Wetland rapid assessment methods (RAMs) can provide a cost effective, scientifically defensible estimate of wetland and riparian condition for use in ambient and project monitoring in resource management and regulatory programs. Those who have chosen to develop a RAM to assess wetland and riparian condition are faced with a range of issues and important choices that they must make throughout the development process. This paper is intended as a practical guide to RAM development. Six basic stages in the RAM development process are discussed: (1) organize RAM development by identifying the intended applications, assessment endpoints, and geographic scope of the RAM and forming appropriate teams to advise and review the development process and its products; (2) build a scientific foundation for method development by conducting a literature review, choosing a wetland classification system, building conceptual models, and identifying the major assumptions underlying the model; (3) assemble the method as a system of attributes and metrics that describe a full range of conditions; (4) verify the ability of the method to distinguish between wetlands along a continuum of conditions; (5) calibrate and validate the method against sets of quantitative data representing more intensive measures of wetland condition; and (6) implement the method through outreach and training of the intended users. Important considerations within each of these stages lead to choices in accuracy, precision, robustness, ease of use, and cost. These are identified and the tradeoffs of the various options discussed. Experience with the ongoing development and implementation of the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) is used to illustrate these stages and associated choices in RAM development.

Sediment quality within San Diego Bay, Mission Bay, and the Tijuana River Estuary of California was investigated as part of an ongoing statewide monitoring effort (Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program). Study objectives were to determine the incidence, spatial patterns, and spatial extent of toxicity in sediments and porewater; the concentration and distribution of potentially toxic anthropogenic chemicals; and the relationships between toxicity and chemical concentrations. Rhepoxynius abronius survival bioassays, grain size, and total organic carbon analyses were performed on 350 sediment samples. Strongylocentrotus purpuratus development bioassays were performed on 164 pore‐water samples. Toxicity was demonstrated throughout the San Diego Bay region, with increased incidence and concordance occurring in areas of industrial and shipping activity. Trace metal and trace synthetic organic analyses were performed on 229 samples. Copper, zinc, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and chlordane were found to exceed ERM (effects range median) or PEL (probable effects level) sediment quality guidelines and were considered the six major chemicals or chemical groups of concern. Statistical analysis of the relationships between amphipod toxicity, bulk phase sediment chemistry, and physical parameters demonstrated few significant linear relationships. Significant differences in chemical levels were found between toxic and nontoxic responses using multivariate and univariate statistics. Potential sources of anthropogenic chemicals were discussed.

No abstract