A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WETLAND ASSESSMENT METHOD: THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE¹

Abstract

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.

Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo, Sri Lanka

“…Similar field-based assessment techniques have demonstrated how the potential subjectivity of field assessors can be minimised through the use of concise definitions, field testing and appropriate training (Fox et al 1998). The use of clear narratives on indicators and targeted training has also been demonstrated to enhance the repeatability of assessments and minimise observer error (Sutula et al, 2006). Furthermore, the experience level of the observer can have a limiting impact on the repeatability of the final rapid assessment score, whereas training, however, can have a large impact on observer-to-observer repeatability (Herlihy et al 2009).…”

“…However, challenges exist in transferring one rapid assessment method to another geographical location (Gaucherand et al 2015). The development of the RAWES approach has been cognisant of this, as well as the wider requirements for the development of a rapid assessment technique (Sutula et al, 2006), and has steered away from using reference condition or reference datasets through the recognition that wetland sites vary widely. Stein et al (2009) defined the intent of wetland rapid assessment techniques as a requirement to evaluate the complex ecological conditions using a finite set of observable field indicators, and to express the relative condition of a particular site in a manner that informs ecosystem management.…”

An analysis of trends in wetland function assessments and further suggestions

“…을 포함하는 국가적 차원에서의 통합적인 습지 관리의 필 요성을 촉발시켰다 (Sutula et al, 2006;Shim, 2011). 그러 한 인식 변화에 맞추어 습지를 보다 정확하게 파악하고 체 계적으로 관리하고자 하는 차원으로서 습지를 대상으로 한 평가 수행의 필요성이 대두되었으며 20세기 말에 들어서부 터 관련 연구 수행이 본격적으로 시작되었다 (Breckenridge, 1995;Hauer and Smith, 1998;Rani et al, 2011).…”

“…미국의 루이지애나주는 습지 훼손과 그에 따른 복원 사업 으로 유명한 사례지 중 하나다 (Templet and Meyer-Arendt, 1988;Kesel, 1989 (Hauer and Smith, 1998;Tilton et al, 2001;Sutula et al, 2006 (Adamus, 1983;Adamus and Stockwell, 1983). 이후 WET은 미육군공병단을 통한 지원과 협력을 통해 계속적으로 보완되고 개선되었다 (Adamus et al, 1987) (Adamus, 1988).…”

An integrated approach to assess broad-scale condition of coastal wetlands—the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Wetlands pilot survey

“…This survey was designed according to the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) approach (McDonald et al 2002a, b), developed cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' Status and Trends Program, and was built upon existing wetland monitoring and assessment strategies (Turner et al 1995;Fennessy et al 2004Fennessy et al , 2007Dahl 2006;Sutula et al 2006;USEPA 2006;Collins et al 2007). Field teams are currently conducting on-site monitoring activities at 100 randomly selected sites from across the five Gulf States using a probabilistic survey design.…”