maryland should move to Phosphorus application at agronomic levels. What are the incentives? • Help develop a trading platform that will work across state lines Pat Buckley and Andrew Zemba, PA DEQ • Investigate the effectiveness of using mussels as a nutrient sink, perhaps by reviewing a 2007 Maryland SeaGrant report on freshwater mussels

STAC agreed to take a detailed look at all of the requests listed above and respond to the states in early 2011. STAC also agreed to send a member to Delaware’s offsets program workshop in 2011. A more extensive discussion regarding each of these requests occurred on the meeting’s second day. ACTION ITEM – In early 2011, Delaware will host a one-day conference to develop state trading and offset programs. STAC members interested in participating in the conference should email Jennifer Volk, jennifer.volk@state.de.us. FY 2011 Action Plan for the Chesapeake Bay Earlier this year Federal agencies completed the FY 2011 Action Plan for the Chesapeake Bay. The plan aims to move each agency closer to fulfilling the restoration and protection goals outlined in President Obama’s Chesapeake Bay Executive Order. The plan focuses on four goals and four supporting strategies. The four goals are: restore water quality; recover habitat; sustain fish and wildlife; conserve land and increase public access. The four supporting strategies are: expand citizen stewardship; develop environmental markets; respond to climate change; and strengthen science. EPA, FWS, NPS, USDA/NRCS, USGS, and NOAA are all responsible for leading the Federal agencies’ efforts in 2011. Carin Bisland, EPA CBPO, Jennifer Greiner, FWS, Albert Todd, USDA/NRCS and Jonathan Doherty, NPS, explained how their agencies would achieve goals outlined in the plan and suggested a number of actions STAC might undertake to help Federal agencies fulfill their goals.

Doherty began the presentation reminding members that Congress had yet to pass the President’s 2011 budget, so the Federal agencies did not know how much money they would be working with. The Action Plan proposed approximately $490 million in spending with the majority of the funds going towards the ‘restore water quality’ goal. Doherty went on to discuss how NPS would lead efforts for the ‘conserve land and increase public access’ and ‘expand citizen stewardship’ goals. NPS hopes to increase public access by adding 200 new public access sites and enhance land conservation by protecting 2 million additional acres by 2025. NPS hopes to invest in land protection, develop a watershed-wide GIS land conservation targeting system, and develop watershed-wide public access plans to guide access expansion and invest in new access sites. Additionally, NPS will foster a dramatic increase in the number of citizen stewards who carry out local conservation efforts while also expanding the Chesapeake Conservation Corps. Doherty suggested STAC could: • Provide information on economic benefits of land conservation • Develop an indicator for tracking progress in fostering citizen stewardship Bisland explained that the EPA was leading the effort to restore water quality by drafting, implementing, and monitoring progress in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Bisland suggested STAC could: • Inform EPA about when it should expect to see water quality improvement following implementation • Summarize simple tools and models for local governments to use during WIP development Greiner discussed how FWS would lead the effort to ‘recover habitat’ and ‘sustain fish and wildlife.’ By 2025, FWS hopes to: • Restore 30,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands • Enhance the function of 150,000 acres of degraded wetlands • Restore riparian buffers to 63 percent of the watershed’s riparian lands • Open 67 miles of fish passages • Stabilize targeted wetlands that provide habitat for black ducks

Greiner suggested STAC could: • Review brook trout and black duck indicators before they are published in the Bay Barometer • Summarize what kind of wetland coverage is needed for adequate ecosystem services Todd discussed how the USDA/NRCS will lead the effort to develop environmental markets. In 2011, USDA/NRCS hopes to complete an offsets guidance document for the TMDL. The agencies will work with stakeholders to develop common performance standards for offsets and trading programs while encouraging private investment to reduce restoration costs across the Watershed. Todd suggested STAC could: • Create or suggest science-based metrics for an environmental trading system • Investigate what kinds of policies will enable markets to work efficiently Discussion Ted Graham, Wash COG, asked if the USDA was interested in looking into nutrient credits for urban areas that implement stormwater practices. Todd responded that the USDA’s environmental markets team believes that the market may eventually open up the opportunity for urban areas to participate. Multiple STAC members asked the panelists how they planned to coordinate across GITs. Bisland responded that the CBP would like to have a workshop or conference where all GITs could discuss and coordinate their plans. There was also concern from multiple members that the Action Plan’s goals would not be monitored appropriately. STAC members indicated that each goal and objective required monitoring. Panelists responded that they were identifying monitoring funds for goals and strategies and working from the Monitoring Realignment Action Team Report (MRAT) to coordinate their monitoring plans. STAC discussed each agency request more thoroughly on the second day of the meeting. Membership Contribution Letter Jim Pease, VT, explained that STAC voted to acknowledge STAC members for their time contribution by creating membership contribution letters that could be forwarded to their bosses or prospective employers. Members agreed that instead of developing a template letter, individual members should write their own letters of recognition. The STAC Chair could then review the letter, sign it and submit it to the intended party.

The meeting was recessed following this discussion.

December 15 Attendance: Members: Brian Benham, VT, Donna Bilkovic, VIMS, Russ Brinsfield, UMD, Carl Friedrichs, College of William and Mary, Marjy Friedrichs, College of William and Mary, Kurt Gottschalk, USDA Forest Service, Greg Garman, VCU, Ted Graham, Wash COG, Kirk Havens, VIMS, Bob Hirsch, USGS, Douglas Lipton, UMD, Mark Lukenbach, VIMS, Jack Meisinger, USDA-ARS, Ray Najjar, PSU, Vikram Pattarkine, PEACE USA, Jim Pease, VT, Chris Pyke, USGBC, Dave Sample, VT, David Secor, UMCES-CBL, Lisa Wainger, UMCES-CBL, Denice Wardrop, PSU, Donald Weller, SERC

Guests: Rick Keister, Karl Blankenship, Scott Phillips, Dennis Whigham, Peyton Robertson Administration: Matt Johnston, Liz Van Dolah, Melissa Fagan, Kevin Sellner December 15 Minutes Denice Wardrop, STAC Chair, called the meeting to order shortly after 9:00 AM. Wardrop began the meeting by introducing new STAC member, Greg Garman, VCU. Garman introduced himself as a fisheries expert by training. STAC Official Correspondence Review Wardrop then initiated discussion about how STAC could better communicate its opinions to the CBP without alienating or disregarding minority opinions held by STAC members. Wardrop explained that the EB considered and approved a letter summarizing STAC’s previous work on climate change. Chris Pyke, USGBC, who authored the letter, explained that the letter was based completely upon a 2008 STAC state-of-the-science review. Pyke explained that when the report was released there was little to no consideration of climate change by CBP leadership. STAC voted to write a new letter to the CBP at the June, 2010 STAC quarterly meeting because the CBP had undergone a change in leadership and many of STAC’s recommendations had not been addressed by that time. Thus, the letter was written and approved by the EB prior to its submission. Kirk Havens, VIMS, explained that typically the EB acts on behalf of STAC when STAC cannot meet as a voting body (in between quarterly meetings). The EB can approve documents without full STAC review. However, Havens also explained that STAC members will have the opportunity to vote on a consent agenda at the beginning of each STAC meeting that will list all EB action items. If a majority of STAC members raise opposition to a particular action item whether or not it was completed, the EB will have to reverse its action.

Bob Hirsch, USGS, explained he did not agree with some of the recommendations listed in the letter. Hirsch suggested STAC adopt a more formal review process for all documents because many members may not be aware of all of STAC’s recommendations. STAC agreed with Hirsch that a more formal review process should be developed. One suggestion was to have the STAC Chair send around documents to all members for review prior to submitting a document to the CBP. Then STAC members could submit comments to the STAC Chair that could be incorporated into the document. STAC agreed that Chris Pyke, Kirk Havens, and Bob Hirsch should develop a formal review process.

ACTION ITEM – Matt Johnston, STAC Staff, Chris Pyke, USGBC, Kirk Havens, VIMS, and Bob Hirsch, USGS, will develop a process to include membership review feedback on all STAC documents prior to their dissemination outside of the Committee.

Open Executive Board Seat Wardrop asked for nominations for an open STAC EB seat. Chris Pyke, USGC nominated Vikram Pattarkine, PEACEUSA to serve on the EB. Kirk Havens, VIMS, seconded the motion, and the membership approved Pattarkine for the EB seat. FY 2011 Action Plan for the Chesapeake Bay In a continuation of the previous day’s Federal agency panel, Scott Phillips, USGS, and Peyton Robertson, NOAA NCBO, described how their agencies would fulfill the ‘protect fish and wildlife’, ‘respond to climate change’ and ‘strengthen science’ goals outlined in the FY 2011 Action Plan. Robertson explained that NOAA reoriented its oyster work to concentrate on individual tributaries. Additionally, NOAA is focusing on maintaining current blue crab populations with current regulations and programs. Robertson asked STAC to collaborate with NOAA on climate change work. Both Robertson and Phillips suggested STAC continue to push the CBP to change the way it incorporates climate change in all policies and programs.

Phillips explained that USGS is working with PSU and STAC to run climate change data models. Additionally, USGS is adopting STAC’s recommendations for monitoring and has developed a small watershed monitoring system, a buoy monitoring system for tidal monitoring, and is beginning to develop a climate effects monitoring network. All of the monitoring networks should help the CBP strengthen its use of science and adaptive management in decision-making. Phillips also explained how the CBP Science, Technical Analysis and Reporting (STAR) Team will strengthen science used by GITs. Phillips suggested STAR and STAC cooperate to ensure that science and technical guidance is provided where needed.

Phillips and Robertson suggested STAC could: • Investigate how the CBP can adapt to handle climate change as an institution • Identify critical lands within the Bay for Federal agencies to protect • Offer innovative ideas to get scientists more involved with NOAA • Help design a climate monitoring effects network Discussion Dave Secor, UMCES CBL, asked Robertson how NOAA was orienting fisheries managers to all of the new goals related to the Action Plan, TMDL, and other documents. Robertson responded that it has been very difficult to orient all managers. However, the state fisheries managers have been briefed on the TMDL process. Multiple STAC members expressed concern that monitoring data for land-based best management practices (BMPs) are not available to researchers. Without this data many members felt there is no way to monitor how practices affect water quality or how effective a monitoring network is. Phillips responded that there may be a way to access the data for analysis, but that the data for showcase watersheds would not be available because of lack of funds in the budget. Kurt Gottschalk, USDA Forest Service, explained that typically researchers can request analyses from full-time analysts who will not provide the raw data, but will provide the results.

Workgroup Discussions Wardrop asked STAC members to break into the following priority issues workgroups:

• Land-Based Effects on the Watershed • Social Sciences • Monitoring and Modeling • Climate Change • Programmatic Evaluation Wardrop asked the workgroups to look over the list of requests from each Federal and state partner, and discuss how their workgroup might fulfill some of the requests through proactive STAC activities. These activities could range from drafting letters to full STAC technical reviews or workshops. Wardrop asked each workgroup to develop and submit a workplan to STAC Staff by February 18, 2011. ACTION: Workgroups will complete and submit a workplan to STAC staffer Matt Johnston, johnstonma@si.edu, by February 18, 2011. Following the workgroup discussion period, Wardrop asked a representative from each workgroup to summarize their discussion. The workgroups agreed to work on the following issues: Land-Based Effects on the Watershed • Provide a summary of small-scale urban and agricultural models already widely used to help localities. Perhaps describe the Basins HSPF model and its capabilities. • Ask STAR if the initial trading of nutrient credits would increase nutrient loads in the short-term. • Create a recommendation document that describes BMPs that need to be reconsidered and justification for their reconsideration. • Ask CBP modelers how multiple BMPs are addressed in the model. Social Sciences • The workgroup will continue planning a workshop for spring 2011. • Recommend that the CBP hire a socioeconomic “czar,” or create a position that could oversee socioeconomic work by the federal agencies in the Bay watershed. • In response to National Park Service request, the workgroup could develop metrics for stewardship. • Provide more economic and technical decision tools for local governments. (This is a cross-cutting request from states.) Monitoring and Modeling • Ask CBP modelers how monitoring data is related to the model. • Ask CBP where the burden of proof exists for practices accepted by the model. • Investigate how time lags might/should affect decision-making. • Identify current time-series data available to study climate change and identify what other assets are needed to study climate change in the Bay watershed. • Per Virginia’s request, consider a proactive workshop for James River chlorophyll criteria. • Per Virginia’s request, produce a fact sheet addressing the “one percent accuracy misnomer” and other common misnomers related to the model. Climate Change • Continue to “push” the CBP, EPA Region III and the states to consider climate change. • Per NOAA and USGS request, investigate what kind of monitoring network would be needed to measure

climate change in the Bay watershed. • The workgroup will continue to plan a climate change workshop for spring, 2011. • Produce a small fact sheet for localities that will address specific case studies and risks involved with potential climate changes to their region. For example, Pennsylvania planners may need to know the predicted increases in precipitation that their storm water systems will need to handle in the next 50-100 years.

The membership disbanded the fifth workgroup due to the lack of appropriate expertise on STAC. Phragmites in the Chesapeake Bay Dennis Whigham, SERC, provided an overview of ongoing research related to a non-native genotype of common reed, Phragmites australis. Whigham explained that this non-native reed is quickly replacing native species in coastal wetlands around the Chesapeake Bay. According to Whigham, there is very little native Phragmites left in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Whigham went on to explain that the invasive genotype will soon take over much of the Watershed and change its coastal wetland ecosystem. When asked if he thought the genotype should be removed Whigham replied that it was much too widespread and durable to be removed from the Watershed. He suggested rather than removing the current genotype, natural resource managers should seriously consider protecting lands where the native genotype still thrives.