Progress on Coordinating CBP and Federal Leadership Goals, Outcomes, and Actions

1. Progress on Coordinating CBP and Federal Leadership Goals, Outcomes, and Actions Principals’ Staff Committee Meeting 2/16/12 Carin Bisland, Associate Director Ecosystem Management

2. Why Coordinate? • EC Request at June 2010 meeting: • Form a Bay Program Action Team to work with the FLC to more clearly define the role of the Bay Program in implementing the Executive Order Strategy. As a result of our discussions at the April PSC meeting, the final Strategy includes language that articulates the need for a joint group to “recommend steps for coordinating and, where appropriate, integrating the goals, outcomes and actions of the Chesapeake Bay Program with the goals, outcomes and actions described in this strategy.” • Efficiency (same people, similar goals, similar efforts) • Communication (who is the CBP and what are our goals?)

3. PSC Decision at May 2011 Meeting • The PSC approved the Alignment Team proposal with several edits and recommended that the revised proposal be presented to the Executive Council and Federal Leadership Committee. The PSC requested the following changes: • Extend the time for developing negotiation protocols called for in Stage 2 to after completion of Phase II WIPs. • Clarify that Stages 3 and 4 (developing and implementing a new Chesapeake Bay Agreement) would only be completed if determined necessary through the analysis completed in Stage 2. • Extending the date of Stage 3 to the time of the 2013 EC meeting.

4. Aligning CBP and Federal Partners • Purpose – Update/refresh C2K and streamline commitments; ensure a set of shared priorities; clarify governance; design efficient operational structure for collaboration; and, enable effective communication of Partnership’s refreshed goals, outcomes and accomplishments. • A four-stage path forward over the next two years: • Stage 1: Using Goal Implementation Teams (GITs) for Aligning Interests, Priorities, and Efforts • Stage 2: Review Existing CBP Commitments, Develop Negotiation Protocols to Determine Future Direction of Partnership • *If determined in Stage 2 that a new agreement is necessary: • Stage 3: Negotiate the New Agreement • Stage 4: Implement the New Agreement

5. Stage 1: Using GITs to Set Direction Timing – Immediately • Priorities and areas of focus for each major goal area are refined by relevant GITs, guided by key strategies or agreements (e.g. C2K, EC Directives, EO Strategy) • Priorities of the partnership will be described in narrative rather than as quantitative measures except where there is explicit EC commitment to a quantitative measure • Decision-Making Framework presented by ChesapeakeStat would guide the setting of priorities and actions • Management Board would provide oversight and guidance to GITs and identify opportunities for strategic coordination Governance: Discussions on necessary changes to structure, operational functions, and membership of MB initiated

6. CBP Organizational Structure and Leadership 09-20-10 Independent Evaluator Citizens’ Advisory Committee Chesapeake Executive Council Principals’ Staff Committee Local Government Advisory Committee Management Board ActionTeams Scientific & Technical Advisory Committee Communications Workgroup Goal Implementation Teams Science, Technical Analysis, and Reporting Sustainable Fisheries Protect & Restore Vital Habitats Protect & Restore Water Quality Maintain Healthy Watersheds Foster Chesapeake Stewardship Enhance Partnering, Leadership & Management Implementation Workgroups Implementation Workgroups Implementation Workgroups Implementation Workgroups Implementation Workgroups Implementation Workgroups

7. PSC Decisions at May 2011 Meeting • ChesapeakeStat should be phased in as the Decision Support Framework to describe work across all CBP Goal Implementation Teams and to be used as a tool for adaptive management. • Phasing in the use of the decision support framework will begin with interested GITs (Habitat - SAV, WQ – Agriculture, Watersheds) and will use that process to form the basis for content in ChesapeakeStat. • The PSC also requested CBP staff identify case studies that may be used in a demonstration at the July 2011 EC meeting.

8. Adaptive Management Decision Framework

9. How will the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) communicate assessment information to the public in 2012? GOALS Focus on release of info and data in timely, relevant, ongoing fashion (based on audience) Create communications tools and strategies that reflect what’s driving CBP Improved public recognition for CBP partnership’s work and expertise Improved clarity / differentiation of public vs. partner products

11. Stage 2: Develop Negotiation Protocols to Determine Future Direction • Review process for assessing status of existing commitments, EC actions, and future commitments • Determine if negotiating a new agreement would provide added value to the partnership Timing: 2012 following completion of Phase II WIPs Governance: Develop protocol for including federal, state, local partners in development of new agreement or other future direction as determined above, with reasonable deference to current organizational structure. Determine protocol for public input

12. C2K By the Numbers * All but one date in Chesapeake 2000 expire on or before 2010

13. EC Signed Commitments • 3 Comprehensive Agreements (1983, 1987, 2000) • 3 MOUs • 25 Directives (16 prior to 2000, 9 post-2000) • 17 Adoption Statements (12 prior to 2000, 5 post-2000) • 23 Management Plans (all prior to 2000, mostly fisheries and habitat management plans

14. Stage 2 Governance Issues • Negotiation Protocols to be developed to review membership, representation and voting and decision-making procedures on: • Management Board • Principals’ Staff Committee • Executive Council

15. Next Up • The CBP Decision Framework In Action - Jeff Horan (Chair, Vital Habitats GIT) • Executive Order Action Plan and Progress Report - Peyton Robertson (Chair, Federal Office Directors)