(17-008-01): The CBP Partnership should build upon the Tetra Tech report, an evaluation of effects of BMP implementation on each of the CBP's management strategies, capturing both benefits and unintended consequences, if applicable, for each BMP. The product was a matrix that cross-walked the full list of CBP-approved BMPs with our current best understanding of additional benefits. This information could be made more accessible and user-friendly, possibly by incorporating results directly into the CBP Partnership's Chesapeake Assessment and Scenario Tool (CAST) so that it could support short-term decisions and be used to prioritize further work on quantification of benefits besides water quality.

(17-008-02): Pursue efforts for more quantification. For a clearly defined subset of practices and their respective benefits, the workshop participants recommended assembling the appropriate experts to examine methods to quantify additional benefits. The outcome would be a proposed framework and approach by which the quantification of these and other future identified benefits from implementation of the BMPs could be measured and incorporated into Partnership's CAST tool. Sources of funding and mechanisms for soliciting research should be considered simultaneously to promote likelihood of future action. An RFP and funding to initiate and sustain this effort should be pursued.

(17-004-01): The Partnership should work toward the goal of developing a true multi-objective optimization tool. As the system development progresses from screening to simulation then to optimization, data, information, and components should be integrated into the decision support tools as soon as they are available. A likely progression for the development of such components may include:

1. BMP co-benefit scores to inform user choices

2. Expanded understanding of BMP response and non-linearity's

3. BMP cost effectiveness data to inform user choices

4. Identification of dominant BMPs

5. Generic screening level optimization solutions

6. Geographic targeting strategies

7. Single objective optimization system to minimize costs of achieving nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment target loads using a select set of cost effective BMPs where response is understood

8. Application of some co-benefits scoring based on results of single objective optimization

9. Iteration of cost optimization with co-benefit based constraints

10. Expanded understanding of BMP reduction reliability

11. Expanded understanding of co-benefit quantification, monetization or benefit relevant indicators

12. Drive towards true multiple objective optimization to maximize co-benefits and reduction reliability as well as minimize costs.

(16-001-05): Develop a broad-based education and outreach program to increase awareness and provide guidance to key stakeholder groups. It can take advantage of the successes of existing programs and the nation-wide Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP) training centers. Components must be tailored to each of a diverse set of stakeholders, including: highway staff; policy-makers; agency staff of USDA's Soil and Water Conservation District and Natural Resource Conservation Service; environmental non-governmental organization (NGOs); and private landowners. As a core component of the education resources and outreach, develop BMP implementation guidelines that include a full inventory of BMPs categorized based on when and where a practice is appropriate. Guidance on where to target BMPs based on performance- and cost-effectiveness also is essential. For the Chesapeake Bay watershed, recommendations should be tied to the TMDL regulatory framework. A potential outreach strategy identified by workshop participants could consist of a well-organized website where the BMPs are listed, the associated decision-making tool is available, and successful projects and strategies can be reviewed.

(18-004-07): Identify, prioritize, and fill data, research, and information needs. Workshop speakers and participants expressed a need for improved methods to evaluate siting and design considerations within the watershed context, in addition to site-level assessment needs. Additionally, there was a strong message that better tools are needed to improve understanding of cost-effectiveness (and co-benefits) of upgraded BMP design, and within that context, an assessment of the intended design life for the suite (267 Chesapeake Bay Program approved BMPs. Both of these would enable the Partnership to gain a better understanding of the cost-benefit/trade-offs of considering impacts beyond 2025. The development of a research agenda, prioritizing key information needs, potential funding sources, and collaborators, is a critical first step