California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands Interpreting CRAM Scores.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Framework for the Ecological Assessment of Impacted Sediments at Mining Sites in Region 7 By Jason Gunter (R7 Life Scientist) and.
Advertisements

Standardized Scales.
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW 1. MAJOR TROPICAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS RELATED TO HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES 2 (i). BEST METHODS (POLICY, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES) TO ENHANCE.
A GIS Lesson. What is a Watershed? +15 Million People.
Bill Orme, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Board Liz Haven, Asst. Deputy Director, Surface Water Regulatory Branch, State Water Board Dyan.
Lec 12: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP’s)
International Natural Resource Management (INRM) Changxiao Li, Ph.D. SUMBER: /jpk/data/gjzrzygl/.../e-book/Chapter%2003.ppt‎
Wetland Assessment Methods FHWA Needs. Laws and Regulations National Environmental Policy Act Section 404 CWA Regulatory Program Executive Order 11990,
WRP and Water Quality Monitoring Council: Synergy April 1, 2015 Josh Collins Chief Scientist, SFEI and ASC Co-Chair, CWMW WRP Science Advisor Jon Marshack.
What IHE Delivers 1 Business models - sustainability IHE Australia Worhshop – July 2011 Peter MacIsaac & Paul Clarke.
Lecture ERS 482/682 (Fall 2002) TMDL Assessment ERS 482/682 Small Watershed Hydrology.
Wetland Restoration Henry Abarbanel San Diego Water Board Chair.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Reductions – Estimating a Tradable Commodity Allen R. Dedrick Associate Deputy Administrator Natural Resources & Sustainable.
Defining Responsible Forest Management FSC Forest Certification Standards Defining Responsible Forest Management Version:
Integrating Forages into Multi-Functional Landscapes: Enhanced Soil Health and Ecosystem Service Opportunities Douglas L. Karlen USDA-ARS Presented at.
Water Quality Associated with Urban Runoff: Sources, Emerging Issues and Management Approaches Martha Sutula and Eric Stein Biogeochemistry and Biology.
California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (CRAM) Project and Ambient Assessments.
Measuring Habitat and Biodiversity Outcomes Sara Vickerman and Frank Casey September 26, 2013 Defenders of Wildlife.
Ecoregion typing Ecological classification or typing will allow the grouping of rivers according to similarities based on a top-down nested hierarchical.
King County Normative Flow Project Parametrix, King County, Herrera, & Foster Wheeler Normative Flow Studies King County Department of Natural Resources.
IOPS Toolkit for Risk-based Supervision Module 4: Risk Mitigation and Scoring.
Watershed Assessment and Planning. Review Watershed Hydrology Watershed Hydrology Watershed Characteristics and Processes Watershed Characteristics and.
Information and international biodiversity conventions Eliezer Frankenberg Nature and Parks Authority.
Coastal development impacts on biological communities in the Chesapeake Bay Examples from the Atlantic Slope Consortium R
Software Measurement & Metrics
Development and validation of models to assess the threat to freshwater fishes from environmental change and invasive species PIs: Craig Paukert Joanna.
CoastalZone.com The Use of Ecological Risk Assessments in a Watershed Level Context Thorne E. Abbott CoastalZone.com.
IOPS Toolkit for Risk-based Supervision Module 4: Risk Mitigation and Scoring.
EPA’s Bioassessment Performance and Comparability “Guidance”
International Natural Resource Management (INRM) (III) Changxiao Li, Ph.D.
Goals of CRAM program –Roles of Teams –Need and Intended Uses Summary of Science of Rapid Assessment Conceptual Model Development Process and Schedule.
CUAHSI HIS Survey at Berkeley Seongeun Jeong and Xu Liang Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering UC Berkeley.
Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay Donna Marie Bilkovic*, Carl H. Hershner, Kirk J. Havens,
National Aquatic Resource Surveys Wadeable Streams Assessment Overview November, 2007.
Environment Environnement Canada Rob Kent, Chris Lochner, Janine Murray, Connie Gaudet Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance Water Science and Technology.
HYDROELECTRIC POWER AND FERC. HYDRO 101A ”Water Runs Down Hill”
Greater Manchester a resilient city region U-Score Essential 5 In partnership with: European Commission Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection Salford United.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for low gradient streams) for species richness, composition and pollution tolerance, as well as a composite benthic macroinvertebrate.
California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (CRAM) Stressor Checklist.
Tools to Inform Protection, Restoration, and Resilience in the Hudson River Estuary The North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC)
Quantifying Stream Ecosystem Responses to Smart Growth: How to Design an Assessment Allison Roy Cross-ORD Postdoctoral Researcher US Environmental Protection.
Our main charge should be to identify indicators of progress toward CCMP goals and objectives, and to organize the indicators into a score card, and produce.
Opportunities for Collaboration on Water- Quality Issues in the Mississippi River Basin Herb Buxton, Office of Water Quality.
National Monitoring Conference May 7-11, 2006
WERST – Methodology Group
Setting Goals for Stream “Health:” The Next Generation of Watershed Plans? The Waterlands Group San Francisco Estuary Institute Aquatic Science Center.
Hydropeaking and minimum flow : the French approach. P. Baran CIS ECOSTAT - HYDROMORPHOLGY WORKSHOP 12th and 13th June Brussels Pôle Ecohydraulique.
K aren Worcester Staff Environmental Scientist with thanks to M. Thomas, D. Paradies, L. Harlan, and P. Meertens California Central Coast Regional Water.
Stream Health Outcome Biennial Workplan Neely L. Law, PhD Center for Watershed Protection Chesapeake Bay Program Sediment & Stream Coordinator Habitat.
1 Module 1 Introduction: The Role of Gender in Monitoring and Evaluation.
Josh Collins, Ph.D. San Francisco Estuary Institute Aquatic Science Center A Vision of Watershed Monitoring and Assessment.
Wildlife Program Amendments Joint Technical Committees and Members Advisory Group Amendment Strategy Workshop.
Using Regional Models to Assess the Relative Effects of Stressors Lester L. Yuan National Center for Environmental Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection.
Historical Drivers for Goals and Success Criteria for Stream and Wetland Mitigation Overview of Concepts, Mechanisms, and Opportunities for Improved Development.
K. Bruce Jones EPA Office of Research and Development U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board Regional Vulnerability Assessment Advisory Panel Meeting October,
Module 8 Guidelines for evaluating the SDGs through an equity focused and gender responsive lens: Overview Technical Assistance on Evaluating SDGs: Leave.
Watershed Health Indicators
Validating Integrated Assessment Framework
Andrew Haywood123, Andrew Mellor13,
AIM-NAMF Project Evolution
Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30606
Climate and Green Plan Town Hall Toolkit
Recommendations from the SMC Bioassessment Workgroup
Policy to Mitigate Effects of ENSO-Related Climate Variability
DG Environment, Nature Protection Unit (D3)
Aquatic Ecology Envirothon
Environment Safeguards
IBI’s: An Introduction
“King Tide” on Sept. 29, 2015 Nag Marsh, Prudence Island, RI
Chapter 3: How Standardized Test….
Presentation transcript:

California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands Interpreting CRAM Scores

Index Score Represents Overall Wetland Condition  The CRAM Index Score combines indicators of all Attributes to represent overall condition, which is related to functional capacity or wetland “health.”  CRAM Index Scores are analogous to: Apgar Scores (newborn infant health) Dow Jones Industrial Average (DOW) Gross National Product (GNP) Grade Point Average (GPA)

 Identical Index or Overall Scores can be derived from different arrays of Attribute Scores Index Scores Alone Can Be Misleading Must refer to Attribute Scores (and sometimes to Metric Scores) to interpret Index Scores Landscape - Buffer Hydrology Physical Structure Biotic Structure Index Score

Index Landscape/ Buffer Hydrology Physical Structure Biotic Structure

Index Landscape/ Buffer Hydrology Physical Structure Biotic Structure

 Each Attribute score represents a suite of expected functions; the score indicates the relative level of those functions provided by the wetland: e.g., the Landscape and Buffer Attribute represents ecological connectivity at landscape scale, ability of the buffer to mediate external stressors, etc. e.g., the Hydrology Attribute represents the achievement of (or departure from) natural hydrological pattern, recharge potential, peak stage reduction, water quality maintenance, etc. e.g., the Biotic Structure Attribute represents habitat diversity, biological integrity, food web support, etc. Attribute Scores Relate to Expected Beneficial Uses

 As CRAM scores decrease, the wetland’s associated capacity to provide benefits is also expected to decrease. Scores and Stressors Identify Causes of Condition Reduction Index Score: 44 Index Score: 74

 Attribute and Metric scores help to indicate stressors that are adversely affecting wetland condition and hence assumed function. Stressor Checklist plus Metric scores help identify possible causes for low Attribute scores and related effects on wetland function.  Information beyond the CRAM assessment is required to validate relationships among scores and functions or stressors. Scores and Stressors Identify Causes of Condition Reduction

Score can be Affected by Wetland Size and Complexity  Studies indicate that the diversity within and levels of services provided by a wetland increase with its structural complexity and size.  For each wetland class, CRAM tends to allocate higher scores to larger, more complex wetlands.  CRAM reduces size bias concerns by establishing AA size guidelines for each wetland class.

Scores Indicate Differences in Wetland Condition (with Training)  Among-team comparisons during development of the Riverine and Estuarine modules indicated that: Index scores that differ between wetlands by 6 points or more indicate a real difference in wetland condition. Attribute scores that differ between wetlands by 10 points (depending on attribute) indicate a real difference in wetland condition at the attribute level.  Achieving this precision level requires adequate practitioner training to assure consistent metric interpretation.

CRAM Scores Emphasize Watershed- Level Decision-Making  CRAM assessments are well-suited for characterizing patterns among aquatic resources in a landscape or watershed context.  CRAM assessments also enhance watershed characterization, impact assessment, mitigation planning, and monitoring.  CRAM information can enhance any context in which knowing the condition of the aquatic resource is important for decision-making.

Thank You