1. 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 Today’s Agenda

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 Supplies of Sediment &Water FloraFauna Climate, Geology, Land Use

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. 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 Today’s Agenda

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 Regional “filters” that determines wetland landscape profile Regional wetland types +characteristic functions Anthropogenic stressors that alter wetland condition Report on wetland condition, by HGM class Essential Indicators with broad, general applicability (core elements) Regionally refined indicators, including highly valued wetland types or features These modify the core elements Adjustments for successional stage Validation with Level III site-specific data 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 SourceWetland Class Biological Features Evaluated Physical Features Evaluated Peer- reviewed Page, 1997estuaryvascular plants, invertebrates nutrients and sediment yes SAWPA, 2002 riparianWatershed 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: > 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. 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 Today’s Agenda

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 workshopFeb 03 First draft CRAMMar 03 Field testingApril – May 03 Second regional review team workshopJune 03 Second draft CRAMJuly 03 Second round field testingAug- Sept 03 Third regional review team workshopSept 03 Operational draft CRAMOct 03

26. Next Steps 1.Choice of metrics 2.Incorporation of existing data sources 3.Calibration with new field data 4.Scaling of metrics 5.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 Need to develop a strategy for method validation