CICEET Progress Report for the period 3/01/09 Through 8/31/09

Project Title: The Coastal Plain Watershed Network: Adapting, Testing and Transferring Effective Tools to Protect Coastal Plain Watersheds
Principal Investigator(s): Karen Cappiella, Deborah Caraco, Chet Arnold
Project Start Date: October 5, 2007
Report Compiled By:Karen Cappiella
Contributing team members and their role in the project:
Deb Caraco (co-PI), and Sadie Drescher (lead on the network task)

A. Project Objectives for This Reporting Period
The Center’s process for project management includes designating a project manager (P) and quality control person (Q) for management of the overall grant as well as for each major task.  The P and Q hold frequent (i.e., usually monthly) meetings with either the entire team or smaller subset teams to report on progress and brainstorm ideas.  Meetings are organized around a set agenda with meeting minutes that clearly note all action items.  Project deliverables are reviewed by the project Q as well as any identified external reviewers (i.e., experts or intended users), and regular budget updates are provided with monthly invoices to ensure the project budget is on track.   No full team meetings were held during this reporting period; however, several meetings were convened to discuss specific tasks (the network and the coastal land cover model) or articles.

Objective 1

Objective Description
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.

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

Progress on Tasks
The team continued work on a second draft of the feature article for the coastal Watershed Protection Techniques.  Several key changes were made, including splitting the article into two pieces: one that describes the coastal plain and results and implications of the Task 2 results, and one describing the survey results (Task 1, completed during the last reporting period).  Another key change involved identifying four major zones in the coastal plain in which different tools may be applied differently.  
The team completed a first draft of the articles for Tools 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, and second draft of the article for Tool 6.  The team also developed a detailed outline for the Tool 3 article.  Experts to provide input/review for each article have been identified and contacted. 
A key finding of the survey task is that the coastal plain has many of the same problems/needs as other regions.  While there are some real physical constraints that affect the application of certain watershed tools (e.g., stormwater treatment practices), many of the other barriers to watershed planning identified in the survey are not unique (for example, lack of funding and staff).   The survey results highlighted that many watershed tools are limited in their level of implementation throughout the coastal plain; therefore, this project’s efforts to disseminate watershed tools and provide training on them is vitally important.
Key findings of Task 2 also show that the impacts of development on water resources in the coastal plain are similar to those in other regions.  However, the impervious cover thresholds at which impacts are first seen appear to be somewhat higher for tidal waters, presumably due to dilution of pollutants from tidal flushing.  Both the intensity and location of development were found to be important in terms of their influence on indicators of water resource condition.  The best indicators of condition were % impervious cover, % urban land, % developed land, urban intensity index, % land cover within the riparian corridor, inverse distance weighted land cover, and % land cover within a specified distance from the monitoring site.  There were too many confounding variables within these studies (inherent in watershed research) to develop a predictive model for coastal watersheds given the low number of studies.  However, the findings have been useful to the development of the coastal watershed tools.

A summary of the literature reviewed for Task 2 is provided as an attachment to the email with this progress report (it is in spreadsheet format and can’t be PDF’d).

Objective 2

Objective Description
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.

Tasks to meet objectives
Task 3. Create Coastal Plain Watershed Network

Progress on Tasks
During this reporting period, the team had several meetings to discuss development of the network. A short survey of 285 coastal plain communities was conducted to better determine what they would like to see in a network.  37 people completed the survey, for a 13% response rate.  A summary of the survey is provided as an attachment.  Key findings from the short survey and the Task 1 survey that were relevant to the network included:

• Respondents were unsure about the usefulness of a listerv or blog
• Respondents were most interested in funding resources, training, and sharing information
• Websites and short workshops were the most commonly used ways of getting information
• There was a lot of interest in technical assistance, training support, and having an online searchable library of coastal resources
• There was concern about the network potentially duplicating efforts of other websites and suggestions that a central clearinghouse for coastal watershed resources is needed but because there is already so much information on the web, the Center would need to be designated as THE source of coastal information in order for people to really use it.

Based on the survey results and a handful of follow-up conversations with respondents, the team determined the best approach to meet the goals of the network was to:

• develop a website that provides free downloadable tools and resources for coastal communities on watershed management practices
• compile a database of coastal plain contacts (municipal staff, researchers, assistance providers) for use in sharing resources, soliciting input and facilitating discussion amongst these various groups
• solicit input on the Task 4 coastal watershed tools from the database of contacts and also get their input on other coastal tools/links/resources to include on the website
• Attend coastal conferences and visit coastal communities to talk with researchers and intended users to get their input on the Task 4 tools

Sadie Drescher met with a web designer to discuss options for the coastal plain network website.  A draft of the web architecture was developed and is provided as an attachment.  The website will contain features such as:  a link checker, ability to track views/downloads of resources, use of a dynamic search tool (Joomla), a calendar of coastal events, a function for users to rate/review resources, a monthly case study of a coastal community, and other resources to be developed under a related CICEET project (Coastal Plain Stormwater Solutions).  A future iteration of the website may be able to provide more of a clearinghouse role and include an online searchable library if we can convince an already-recognized coastal entity to take on long term management of the site.

Neely Law attended the Coastal Zone conference in Boston.  She talked with Sea Grant contacts and other attendees about the project to determine how to take best advantage of existing resources and networks.

B. Knowledge dissemination activities during this reporting period.
During this reporting period, the results of the survey of coastal plain communities was posted on the www.cwp.org website and was highlighted in the Center’s quarterly e-newsletter, Runoff Rundown. In addition, Karen Cappiella presented some of the initial findings from the project at a meeting with EPA to discuss potential partnering opportunities.

C. Have the esults/data gathered during this reporting period indicated that a change to your original approach is necessary? If so, who was involved in the decision-making process? Please explain.

Yes.  The results of the two surveys showed that our original idea about using a listserv or similar technology for the network was not deemed to be that useful by respondents.  The focus instead was shifted to a simple website and working to get coastal watershed tools out to the communities who need them most (see description above of the network task).

The results of the survey and the literature review also showed that coastal plain watersheds areas are not that different from other regions in some ways (e.g., barriers). Therefore, it may not be necessary to make specific adaptations for the coastal plain for all 8 tools, but rather we are developing an article on each tool that uses the survey and literature review findings to provide tailored guidance that is applicable to the coastal plain and may also be applicable to other regions with similar characteristics.

The decision making process involved the co-PIs and Sadie Drescher, who is leading up the network task.

D. Please describe collaboration activities with target stakeholders during this period. Has interaction with stakeholders during this period brought about any changes to the project? Have the stakeholders confirmed the relevance of the technology or approach you are working on?.

Specific feedback from target stakeholders through two surveys was used to develop a revised plan for the network (see Section A and Section C for more detail). The results of the survey showed that a majority of respondents thought the network was a good idea.

E. Please describe technical and non-technical objectives for the next reporting period and outline your work plan to meet identified objectives.

Work planned for the next reporting period will help to meet the following project objectives:

• 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.
• 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.
• Deliver a multi-pronged training program that actively engage 250 innovators, applied researchers, evaluators, producers and local adopters through the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain on how to locally adapt and adopt the improved watershed protection tools by the end of the project.

During the next reporting period, the Center will:

• Finalize the two feature articles for the coastal watershed journal
• Conduct an internal review of each of the 8 Tools article drafts and make revisions, then solicit input from external reviewers
• Develop a draft of the network website with the web designer
• Schedule trips and meetings with coastal experts and communities to get feedback on the articles and network and learn about new coastal tools to post on the website
• Sadie Drescher will attend the Coastal Estuarine and Research Federation conference in November in Portland, Oregon to present the network and get feedback.  She will participate as part of a panel on the CICEET land use projects.
• Meet with project partner NEMO to discuss dissemination of the coastal watershed tools
• Test out portions of the 8 tool framework in Delaware.  This includes consideration of coastal plain adaptations for stormwater management practices during a stormwater retrofit survey in the Anchorage Canal drainage area in Bethany Beach, DE, and testing of portions of a wetlands-at-risk protection tool for the Nanticoke River watershed in Delaware.

F. Please describe any activities, accomplishments, or obstacles not addressed in other sections of this report that you feel are important for CICEET to know about.

The Center has continued to search for additional funding to support the training and dissemination in this project.  We submitted a proposal to the Royal Bank of Canada’s BlueWater program but were not awarded any funds.  We are currently exploring funding options to incorporate a sea level rise component into the coastal watershed tools.

The Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) is distributing this survey to coastal managers and practitioners to guide the structure and content for the Coastal Plain Watershed Network (the Network) and will be used to identify coastal collaborators. Please take a few moments to complete the survey and give us your input! This survey will take about twenty minutes to complete and is an opportunity for you to get involved and help us shape the Network.

In a recent survey, Coastal Plain researchers, managers, and planners expressed a strong interest in participating in a network to collaboratively address their common needs and to implement practices that protect and effectively manage coastal watershed resources. Although each coastal community is unique in its character and local site constraints, there are common overarching themes in these areas, such as urbanization pressures, stormwater runoff, and natural resource protection. The survey also found that many local communities did not access existing coastal organizations for information and relied on local soil and water conservation districts and state and federal programs that were not coastal specific. The Survey of Coastal Plain Communities is available online at: http://www.cwp.org/#survey.

CWP will form the Network to address coastal specific issues and to integrate existing efforts in the Coastal Plain. These goals will be accomplished as part of a more comprehensive effort funded by the Cooperative Institute for Coastal & Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET). The Network will be a platform that connects existing coastal programs and networks to enhance coordination, provide coastal tools, and create an interactive format to share information. As a part of this effort, CWP will identify and include existing groups in the Network building process and avoid duplicating efforts (e.g., Sea Grant Consortiums, Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMOs), National Estuarine Research Reserve System Coastal Training Coordinators (NERRS CTPs), and state and federal coastal programs). This Network will resemble a “Coastal Watershed Connection” that strives to better integrate and coordinate existing resources and serves as a portal for new and innovative practices.

Also under a grant from CICEET, CWP is adapting tools of watershed protection, under its “Eight Tool Framework” for the Coastal Plain and will disseminate the tools through this Network. The Network will create a coastal forum to share research and experience on the land use policies and practices that work best in the Coastal Plain. This Network will allow users to provide feedback and hold discussions about the available resources and tools. The Network will include the Gulf and Atlantic coastal areas (NJ to TX).

CWP envisions the Coastal Plain Watershed Network as a website with the following components:

• Coastal programs and networks and their key information and links
• Coastal conference and meeting information and links
• CWP’s Eight Tool Framework adapted for the Coastal Plain
• Coastal tools and products
• Ability for users to rate tools and products
• Ability to track tool and product views and downloads
• Allow select administrators to upload resources
• Searchable library
• Blog forum
• Website search bar
• Monthly Case Study series

2. Coastal Plain Watershed Network Survey

Answer Yes, No, or Not Sure to the following:

1. Would a Coastal Plain Watershed Network website be a useful tool to you and your organization?
2. Would a Coastal Plain Watershed Network website be a useful tool to your stakeholders?
3. Would you be interested in posting information and resources (e.g., workshops, reports, or new technologies) to the Coastal Plain Watershed Network website?
4. Would you be interested in acting as a reviewer for technical materials developed as a part of the Coastal Plain Watershed Network project?

Provide answers in the space provided for the following:

5. CWP envisions the Coastal Plain Watershed Network as a website with the following components:

• Coastal programs and networks and their key information and links
• Coastal conference and meeting information and links
• CWP’s Eight Tool Framework adapted for the Coastal Plain
• Coastal tools and products
• Ability for users to rate tools and products
• Ability to track tool and product views and downloads
• Allow select administrators to upload resources
• Searchable library
• Blog forum
• Website search bar
• Monthly Case Study series

Please provide feedback for this proposed Coastal Plain Watershed Network website framework. For example, comments or ideas related to the format or components to the framework.

6.Please provide key coastal groups and networks to include in the Coastal Plain Watershed Network.
7. Please provide key resources and websites to include in the Coastal Plain Watershed Network.
8.Please provide key coastal contacts that might be interested in the Coastal Plain Watershed Network.
9. Please provide additional suggestions and comments.

3. Coastal Plain Watershed Network Survey Contact

Sadie Drescher
Center for Watershed Protection
8390 Main St., 2nd Floor
Ellicott City, MD 21043
Phone: 410-461-8323
Fax: 410-461-8324
Email: srd@cwp.org
www.cwp.org