6.2 Next Steps for the Report Card in the Sacramento River Basin

Report Cards such as this are a valuable tool for tracking and communicating watershed condition to residents, other stakeholders, and decision-makers, and similar Report Card should be conducted within each major watershed and subregion within the entire Sacramento River Basin. The basic steps should mirror those used in the Feather River Watershed Report Card (described in the previous sections):

  • Articulate stakeholder goals and objectives for the basin.
  • Identify the geographic subunits to be assessed (e.g., reporting subwatersheds).
  • Select indicators for each objective, using a WAF cross-walk matrix to ensure that the chosen indicators collectively also address all of the essential watershed attributes (EWAs) in the WAF.
  • Determine the reference value (target) for each indicator, and the relationship between potential indicator values and scores from 1-100 (i.e. linear or non-linear function).
  • Identify the metrics for each indicator, compile and analyze the data, and calculate the score for each indicator in each sub-unit.
  • Aggregate the scores across objectives and across sub-units.

Adopting this Report Card process in other watersheds would provide a consistent approach for a broader assessment of watershed condition across California, and the WAF attributes, which would be common across watersheds, would enable comparison among watersheds even if the goals and objectives (and indicators) might differ. The feasibility of aggregation across Report Cards using the WAF attributes could also be explored.

Citations

Berryman, D., B. Bobee, D. Cluis, and J. Haemmerli. 1988. Nonparametric tests for trend detection in water quality time series. Water Resources Bulletin 24:545-556.

Cochran, William Gemmell. 1977. Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

EPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC.

Esterby, S.R. 1996. Review of methods for the detection and estimation of trends with emphasis on water quality applications Hydrological processes 10(2): 127 -149

Fight, R. D., L. E. Kruger, C. Hansen-Murray, A. Holden, and D. Bays. 2000. Understanding human uses and values in watershed analysis. Page 16 in F. S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station, editor. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-489, Portland, OR.

France, R., D. McQueen, A. Lynch, and M. Dennison. 1992. Statistical comparison of seasonal trends for autocorrelated data: a test of consumer and resource mediated trophic interactions. Oikos 65:45-51.

Hagan, J. M. & Whitman, A. A. 2006. Biodiversity Indicators for Sustainable Forestry: Simplifying Complexity, Journal of Forestry 104, 203-210.

Hamed, K.H. and A.R. Rao. 1998. A modified Mann-Kendall trend test for autocorrelated data. Journal of Hydrology 204:182-196.

Helsel, D.R. and L.M. Frans. 2006. Regional Kendall test for trend. Environmental Science & Technology 40:4066-4073.

Hess, A., H. Iyer, and W. Malm. 2001. Linear trend analysis: a comparison of methods. Atmospheric Environment 35:5211-5222.

Hirsch, R.M. and J.R. Slack. 1984. A nonparametric trend test for seasonal data with serial dependence. Water Resources Research 20:727-732.

Hirsch, R.M., J.R. Slack, and R.A. Smith. 1982. Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data. Water Resources Research 18:107-121.

Jassby, A.D. and T.M. Powell. 1990. Detecting changes in ecological time series. Ecology 71:2044-2052.

Kurtz, J. C.; Jackson, L. E. & Fisher, W. S. 2001. Strategies for evaluating indicators based on guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development, Ecological Indicators 1(1), 49--60.

Lohr, Sharon L. 1999. Sampling: Design and Analysis. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Pacific Grove, CA.

National Research Council. 2000. Ecological indicators fo the Nation, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

O’Conner, J. E. and J. E. Costa. 2004. The world’s largest floods, past and present: their causes and magnitudes. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Stoddard, J. L.; Larsen, D. P.; Hawkins, C. P.; Johnson, R. K. & Norris, R. H. (2006), Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition, Ecological Applications 16(4), 1267-1276.

Thompson, Steven K. 2002. Sampling 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York, NY.

US-USEPA (2008), Indicator Development for Estuaries, USEPA, Washington DC.

Young, T. F. & Sanzone, S. 2002. A Framework For Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition: An SAB Report, Technical report, USEPA Science Advisory Board.