Goals of CRAM program

1
Todays Agenda

• Goals of CRAM program
• Roles of Teams
• Need and Intended Uses
• Summary of Science of Rapid Assessment
• Conceptual Model
• Development Process and Schedule
• Global/Programmatic Issues
• Next Steps

2
Features of Rapid Assessment

• Assess physical and biological condition
• Based on easy to evaluate field indicators
• Can be conducted rapidly
• Calibrated with field data
• Validated with more intense (level III) studies
• Applicable to a variety of wetland and stream
  types
• Core set of indicators to assess condition
  additional modules
• mitigation success
• water quality
• endangered species
• Iterative, ongoing process of development and
  refinement
• Does not replace the need for detailed
  quantitative analysis

3
General Framework
 
 
 
                     
4
Assumptions of Rapid Assessment

• Intent is to evaluate condition and stressors
• assumes knowledge of relationship between
  stressors and their affect on condition
• Assumes adequate knowledge about wetland ecology
  to identify and scale metrics
• Uses readily visible physical and biological
  features as indicators of condition
• Assumes that condition indicators reflect
  function at the site
• Level III studies are necessary for validation

5
Sample Metrics from Other States
6
Ohio RAM Field Form
Output total score, stressor index, or rating
category
7
Stressor Checklist - Sample
8
Todays Agenda

• Goals of CRAM program
• Roles of Teams
• Need and Intended Uses
• Summary of Science of Rapid Assessment
• Conceptual Model
• Development Process and Schedule
• Global/Programmatic Issues
• Next Steps

9
Anticipated Uses of CRAM

• Regional monitoring assessment
• Impact evaluation/stressor analysis
• Alternatives analysis
• Evaluation of restoration success
• Mitigation compliance monitoring
• Restoration siting design
• Assessing relative importance of wetlands in the
  watershed
• Cumulative impact assessment

10
CRAM Conceptual Model
11
CRAM Development

•    Method development
•    Field testing/calibration
•    Method refinement
•   Field validation
• (level III studies)
•   Peer review
• Education and outreach

12
Selection of Metrics

• Literature on wetland ecology and function
• Other rapid assessment methods
• Local studies and other data sources
• peer-reviewed literature
• conference proceedings
• gray literature
• dissertations and thesis
• monitoring studies
• Other assessment methodologies
• HGM, IBI
• stream bioassessment

13
Data Mining - sample
Source Wetland Class Biological Features Evaluated Physical Features Evaluated Peer- reviewed
Page, 1997 estuary vascular plants, invertebrates nutrients and sediment yes
SAWPA, 2002 riparian Watershed plan numerous taxa and physical features evaluated Watershed plan numerous taxa and physical features evaluated no
local data sources are being reviewed to
help select and scale metrics
14
Categories of Metrics

• Size
• Buffer size, condition adjacent land use
• Hydrology
• Habitat structure
• Vegetation/community structure
• Habitat alteration (stressor)
• Living resources (faunal) support
• Special/sensitive wetlands

15
Metric Size

• Size class 1 gt 300 acres
• Size class 2 50-300 acres
• Size class 3 25-50 acres
• Size class 4 3-25 acres
• Size class 5 lt 3 acres
• What are the appropriate size categories?
• Can one set of size categories pertain to
  different wetland classes (e.g. vernal pool vs.
  estuary)?

16
Metric Buffer Adjacent land use

• Buffer width
• Buffer condition
• Land use condition and intensity outside of the
  buffer
• How should these metrics account for
  differences in widths or conditions on different
  sides of the wetland?

17
Metric Hydrology

• Water source
• Water level fluctuations
• Duration of saturation/inundation
• Modification to site hydrology (stressor)
• Should the stressor metric be used as a
  modifier for the previous condition metrics, or
  evaluated separately with other stressor metrics?
  

18
Metric Habitat Structure

• Habitat development/quality
• Structural and spatial diversity
• Is this one or two metrics?
• Condition of Floodplain or contributing watershed
• Is this more appropriate in the hydrology
  category?
• How do we account for heterogeneous land use
  in the watershed?
• Linear continuity of habitats
• Habitat alteration

Should the stressor metric be used as a
modifier for the previous condition metrics, or
evaluated separately with other stressor metrics?
19
Metric Vegetation/community structure

• Plant community composition
• Interspersion
• Invasive species coverage
• Microtopographic complexity

20
Metric Living Resource Support

• Threatened and endangered species
• Significant migratory songbird, waterfowl, or
  shorebird breeding, feeding, or roosting area.
• Amphibian or reptile breeding or feeding area.
• Anadromous fish breeding or migratory habitat

21
Metric Special Wetlands

• Vernal pool
• Wet meadow
• Tidal marsh
• Seeps and Springs (slope wetlands)
• Meromictic lagoons
• Regionally scarce wetlands

22
Todays Agenda

• Goals of CRAM program
• Roles of Teams
• Need and Intended Uses
• Summary of Science of Rapid Assessment
• Conceptual Model
• Development Process and Schedule
• Global/Programmatic Issues
• Next Steps

23
Programmatic Questions

• How rapid is rapid
• what level of detail is possible?
• how do we balance qualitative vs. quantitative
  metrics?
• Are we assessing, opportunity, capacity or both?
• How do we address different wetland classes
• Robust metrics
• Class-specific metrics
• Focus on stressors only
• How do we address seasonality, temporal
  variability, and successional stages?

24
Programmatic Questions (cont.)

• Do we focus on assessment of condition,
  stressors, or both?
• Do we classify before or after we sample?
• stratified sampling (verification)
• random sampling (validation)
• Should the method be mechanistic (i.e.
  algorithms) or descriptive (i.e. rule based)?
• Should metrics be combined into an overall score
  or kept separate?
• What is the role (if any) of reference sites?

25
CRAM Development Schedule
Background research and development of the conceptual model Dec 02 Jan 03
First regional review team workshop Feb 03
First draft CRAM Mar 03
Field testing April May 03
Second regional review team workshop June 03
Second draft CRAM July 03
Second round field testing Aug- Sept 03
Third regional review team workshop Sept 03
Operational draft CRAM Oct 03
26
Next Steps

• Next iteration of method
• Feb 19-20 EPA workshop
• Regional Team meeting
• Next Core Team Meeting
• Ongoing participation by Core Team

• Choice of metrics
• Incorporation of existing data sources
• Calibration with new field data
• Scaling of metrics
• Validation and field testing

Need to develop a strategy for method validation