# Stream Restoration Quarterly Learning Session Package

**Prepared for:** Chesapeake Bay Trust
**Topic:** Science-Based Guidance for Stream Restoration
**Date:** January 2026
**Prepared by:** akorn environmental consulting

---

## Package Contents

1. [Run of Show Document](#run-of-show)
2. [Science Synthesis Slide Deck Outline](#slide-deck-outline)
3. [Recommended PI Presentation](#pi-presentation)
4. [Facilitation Guide](#facilitation-guide)
5. [Marketing & Registration Materials](#marketing-materials)

---

# Run of Show Document

## Quarterly Learning Session: Stream Restoration Science in Practice
**Duration:** 90 minutes
**Format:** Virtual webinar with Q&A
**Platform:** Zoom (or preferred webinar platform)
**Expected Attendance:** 75-150 participants

---

### Pre-Event (1 Week Before)

**Tasks:**
- [ ] Send calendar invite with Zoom link
- [ ] Email participants the pre-read: link to interactive resource
- [ ] Email PI presenter with finalized slides and logistics
- [ ] Test Zoom settings (recording, polls, Q&A enabled)
- [ ] Prepare Mentimeter/Slido polls if using
- [ ] Load all presentations into shared drive
- [ ] Brief moderator and all speakers
- [ ] Prepare backup plan for technical issues

**Pre-Read Materials to Send:**
- Link to Stream Restoration interactive: [URL]
- One-pager summarizing key findings
- Instructions: "Spend 10 minutes reviewing the 6 key takeaways before the session"

---

### Event Flow (90 minutes total)

#### **Welcome & Housekeeping (5 minutes)** | 0:00-0:05
**Speaker:** CBT Staff/Moderator

**Script:**
```
"Good [morning/afternoon], everyone, and welcome to today's Quarterly Learning Session on Stream Restoration Science in Practice. My name is [Name] with the Chesapeake Bay Trust.

Before we dive in, a few housekeeping items:
• This session is being recorded and will be shared with registered participants
• Please use the Q&A function to submit questions—we'll address them at the end
• If you have technical issues, use the chat to reach our support team
• We'll take a quick poll midway through to check understanding

Today's session draws from a decade of research funded through our Pooled Monitoring Initiative's Restoration Research Program. We've synthesized findings from 18+ peer-reviewed studies into actionable guidance, and we're excited to share what we've learned.

Our agenda today:
• 0-5 min: Welcome (that's now)
• 5-35 min: PMI Science Synthesis Overview
• 35-55 min: Practitioner Spotlight featuring [PI Name]
• 55-85 min: Q&A and Discussion
• 85-90 min: Wrap-up and Next Steps

Let's get started!"
```

**Moderator Actions:**
- Start recording
- Share screen with title slide
- Launch first poll: "What's your primary role?" (watershed manager, consultant, regulator, researcher, other)

---

#### **PMI Science Synthesis Overview (30 minutes)** | 0:05-0:35
**Speaker:** CBT Staff or Lead Synthesis Author (Seth Theuerkauf or designee)
**Slides:** 15-20 slides (see detailed outline below)

**Content Blocks:**
1. **Context Setting (5 min)**
   - What is PMI-RRP?
   - Why stream restoration science matters
   - Scope of this synthesis

2. **Key Finding #1: Effectiveness is Context-Dependent (5 min)**
   - Headwater vs. lowland performance
   - Role of impervious cover
   - Modeling insights on scale

3. **Key Finding #2: Monitoring Design Matters (5 min)**
   - Statistical power requirements
   - Storm event sampling needs
   - Why "null results" are often monitoring artifacts

4. **Key Finding #3: Managing Trade-offs (10 min)**
   - Tree removal impacts and recovery timeline
   - Iron mobilization (aesthetic vs. ecological)
   - Wet vs. dry construction
   - Ecological expectations

5. **Practical Takeaways (5 min)**
   - Site selection guidance
   - Monitoring recommendations
   - Design considerations
   - Where to learn more

**Speaker Notes:**
"Keep the tone practical, not academic. Use specific numbers and examples. Pause for questions via the Q&A at minute 20 if time allows."

---

#### **Interactive Poll #1 (2 minutes)** | 0:35-0:37
**Moderator leads quick pulse check**

**Poll Question:**
"Based on what you just heard, which finding is most relevant to your current projects?"
- [ ] Monitoring duration requirements
- [ ] Site selection criteria
- [ ] Tree removal trade-offs
- [ ] Ecological expectations
- [ ] Other

**Moderator Action:** Briefly share poll results: "Great! Looks like monitoring duration is top of mind for many of you. Let's hear from [PI] about how they addressed this in their research..."

---

#### **Practitioner Spotlight: Deep Dive with PMI PI (20 minutes)** | 0:37-0:57
**Speaker:** Recommended PMI Principal Investigator (see PI selection guidance below)
**Slides:** 10-12 slides

**Presentation Structure:**
1. **The Research Question (3 min)**
   - What prompted this study?
   - What gap were we trying to fill?

2. **Study Design & Methods (4 min)**
   - Site selection and characteristics
   - Monitoring approach
   - Statistical methods

3. **Key Findings (8 min)**
   - Primary results with visuals (charts, photos)
   - Unexpected discoveries
   - How findings compare to prior assumptions

4. **Management Implications (3 min)**
   - What should practitioners do differently?
   - What questions remain?

5. **Resources (2 min)**
   - Where to find the full paper
   - Related PMI studies
   - Contact info for follow-up

**Recommended Speakers (in order of priority):**
1. **Solange Filoso (UMCES)** - Stream restoration effectiveness in Coastal Plain
   - Topic: Why context matters in restoration performance
   - Appeal: Directly addresses site selection decisions

2. **Victoria Beauchamp (Towson University)** - Legacy sediment removal & floodplain reconnection
   - Topic: Tree trade-offs and vegetation recovery
   - Appeal: Practical guidance on balancing competing goals

3. **Robert Hilderbrand (UMCES)** - Ecological expectations in urban streams
   - Topic: Setting realistic biological recovery goals
   - Appeal: Helps manage stakeholder expectations

4. **Dianna Liang & Sujay Kaushal (UMD/UMBC)** - Monitoring design & statistical power
   - Topic: How to design monitoring that actually detects change
   - Appeal: Solves a universal practitioner pain point

**Speaker Coordination:**
- Send slide template 2 weeks in advance
- Request draft slides 1 week in advance
- Schedule 30-min prep call 3 days before event
- Emphasize: "Make it practical, not academic—practitioners want to know WHAT TO DO"

---

#### **Q&A and Discussion (28 minutes)** | 0:57-1:25
**Moderator:** CBT Staff
**Panelists:** Synthesis presenter + PI + CBT program staff (optional: additional PI)

**Q&A Format:**
1. **Pre-submitted questions** (first 10 min)
   - Address questions submitted during registration
   - Prioritize themes that emerged from polls

2. **Live Q&A** (15 min)
   - Questions submitted via Q&A function
   - Moderator curates and reads aloud
   - Panelists respond (keep answers to 2 min max)

3. **Rapid Fire Round** (3 min)
   - Quick clarifying questions
   - Yes/no or very brief answers

**Moderator Tips:**
- Group similar questions together
- If chat is very active, assign a co-moderator to monitor
- Have 3-4 backup questions ready in case submissions are slow
- Keep panelists on time—politely interrupt if needed

**Sample Backup Questions:**
- "What's the #1 thing practitioners get wrong about restoration monitoring?"
- "If you had to pick ONE metric to monitor post-restoration, what would it be?"
- "What's a restoration 'myth' this research debunks?"
- "Where do you see restoration science heading in the next 5 years?"

---

#### **Wrap-Up & Next Steps (5 minutes)** | 1:25-1:30
**Speaker:** CBT Staff/Moderator

**Script:**
```
"Thank you all for such great questions and engagement today. Before we close, a few action items:

RESOURCES:
• Recording will be emailed within 48 hours
• Interactive resource: [URL]
• Full PMI study library: [URL]
• Today's slide deck: [URL]

NEXT STEPS FOR YOU:
• Review the interactive guidance and identify 1-2 takeaways to apply to your current projects
• Share this resource with colleagues who would benefit
• If you have follow-up questions, email [contact]

UPCOMING LEARNING SESSIONS:
• [Month]: Topic TBD (survey to follow)
• We're considering: BMP performance, climate adaptation, monitoring innovations

FEEDBACK:
• Brief survey will arrive via email tomorrow—please take 2 minutes to complete it
• Your input shapes future sessions

Thank you to our presenters, [names], and thank you all for joining. Stay tuned for the recording and have a great rest of your day!"
```

**Moderator Actions:**
- Stop recording
- Display thank you slide with resources
- Stay on for 5 min to answer lingering questions in chat

---

### Post-Event (Within 48 hours)

**Tasks:**
- [ ] Edit and upload recording to YouTube or Vimeo
- [ ] Email recording link + slides to all registrants
- [ ] Email thank you to presenters with attendance metrics
- [ ] Distribute post-event survey (3-5 questions max)
- [ ] Log attendance for continuing education credits (if applicable)
- [ ] Add recording link to interactive resource page
- [ ] Post highlights on social media

**Post-Event Survey Questions:**
1. On a scale of 1-5, how valuable was this session?
2. What was the most useful takeaway for you?
3. What topics would you like covered in future sessions?
4. Would you recommend this series to a colleague? (Yes/No)
5. Optional: Any other feedback?

---

# Slide Deck Outline

## PMI Science Synthesis Presentation (30 minutes)

### Title Slide
- **Title:** Stream Restoration Science in Practice: A Decade of PMI Research
- **Subtitle:** Chesapeake Bay Trust Quarterly Learning Session
- **Date:** [Date]
- **Presenter:** [Name, Title]
- **Logos:** CBT, PMI-RRP badge

---

### Slide 2: Agenda
**Title:** Today's Learning Objectives

By the end of this session, you'll be able to:
- ✅ Explain why site selection matters for restoration effectiveness
- ✅ Design monitoring programs with sufficient statistical power
- ✅ Manage trade-offs between competing restoration goals
- ✅ Set realistic expectations for ecological recovery
- ✅ Access comprehensive guidance for your projects

---

### Slide 3: What is PMI-RRP?
**Title:** Pooled Monitoring Initiative - Restoration Research Program

**Content:**
- **Mission:** Address scientific uncertainties around restoration effectiveness through targeted, policy-relevant research
- **Approach:** Coordinate funding across multiple projects to answer big-picture questions
- **Timeline:** 2010-present (14 years)
- **Investment:** $X million in [X] studies
- **Output:** 18+ peer-reviewed publications + practitioner guidance

**Visual:** Timeline graphic or map showing study locations

**Talking Points:**
- "This isn't just academic research—every study was designed to answer questions practitioners and regulators actually have."
- "We're synthesizing findings across multiple independent studies to identify consistent patterns."

---

### Slide 4: Why Stream Restoration Science Matters
**Title:** The Challenge

**Content (3 columns):**

**Column 1: The Need**
- Core tool for watershed management
- Required for regulatory compliance (TMDL, MS4)
- Growing investment: $X million/year in Chesapeake region

**Column 2: The Uncertainty**
- Variable outcomes across projects
- Unclear monitoring requirements
- Competing design objectives
- Stakeholder expectations vs. reality

**Column 3: The Solution**
- Evidence-based site selection
- Appropriate monitoring design
- Managing trade-offs strategically
- Tiered success metrics

**Visual:** Photo of stream restoration project (before/after split or aerial)

---

### Slide 5: Synthesis Scope
**Title:** Six Critical Topics

**Content:**
1. **Effectiveness:** What works, where, and why
2. **Monitoring:** Designing studies that detect change
3. **Tree Trade-offs:** Balancing carbon inputs and floodplain function
4. **Iron Mobilization:** Aesthetic vs. ecological concerns
5. **Construction Methods:** Wet vs. dry approaches
6. **Ecological Uplift:** Setting realistic biological recovery goals

**Visual:** Icon for each topic

---

### Slide 6: Topic 1 - Effectiveness is Context-Dependent
**Title:** Not All Sites Perform Equally

**Key Findings:**
- ✅ **Headwater streams:** Consistent nitrogen reductions
- ⚠️ **Larger lowland systems:** Variable, often weak responses
- 📊 **Impervious cover:** Dominant control remains regardless of restoration

**Management Takeaway:**
"Prioritize headwater & small-watershed projects for nutrient reduction goals. Exercise caution crediting large, low-gradient systems."

**Visual:** Map or diagram showing headwater vs. lowland performance

**Talking Points:**
- "This isn't about restoration 'not working'—it's about matching expectations to context."
- "Modeling shows 4th-order streams CAN deliver benefits, but at much higher cost and with more constraints."

**Citations:** Filoso 2020, Hester & Scott 2024

---

### Slide 7: The Numbers - Nitrogen Reduction
**Title:** Where Do We See Consistent N Reductions?

**Visual:** Chart or infographic

**Data to Display:**
- **Headwater streams (<10 sq mi drainage, <10% impervious):**
  - ✅ Detectable reductions in 70%+ of studies
  - Average TN load reduction: 15-40% (site-specific)

- **Larger lowland streams (Coastal Plain, >20 sq mi):**
  - ⚠️ Detectable reductions in <40% of studies
  - High variability even with extensive monitoring

**Bottom Line:** "Site selection matters as much as project design."

---

### Slide 8: Topic 2 - Monitoring Design Matters
**Title:** Why "Null Results" Are Often Monitoring Artifacts

**The Problem:**
- Many restoration studies report "no detectable effect"
- BUT: Is that because restoration didn't work, or because monitoring wasn't sufficient?

**PMI Finding:**
Insufficient monitoring is the primary culprit.

**Visual:** Two side-by-side graphics
- ❌ **Insufficient:** <3 years, <10 storm events/year
- ✅ **Sufficient:** 3-5 years, 30-50 storm events total

**Talking Points:**
- "Bayesian power analyses show that typical monitoring programs lack the statistical power to detect real changes."
- "Hydrologic variability masks signals unless you sample strategically over multiple years."

**Citations:** Liang et al. 2019, Filoso 2020

---

### Slide 9: Statistical Power 101
**Title:** What Does "Sufficient" Monitoring Look Like?

**Visual:** Decision tree or flowchart

**If your goal is...**

**Crediting nutrient load reductions:**
- ✅ 3-5 years post-restoration
- ✅ 30-50 storm events sampled
- ✅ Paired controls or robust BACI design
- ✅ Flow-weighted sampling

**Evaluating habitat improvements:**
- ✅ 2-3 years may suffice
- ✅ Compare to reference conditions
- ✅ Document geomorphic metrics

**Adaptive management decisions:**
- ✅ Shorter term acceptable
- ✅ Focus on hydrologic response
- ✅ Iterate based on early data

**Management Takeaway:**
"Align monitoring investment with decision needs. Don't underfund monitoring and then blame the restoration."

---

### Slide 10: Topic 3 - Tree Trade-offs
**Title:** Managing Vegetation Impacts

**The Dilemma:**
Tree removal for floodplain reconnection:
- ❌ Reduces carbon inputs for denitrification by up to 80%
- ❌ Increases non-native plant invasion risk (37% cover average, 8-29 years post-restoration)
- ✅ Enables hydrologic connectivity and long-term biogeochemical function
- ✅ Soil recovery occurs over 10-20 years with proper management

**Visual:** Timeline showing impact trajectory
- Year 0: Tree removal
- Years 1-3: Carbon deficit, invasives establish
- Years 5-10: Gradual soil recovery
- Years 10-20: Approach reference conditions (if managed)

**Management Strategies:**
1. Limit clearing extent where possible
2. Retain canopy refugia
3. Plan for post-construction revegetation
4. Budget for invasive species management
5. Use reference sites to guide planting design

**Citations:** Wood et al. 2022, Barney et al. 2025, Galella et al. 2025

---

### Slide 11: Topic 4 - Iron Mobilization
**Title:** Aesthetic Issue, Not Ecological Failure

**Common Concern:**
"That restored stream has orange/rusty water—something went wrong!"

**PMI Finding:**
- 📊 Elevated iron concentrations (2-5 mg/L) are common in RSC and other restored systems
- 🔬 Driven by **groundwater geochemistry**, not construction failure
- 🐟 **No consistent biological impairment** attributable to iron alone (controlling for urban stressors)
- 👁️ It's a **perception/aesthetic issue**, not an ecological problem at observed concentrations

**Visual:** Photo of iron flocculation (orange water) + chart showing no correlation between iron levels and biological metrics

**Management Takeaway:**
"Treat iron mobilization as a communication and public perception issue. Maintain routine monitoring of iron speciation and dissolved oxygen, but don't panic."

**Citation:** EA Engineering 2021

---

### Slide 12: Topic 5 - Wet vs. Dry Construction
**Title:** Challenging the "Work in the Dry" Requirement

**Standard Practice:**
Stream restoration projects typically required to be constructed "in the dry" (divert flow during construction).

**PMI Findings:**
- ✅ **Dry construction** reduces sediment loads vs. wet construction
- ⚠️ BUT: Sediment loads from **wet construction** are typically <1% of annual pre-restoration export
- ⚠️ Comparable to loads from a small storm
- ✅ **No consistent difference** in biological impacts when BMPs are applied
- 💰 Dry construction adds ~5-10% to project costs; efficiency gains are modest (~9-15%)

**Management Takeaway:**
"Consider conditional use of wet construction under site-specific performance standards where diversion is logistically difficult. But efficiency advantages are smaller than assumed."

**Citations:** Straughan Environmental 2019, EA Engineering 2025

---

### Slide 13: Topic 6 - Ecological Uplift
**Title:** Set Tiered Expectations

**The Challenge:**
Habitat improvements ≠ guaranteed biological recovery

**PMI Findings:**
- 🏘️ **Ecological uplift** is constrained by watershed condition (impervious cover) and dispersal limitations
- 📉 Benthic index improvements are small and site-specific
- 🚧 Physical habitat gains don't reliably translate to biological recovery when watershed stressors persist
- 🔬 **eDNA** can detect more taxa (including sensitive species) than traditional sampling

**Framework: Tiered Expectations**

**Tier 1 (High-quality watershed context):**
- <10% impervious, intact source populations nearby
- **Goal:** Biological recovery toward reference conditions

**Tier 2 (Moderate degradation):**
- 10-25% impervious, some source populations
- **Goal:** Incremental improvements in sensitive taxa

**Tier 3 (Heavily urbanized):**
- >25% impervious, isolated from sources
- **Goal:** Stable habitat, prevent further degradation

**Visual:** Matrix showing impervious cover vs. recovery potential

**Management Takeaway:**
"Different streams have different recovery potential. Use restoration to create CONDITIONS that support biological recovery, not to guarantee uniform outcomes."

**Citations:** Hilderbrand 2020, Southerland et al. 2017

---

### Slide 14: Practical Takeaway #1 - Site Selection
**Title:** Prioritization Checklist

**For Nutrient Reduction Goals:**
- ✅ Headwater streams (drainage area <10 sq mi)
- ✅ Low impervious cover (<10-15%)
- ✅ Evidence of floodplain disconnection or legacy sediment
- ✅ Sufficient baseflow contribution
- ⚠️ Be cautious: Large, low-gradient Coastal Plain systems

**For Sediment Reduction Goals:**
- ✅ Floodplain reconnection opportunities
- ✅ Storm event-dominated sediment export
- ✅ Document pre-restoration TSS loads

**For Ecological Goals:**
- ✅ Assess impervious cover threshold
- ✅ Proximity to intact source populations
- ✅ Set tiered expectations based on context

---

### Slide 15: Practical Takeaway #2 - Monitoring Design
**Title:** Recommendations by Objective

**Visual:** Table format

| **Objective** | **Duration** | **Frequency** | **Metrics** | **Design** |
|---------------|--------------|---------------|-------------|------------|
| **Nutrient load reduction** | 3-5 years | 30-50 storm events | Flow-weighted TN, TP | Paired watershed or BACI |
| **Sediment load reduction** | 3-5 years | Storm event focus | TSS during events | Upstream/downstream comparison |
| **Habitat improvement** | 2-3 years | Annual surveys | Geomorphic metrics, canopy cover | Before-after with reference |
| **Hydrologic response** | 1-2 years | Continuous monitoring | Runoff ratio, peak flow | Event-based analysis |

**Bottom Line:**
"Invest in monitoring that matches your decision needs. Short-term monitoring = hydrologic metrics. Long-term monitoring = water quality and biological metrics."

---

### Slide 16: Practical Takeaway #3 - Managing Trade-offs
**Title:** Design & Permitting Considerations

**Tree Removal:**
- Budget for 10-20 year vegetation management
- Retain canopy refugia where feasible
- Use reference sites to guide revegetation
- Plan for invasive species control

**Iron Concerns:**
- Educate stakeholders upfront: "This is normal"
- Monitor iron speciation and dissolved oxygen
- Treat as communication issue, not ecological failure

**Construction Methods:**
- Default to dry construction where feasible
- Consider wet construction with performance standards if diversion is difficult
- Apply BMPs regardless of method

---

### Slide 17: Where to Learn More
**Title:** Access the Full Guidance

**Interactive Resource:**
- 🔗 URL: https://cbt-pmi-research-hub.onrender.com/interactives/stream-restoration
- Features: Copy-able citations, shareable content, mobile-friendly
- Content: 6 key takeaways, 6 implementation guidance sections, 14 references

**PMI Study Library:**
- 🔗 URL: cbtrust.org/grants/pooled-monitoring-initiative
- Full text of peer-reviewed publications
- Study summaries and data

**Contact:**
- Questions? Email: [contact email]
- Newsletter: Sign up for PMI updates

---

### Slide 18: Discussion Prompt
**Title:** Questions to Consider

**Before we move to Q&A, think about:**
1. What's ONE change you'll make to your next restoration project based on today's findings?
2. What monitoring challenge do you face that we haven't addressed?
3. What restoration "myth" or assumption does your team need to reconsider?

**We'll hear from [PI] next, then open up for your questions!**

---

### Slide 19: Transition to PI Presentation
**Title:** Practitioner Spotlight

**Introducing [PI Name]**
- [Title], [Institution]
- PMI-RRP Study: [Study title]
- Research focus: [1-2 sentences]

**Today's deep dive:**
[Topic] - What we learned and what it means for practice

---

### Slide 20: Thank You / Resources Slide
**Title:** Thank You!

**Presenter Contact:**
- [Name], [Email]

**Resources:**
- Interactive guidance: [URL]
- PMI library: [URL]
- Recording: [Will be emailed within 48 hours]

**Connect with us:**
- Twitter: @cbtrust
- LinkedIn: Chesapeake Bay Trust
- Newsletter: [Sign-up link]

---

# PI Presentation

## Recommended Presentation: Dr. Solange Filoso
**Topic:** Why Context Matters - Stream Restoration Effectiveness in Different Watershed Settings

### Slide Outline (10-12 slides, 20 minutes)

#### Slide 1: Title
- **Study:** Evaluating the Effectiveness and Sustainability of Novel Stream Restoration Designs for Coastal Plain Streams in Maryland
- **PI:** Solange Filoso, UMCES Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
- **Funding:** CBT Pooled Monitoring Initiative

---

#### Slide 2: The Question
**Why do some stream restoration projects show strong nutrient reductions while others don't?**

**What we knew:**
- Restoration designs vary widely
- Outcomes are inconsistent
- Hard to predict success

**What we needed to know:**
- What watershed characteristics predict success?
- Can we identify site selection criteria?

---

#### Slide 3: Study Design
**Approach:**
- **Sites:** [X] stream restoration projects across Maryland
- **Watershed contexts:** Headwater vs. lowland; varying impervious cover
- **Monitoring:** [duration], [frequency]
- **Metrics:** Nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment loads

**Visual:** Map of study sites

---

#### Slide 4: Key Finding #1
**Context Determines Performance**

**Visual:** Chart showing nitrogen reduction by site type

**Headwater streams (<10 sq mi, <10% impervious):**
- ✅ Consistent load reductions
- ✅ Detectable within 2-3 years

**Coastal Plain lowland streams (>20 sq mi):**
- ⚠️ Variable responses
- ⚠️ Often undetectable despite extensive monitoring

---

#### Slide 5: Why Does This Happen?
**Mechanisms:**

**Headwater advantages:**
- Longer water residence time in floodplain
- Greater relative influence of restored reach
- Less dilution from upstream sources

**Lowland challenges:**
- Shorter contact time
- Larger watershed area overwhelms restoration signal
- Tidal influence complicates hydrology

---

#### Slide 6: Case Study - Success
**[Site Name]**
- Drainage area: [X] sq mi
- Impervious cover: [X]%
- Restoration type: [Legacy sediment removal, floodplain reconnection]

**Outcomes:**
- TN load reduction: [X]%
- TP load reduction: [X]%
- Improved hydrologic connectivity

**Photos:** Before/after

---

#### Slide 7: Case Study - Limited Response
**[Site Name]**
- Drainage area: [X] sq mi
- Impervious cover: [X]%
- Restoration type: [Same as success case]

**Outcomes:**
- No detectable TN load change
- Modest improvements in peak flow attenuation
- Habitat improvements documented

**Why the difference?** Watershed context

---

#### Slide 8: The Monitoring Challenge
**Even "null results" had short monitoring periods:**
- Typical: 1-2 years, <10 storm events
- Insufficient statistical power given hydrologic variability

**Visual:** Graph showing monitoring duration vs. statistical power

**Lesson:** Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence

---

#### Slide 9: Management Implications
**FOR PRACTITIONERS:**

**1. Site Selection**
- Prioritize headwater streams for N reduction goals
- Consider watershed-to-project-area ratio
- Assess impervious cover upfront

**2. Crediting**
- Don't over-credit large, low-gradient systems
- Require strong controls for Coastal Plain projects
- Consider alternative crediting for habitat vs. water quality

**3. Monitoring**
- Plan for 3-5 years minimum
- Budget for storm event sampling
- Use paired watershed or BACI designs

---

#### Slide 10: Unanswered Questions
**What we still don't know:**
- Optimal restoration extent relative to watershed area
- Long-term sustainability (10+ years post-restoration)
- Cumulative effects of multiple projects in a watershed

**Ongoing research:**
- [Related studies]
- Opportunities for collaboration

---

#### Slide 11: Resources
**Read the full study:**
- Citation: Filoso, S. (2020). [Full citation]
- Available at: [URL]

**Related PMI studies:**
- Hester & Scott 2024 (modeling restoration at scale)
- Thompson et al. 2018 (multiscale effects)

**Contact:**
- Email: [email]

---

#### Slide 12: Key Takeaway
**Quote:**
> "Stream restoration works, but WHERE you restore matters as much as WHAT you restore. Match your expectations to your watershed context."

**Call to Action:**
Review your current project pipeline—are you prioritizing sites with the best chance of success?

---

# Facilitation Guide

## Tips for Moderators

### Before the Event
1. **Review all content thoroughly**
   - Know the key findings cold
   - Anticipate likely questions
   - Prepare transition language between speakers

2. **Tech check 30 minutes before**
   - Test screen sharing
   - Verify recording settings
   - Confirm panelists can access presentations

3. **Set expectations with presenters**
   - Remind them of time limits
   - Clarify how you'll signal time (chat message, hand signal)
   - Confirm they'll watch Q&A and unmute when called on

### During the Event
1. **Energy & pacing**
   - Start strong with enthusiasm
   - Transition smoothly between segments
   - Keep energy up during Q&A

2. **Managing Q&A**
   - Group similar questions: "We have several questions about monitoring duration..."
   - Redirect off-topic questions: "Great question, but that's outside our scope today. Let's connect offline."
   - If a question is unclear, rephrase: "So you're asking about [clarification], is that right?"

3. **Time management**
   - Give 5-minute warning to presenters (via chat)
   - If running over, politely interject: "This is great, but we need to move on for time. Let's take this offline."
   - Prioritize pre-submitted questions if time is short

4. **Handling technical issues**
   - Have co-host ready to troubleshoot
   - If presenter's audio fails, read their slides while they reconnect
   - Use chat for backup communication

### After the Event
1. **Debrief with team**
   - What worked well?
   - What would you change?
   - Any follow-up needed with participants or presenters?

2. **Process feedback quickly**
   - Review survey responses within a week
   - Identify themes for future sessions
   - Thank presenters with specific positive feedback

---

# Marketing & Registration Materials

## Email Invitation (to send 3 weeks before)

**Subject:** You're Invited: Stream Restoration Science in Practice (Quarterly Learning Session)

**Body:**
```
Dear [Name],

You're invited to the Chesapeake Bay Trust's Quarterly Learning Session:

🌊 STREAM RESTORATION SCIENCE IN PRACTICE
A Decade of PMI Research Findings

📅 DATE: [Day, Date]
🕐 TIME: [Time] EST
📍 LOCATION: Virtual (Zoom link provided upon registration)

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN:
✅ Why site selection matters for restoration effectiveness
✅ How to design monitoring programs that actually detect change
✅ Strategies for managing tree removal trade-offs
✅ Setting realistic expectations for ecological recovery

WHO SHOULD ATTEND:
• Watershed managers
• Restoration practitioners
• Environmental consultants
• Regulatory staff
• Researchers
• Anyone involved in stream restoration planning or implementation

AGENDA:
• Science synthesis overview (30 min)
• Practitioner deep-dive with PMI researcher (20 min)
• Q&A and discussion (30 min)

FEATURED PRESENTER:
Dr. [PI Name], [Institution]
[1-2 sentence bio]

This session synthesizes findings from 18+ peer-reviewed studies funded through the Pooled Monitoring Initiative's Restoration Research Program. You'll leave with actionable guidance you can apply to your projects immediately.

REGISTER NOW: [Registration Link]

Space is limited to ensure interactive discussion. Register by [Date].

Questions? Contact [Name] at [Email].

We look forward to seeing you there!

Sincerely,
[Name]
Chesapeake Bay Trust

---

P.S. Can't make it? Register anyway to receive the recording and slides!
```

---

## Social Media Promo Post

**LinkedIn:**
```
📢 REGISTRATION OPEN: Stream Restoration Science in Practice

Join us for a deep-dive into a decade of research on what works, where, and why in stream restoration.

📅 [Date] | [Time] EST | Virtual

In this 90-minute session, you'll learn:
• Site selection criteria that predict success
• Monitoring design requirements for detecting change
• Managing trade-offs (tree removal, iron mobilization, etc.)
• Setting realistic ecological expectations

Plus: Live Q&A with researchers from the Pooled Monitoring Initiative.

This is for watershed managers, restoration practitioners, consultants, and regulators who want to maximize project effectiveness.

Register: [Link]

#StreamRestoration #WatershedManagement #ChesapeakeBay #QuarterlyLearning
```

---

## Registration Page Copy

**Page Title:** Quarterly Learning Session: Stream Restoration Science in Practice

**Hero Text:**
A decade of research. Six critical topics. 90 minutes that will change how you approach stream restoration.

**What You'll Learn:**
This session translates complex research from the Chesapeake Bay Trust's Pooled Monitoring Initiative into actionable guidance for practitioners. You'll gain science-backed strategies for:

✅ Selecting sites with the best chance of success
✅ Designing monitoring programs that detect real change
✅ Balancing competing restoration objectives
✅ Setting expectations that match watershed context
✅ Accessing comprehensive resources for your projects

**Who Should Attend:**
- Watershed managers making funding decisions
- Restoration practitioners designing projects
- Environmental consultants advising clients
- Regulatory staff reviewing permit applications
- Researchers seeking applied insights
- Anyone involved in stream restoration

**Session Details:**
📅 **Date:** [Day, Date, Year]
🕐 **Time:** [Time] EST (90 minutes)
📍 **Location:** Virtual (Zoom)
💰 **Cost:** FREE

**Agenda:**
- Welcome & Overview (5 min)
- PMI Science Synthesis Presentation (30 min)
- Practitioner Spotlight: Deep-dive with PMI Researcher (20 min)
- Q&A and Discussion (30 min)
- Wrap-up & Resources (5 min)

**Featured Speakers:**
[Headshots and bios of presenters]

**What Past Participants Say:**
[If available, include 2-3 testimonials from previous sessions]

**Can't Attend Live?**
Register anyway! All registrants will receive the recording and slide deck within 48 hours.

**Register Now**
[Registration form fields: Name, Email, Organization, Role, Optional: What questions do you hope we'll answer?]

---

## Post-Event Thank You Email

**Subject:** Thank you for joining us + Resources inside

**Body:**
```
Dear [Name],

Thank you for joining yesterday's Quarterly Learning Session on Stream Restoration Science in Practice! We hope you found it valuable.

📹 SESSION RECORDING: [Link]
📊 SLIDE DECK: [Link]
🔗 INTERACTIVE RESOURCE: [Link to main resource]

KEY RESOURCES MENTIONED:
• PMI Study Library: [Link]
• Monitoring Design Guidance: [Link to specific resource]
• Site Selection Checklist: [Link]

TAKE OUR 2-MINUTE SURVEY:
Your feedback shapes future sessions. Please share your thoughts: [Survey Link]

UPCOMING SESSIONS:
Stay tuned for our next Quarterly Learning Session on [tentative topic]. We'll announce details in [month].

QUESTIONS OR FOLLOW-UP:
If you have questions that didn't get answered during the session, email us at [Email]. We're here to help!

Thank you again for your participation and engagement.

Best regards,
[Name]
Chesapeake Bay Trust

P.S. Please share these resources with colleagues who would benefit!
```

---

## Continuing Education Credits (Optional)

If offering CEUs/PDHs:

**Accreditation Statement:**
This Quarterly Learning Session has been approved for [X] continuing education credits by [Accrediting Body].

**To receive credit:**
1. Attend the full 90-minute session
2. Complete the post-event survey
3. Email [contact] within 30 days with:
   - Your name and certification number
   - The session title and date
   - Confirmation of full attendance

Certificates will be issued within 2 weeks of request.

---

**Package Prepared By:**
akorn environmental consulting
aaron.kornbluth@gmail.com

**Last Updated:** January 29, 2026
**Version:** 1.0