Catherine Macdonald to Everyone	01:17 PM	Agree that saying "progressive" sets up a negative alternative that isnt fair or helpful.  Agree with Mike B re a more targeted definition. 
Mike Badzmierowski, ODA (he/him) to Everyone	01:18 PM	The goal is for the practices to reduce GHGs correct? Resilience is not the goal of the practices?
M Corvi (she/her) to Me	01:20 PM	Climate Smart is used in the NWL Proposal created by the OGWC
Catherine Macdonald to Everyone	01:21 PM	Perhaps have a more targeted outcome based statement with language to say sometimes referred to as Climate Smart or Regenerative practices. 
Catherine Macdonald to Everyone	01:25 PM	should be "Reduce emissions and increase sequestration and storage"
Mike Badzmierowski, ODA (he/him) to Everyone	01:25 PM	Agreed
Amanda Sullivan-Astor to Everyone	01:26 PM	Agree Cathy, or something around net carbon sequestration or fostering carbon neutrality
Ben Hayes to Everyone	01:28 PM	Is this supposed to include adaptation to any degree? 
Jocelyn Bridson to Everyone	01:29 PM	or simply - meet the goals of the Proposal?
Amanda Sullivan-Astor to Everyone	01:58 PM	Sorry Cathy!  I appreciate your comments and agree that some additional thought should be given to that specific topic and how to more clearly have the contractor address it.
Catherine Macdonald to Everyone	02:01 PM	No I am glad you raised it and look forward to talking through that. 
Rose Graves to Everyone	02:14 PM	For clarification, it is our understanding that those other emissions (fertilizers, irrigation, enteric, and tractor emissions) are already included and addressed by other sectors (currently addressed in DEQ's GHG inventory).
Lauren Anderson (she/hers) Oregon Wild to Everyone	02:16 PM	Would afforestation result in loss of other natural habitats (wetlands, native grasslands)?
Catherine Macdonald to Everyone	02:17 PM	The emissions are addressed in the Sector based inventory but there may be rationale for including activity based metrics for addressing emissions in that part of the sector based inventory
Jocelyn Bridson to Everyone	02:18 PM	Will there be time after our meeting today to provide feedback? 
Catherine Macdonald to Everyone	02:19 PM	Afforestation has two definitions -- one being reforesting areas that  were deforested many many years ago. The second is foresting places that were originally forests to your concerns. We need to define this term or just use reforestation rather than afforestation. 
Lauren Anderson (she/hers) Oregon Wild to Everyone	02:20 PM	Thank you - I'd prefer reforestation if possible! 
Catherine Macdonald to Everyone	02:20 PM	I meant -- that weren't forests originally -- and I agree with you with the preference to use reforestation.
Jan Lee/OACD to Everyone	02:26 PM	What was on my mind is that the OGWC proposal also speaks to co-benefits and there are so many co-benefits related to ag, such as water quality, reduction in use of pesticides  and fertilizers, and many more.  But if co-benefits are not part of this work, then that can be ignored. 
Jocelyn Bridson to Everyone	02:29 PM	 I know some soil practices are in question and it is good to keep up to date with changing science, but I also don't think Oregon should lead the charge at dropping practices before NRCS or other leaders do. In the same vein - I saw that biochar listed on the urban activities and science behind that is also mixed.