CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/02/07 Through 3/01/08

Project Title: The Coastal Plain Watershed Network: Adapting, Testing and Transferring Effective Tools to Protect Coastal Plain Watersheds
Principal Investigator(s): Karen Cappiella, Anne Kitchell, Chet Arnold
Project Start Date: October 5, 2007

Project Objectives for This Reporting Period
Objectives
Objective 1
Conduct a critical evaluation of existing watershed protection tools to produce revised, effective and simplified tools that are appropriate for coastal plain watershed and the smaller units of government contained within them over an 18 month period.

Objective 5
Survey 100 progressive and unprepared communities to characterize the social, economic and technical factors that promote/impede the adoption of local watershed protection tools, and define their preferences and formats for future support.

Tasks to meet objectives
Objective 1
Task 2. Refine Coastal Land Cover Model
Task 4. Revise 8 Tool Framework for Coastal Plain Watersheds

Objective 5
Task 1.Needs Survey of Coastal Plain Planners and Coastal Communities

Progress on Tasks
Objective 1
The project team began research to support the refined coastal land cover model. Specific steps to develop this model include: 1) compile and review literature on the impacts of impervious cover on coastal plain water quality and aquatic resources, 2) compile and review literature on the influence of other watershed metrics (e.g., forest, cropland) on coastal resources, 3) modify the existing Impervious Cover Model (ICM) to reflect coastal response to urbanization, 4) prepare a technical report summarizing the above research and revised ICM, and 5) prepare a short summary for local planners and officials.

The project team compiled and reviewed 15 research papers on the impacts of urbanization on coastal waters and created a summary database. A list of criteria for selecting studies to review and include in the database was developed. Ten of the 15 studies reviewed were ultimately included in the database, which summarizes factors such as: the number and size of subwatersheds studied, location of study, water resource type studied, key findings, impervious cover response threshold identified, indicators studied, and more. Initial results show that impervious cover thresholds may be somewhat higher for tidal waters than in the original ICM.

Objective 5
The project team held a meeting to discuss development of the survey and brainstorm ideas for survey recipients and content. The team made decisions on several items:

• Format of the survey (web-based)
• Reviewers of the survey (state Coastal Community Specialists and/or NERRS Coastal Training Program staff)
• Audience (municipal planners and engineers in coastal plain communities)
• How to identify progressive versus unprepared communities (include specific questions to make this determination later on)
• Specific tasks, deadlines and team roles for completing the survey

The project team developed the overall survey architecture and a preliminary list of 63 questions. The bulk of the survey questions are organized around the Center’s 8 Tools of Watershed Protection. The project team also compiled a list of survey contacts. Resources for developing the survey questions included the Coastal States Organizations national survey, Ecosystem-based Management Tools needs assessment, Sea Grant Coastal Community Development survey, needs assessment for NOAA Gulf Coast Services Center and the Center’s 8 Tools Audit and Needs and Capabilities Assessment. Resources for building a contact database for the survey included the Coastal Zone Management Program NPS coordinators, NERRS Coastal Training Program, Sea Grant Coastal Community Development Specialists, Coastal States Organization, state NEMO chapters, EPA and NOAA Coastal Services Center. A second team meeting was held to further refine the survey questions and development process and to discuss survey details such as doing a pilot test of the survey, target number of recipients, distribution methods, data analysis, and the summary technical memo. Additional contacts were solicited through an email announcement to the Center’s contact database of more than 11,000 members.

Difficulties
None. None.

Data Generated to date
None.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Objectives
Objective 1: Conduct a critical evaluation of existing watershed protection tools to produce revised, effective and simplified tools that are appropriate for coastal plain watershed and the smaller units of government contained within them over an 18 month period.

Objective 4: Create a collaborative network of at least 30 coastal plain watershed/land use planning experts to develop, review and endorse and disseminate the improved watershed tools. Partner with NEMO and other national organizations that represent coastal interests to amplify dissemination efforts.

Objective 5: Survey 100 progressive and unprepared communities to characterize the social, economic and technical factors that promote/impede the adoption of local watershed protection tools, and define their preferences and formats for future support.

Work Plan to Meet Objectives
Work will begin or continue on the following tasks in support of the above objectives:
Task 1. Needs Survey of Coastal Plain Planners and Communities
Task 2. Refine Coastal Land Cover Model
Task 3. Create Coastal Plain Watershed Network
Task 4. Revise 8 Tool Framework for Coastal Plain Watersheds

In support of Task 1, the project team will solicit additional survey contacts through the EPA NPS listserv, NOAA coastal NPS listserv and NACo newsletter and will finalize the survey contact list. The team will develop the draft survey. The survey will then be peer-reviewed and a pilot or pre-test survey will be conducted with a handful of communities as a test run. Revisions will be made as needed. The survey will be distributed to the contact list, and responses will be compiled and analyzed. Results will be summarized in a technical memo. Task 1 will be completed during this reporting period.

In support of Task 2, the project team will continue to add coastal impacts studies to the database and compile additional studies that look at factors other than impervious cover. The team will refine the ICM for coastal areas and develop a report that summarizes the overall findings and the revised ICM and includes an annotated bibliography of the studies. The team will also create a short summary brochure for local officials. Task 2 will be completed during this reporting period.

In support of Task 3, the project team will compile an initial list of potential network members. The team will meet to further define the coastal plain watershed network, including the specific objectives, format of communications, benefits to members, and process for developing the network. Potential network members will be contacted with the end goal of 30 network members. Project staff will schedule meetings with each network member to a) discuss the needs of coastal managers as determined by the needs survey, and b) compile research to support the coastal land cover model or 8 coastal tools and get input on these deliverables.

In support of Task 4, the project team will conduct preliminary research on the coastal 8 tools. The survey results and results of interviews with network members will be the starting point for the 8 tools framework. A literature review will be conducted in support of the 8 coastal tools and additional information will be obtained from practitioners, as recommended by survey respondents and network members.

Expenditures
As of January 31, 2008, $11,419.60 of the project budget had been expended. This is within the range anticipated for the work accomplished to date.

What Else?
The project team also spent some time setting up the administrative infrastructure for this project, including budget and invoicing procedures, and subcontractual agreements with subcontractors. The PI’s attended CICEET’s half-day conference call for grant recipients and discussed the project with CICEET’s public relations staff for a press release. The team has also sought out conferences and resources related to coastal management to increase team knowledge of coastal issues and solutions (e.g., the Center became a member of the EBM Tools network and attended the Coastal States Organizations’ conference Envisioning the Future of Coastal Management).