Today’s Agenda

1. Today’s 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. Climate, Geology, Land Use Supplies of Sediment &Water Fauna Flora 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. Today’s 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. Universal Wetland Ecological Features: Biogeochemical properties Hydrology, Sediment Biotic communities Essential Indicators with broad, general applicability (core elements) Regional “filters” that determines wetland landscape profile Regional wetland types +characteristic functions These modify the core elements Adjustments for successional stage Anthropogenic stressors that alter wetland condition Regionally refined indicators, including highly valued wetland types or features Report on wetland condition, by HGM class Validation with Level III site-specificdata 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 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: > 300 acres • Size class 2: 50-300 acres • Size class 3: 25-50 acres • Size class 4: 3-25 acres • Size class 5: < 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. Today’s 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

26. Choice of metrics Incorporation of existing data sources Calibration with new field data Scaling of metrics Validation and field testing Next iteration of method Feb 19-20 EPA workshop Regional Team meeting Next Core Team Meeting Ongoing participation by Core Team Next Steps Need to develop a strategy for method validation