California Rapid Assessment Methodfor Wetlands and Riparian Areas

(CRAM)

Introduction

• Overview of CRAM

• Background and Development

• Wetland Monitoring Framework

Topics for Discussion

California’s Wetland ManagementChallenges

• Numerous State and

Federal programs focus

on regulating and

managing wetlands

• Lots of wetland

monitoring, but

lacking coordination

and standardized

assessment tools

• Are we making a difference?

• Are our programs effective?

• Is additional investment justified?

Millions of public and

private funds expended

on wetland acquisition,

restoration and

enhancement in

California

California’s Wetland ManagementChallenges

Provide rapid, scientifically defensible,standardized, cost-effective assessments of thestatus and trends in the condition of wetlandsand the performance of related policies,programs and projects throughout California.

Goal of Developing CRAM

What Is CRAM?

CRAM is a field-based, diagnostic tool that, whenused as directed, provides rapid, repeatable,numeric assessment of the overall condition of awetland based on visible indicators of its form,structure, and setting, relative to the leastimpacted reference condition.

What is rapid?

CRAM requires a team of 2-3 trainedpractitioners less than 3 hours,maximum, to assess a representativewetland area. That’s 3 hours from thecar to final results.

What Is overall condition?

Overall condition is the capacity or potential ofa wetland to provide the functions andservices expected for the same type ofwetland in its natural setting, assessed relativeto “best” reference condition.

CRAM Modules

Estuaries

● Perennial tidal saline

● Bar-built (lagoons)

Streams

● Confined/unconfined

Depressional Wetlands

Vernal Pools

Lakes (lacustrine)

Slope Wetlands

Wet Meadows

Seeps and Springs

Playas

CRAM is structured to guide the user into andthough a wetland in an orderly and thoroughassessment of its overall condition.

CRAM moves into the wetland through theadjacent landscape and buffer.

In the wetland, CRAM examines structure in 3D.

CRAM Design

CRAM Design

CRAM recognizes four attributes of wetland condition

Each attribute is represented by 2-3 metrics, some ofwhich have sub-metrics.

LandscapeContext

Hydrology PhysicalStructure

BioticStructure

= Overall (Index)Score

WetlandCondition

Each Attribute Score represents a suite ofexpected functions

● e.g., Landscape and Buffer Attribute representsecological connectivity at landscape scale, ability ofbuffer to mediate external stressors, etc.

● e.g., Hydrology Attribute represents hydrologicregime (hydroperiod, water sources, etc.)

Condition = status at specific time point

Function = process occurring over time

Scientific Meaning of CRAM Scores

Fundamental unit of CRAM is theAssessment Area (AA)

100m

LandscapeContext

Hydrology PhysicalStructure

BioticStructure

Buffer

Landscape Connectivity

WetlandCondition

CRAM Design: Metrics

LandscapeContext

Hydrology PhysicalStructure

BioticStructure

Buffer

Landscape Connectivity

% of Area with Buffer

Buffer Condition

Buffer Width

WetlandCondition

CRAM Design: Sub-metrics

AlphabeticScore

NumericScore

Alternative State

A 12 Average buffer width 190-250m

B 9 Average buffer width is 130 – 189m

C 6 Average buffer width is 65 – 129m

D 3 Average buffer width 0 -64m

Sub-metric Scoring Example

Mutually exclusive alternative states

Represent full range of possible condition

Buffer Width

WetlandCondition

LandscapeContext

Hydrology PhysicalStructure

BioticStructure

Vertical Biotic Structure

Horizontal Interspersion

Plant Comm. Composition

A

C

B

12 or 100%

6 or 50%

9 or 75%

=

=

=

75 %47 %30 %57 %

CRAM Scoring:Ratio of metric scores Attribute score

27/36 = 75%of Possible

WetlandCondition

LandscapeContext

Hydrology PhysicalStructure

BioticStructure

75 %47 %30 %57 %

52 %

CRAM Scoring:Average of Attribute scores = Overall score

Vertical Biotic Structure

Horizontal Interspersion

Plant Comm. Composition

A

C

B

12 or 100%

6 or 50%

9 or 75%

=

=

=

27/36 = 75%of Possible

CRAM Framework

WetlandCondition

LandscapeContext

Hydrology PhysicalStructure

BioticStructure

Stressor Checklist

Identify possible causes for lowCRAM scores

Identify possible corrective actions

Develop testable hypothesesrelating scores to stressors

Uses of the Stressor Checklist

Download Software,User’s Manual, Field Books

Upload Data, Suggestions

View Results

CRAMwetlands.org

Store, Retrieve, and Visualize Data and Results

cramwetlands.org

CRAM Development

Development of CRAM

1. Develop a strategic plan (USEPA)• Build State capacity• Issue guidance• Encourage implementation

2. Establish Statewide and Regional Teams• Build 1 method per wetland type for all regions• Involve user community

3. Develop conceptual models• Other RAMs• Wetland form and function• Assumptions and tenets of CRAM

Development of CRAM

4. Verify method• Calibrate to BPJ• Field test across range of condition

5. Validate method• Correlate scores to L3 data• Test repeatability within and among teams

6. Implement• Through existing State and federal programs• Through new regional programs• Process for regular review and revision

CRAM Development Process

QAPP for the Development of a Wetland Rapid Assessment Methodin California Phase II (2005)

Rapid Assessment in California (Sutula et al. 2006)

• CRAM currently validated for perennially

tidal estuaries and streams

Development of CRAM

Implementation

• CRAM IT (eCRAM and Wetland Tracker)

• Quality Assurance and Quality Control

• Reference Network

• Annual Review Process and Updating

• Practitioner Training

What qualifies a trained practitioner?A trained practitioner has passed a CRAM training course certifiedby the L2 Committee of the CWMW. Practitioners mustdemonstrate to the L2 Committee that they can achieve anacceptable precision for each type of wetland they assess toinform a government action.

Peer Review

USACE ERDC Review (completed 2008)

SWRCB Review (completed Sept. 2011)

Institutional Support forCRAM

Evolving State Program

California Water Quality Monitoring Council

Established by Ca. Legislature in 2006 (SB 1070)

Co-chaired by Natural Resources and CalEPA

Two Major Goals:

Improve coordination of water quality monitoringprograms in California (10 yr. workplan)

Make information more accessible to agencies andthe public (web portals)

California Water Quality Monitoring Council

CaliforniaWetland

MonitoringWorkgroup

BioaccumulationOversight Group

California WaterQuality

MonitoringCollaboration

Network

GroundwaterAmbient

Monitoring &Assessment

Program

Beach WaterQuality Work

Groups

Theme-specific internet portals

www.CaWaterQuality.net

Theme-specific

workgroups

California Wetland MonitoringWorkgroup (CWMW)

Subcommittee of California Water QualityMonitoring Council

State and Federal co-chairs + SB1070liason

Participating agencies:

● 12 State, 5 Federal, 5 Academic/Research

Goal = development, coordination, andimplementation of wetland monitoringacross California

Level 2Rapid assessment of

overall wetland condition

Level 1Resource inventories

and maps

e.g. Does thewetland supportsensitive spp.?

Level 3Intensive assessment of

specific functionality

Ambient Sample Frames

Validate Level 2

Three-tiered Monitoring Frameworkfor Wetlands

What is theregional

condition ofwetlands?

How does theproject compare

to regionalwetland

condition?

Where arewetlands inthe region?

e.g. CRAM

How manywetlands inthe region?

California Wetland Monitoring Workgroup

Level 1Subcommittee

Level 2Subcommittee

Level 3Subcommittee

Aquatic Ecosystem Health Theme

Monitoring/AssessmentCommittees

How Does CRAM Relate toWetland Monitoring?

Part of a comprehensive monitoringand assessment toolkit for WRAMP

WRAMP

Wetland andRiparian Area

Monitoring Program

Wetland and RiparianMonitoring Program (WRAMP)

Question driveno Flexible: support individual agency’s info needso Support, not subsume agency programs

Consistent Statewide Frameworko Common tools and data managemento Focus on Levels 1 and 2 & data management

Regional Implementationo Build on existing programso Customize to meet regional/local needs

Management of Statewide Products Level 1 (mapping) Level 2 (CRAM + other RAMs)

Ongoing Technical Support and Coordination CWMW provides statewide coordination Most “work” occurs through regional teams

Wetland and Riparian AreaProtection Policy (WRAPP)

Policy development via SWRCB

Goals :

develop a consistent statewide wetland policy

provide common framework for wetland andriparian area monitoring and assessment

California Water QualityMonitoring Council

Level 1Committee

California WetlandMonitoring Workgroup

South CoastRegional

Team

My WaterQuality Web

Portals

SF BayRegional

Team

CentralCoast

RegionalTeam

North CoastRegional

Team

SierraRegional

Team

CentralValley

RegionalTeam

Level 2Committee

Level 3Committee

Regional DataCenters

CRAM

CEDEN

WRAMP

StateWetland

andRiparianPolicy

AquaticEcosystem

HealthSWAMP

10 yr. Monitoring Strategy

Integration

Thank You