- About SRWP
- Board of Trustees
- Contact Us
- Watershed Internships and Volunteer Opportunities
- Watershed Blog
- Explore the Watershed
- A Roadmap to Watershed Management
- Sacramento River Basin
- Sacramento River Basin Watersheds
- Northeast Subregion
- Westside Subregion
- Eastside Subregion
- Feather River Subregion
- American River Subregion
- Sacramento Valley Subregion
- Water Quality Monitoring in the Sacramento River Basin
- Measuring the Health in the Sacramento River Basin
- Watershed Projects - Leading the Way
- Antelope Creek Watershed Stewardship - Lassen National Forest
- Battle Creek Restoration Project
- Bear Creek Meadow Restoration
- Bear River Setback Levee Project
- Cooperative Sagebrush Steppe Initiative - Butte Creek Project
- Cow Creek - Bassett Diversion Fish Passage Project
- HFQLG Forest Recovery Act, Pilot Project
- Hamilton City Levee Setback
- Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Cleanup
- Lassen Creek Stream and Meadow Restoration
- Lower American River Sunrise Side Channel Project
- Lower Clear Creek Floodway Rehabilitation
- Pit River Channel Erosion
- Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Improvement
- Red Clover Creek Restoration Project
- Redding Allied Stream Team
- Sunflower Coordinated Resource Management Program
- Photo and Contributor Credits
- Roadmap Videos
- Conservation on Cache Creek
- Fixing Incised Creek Banks on the Feather River
- Flooding On The Sacramento River
- Google Earth Tour of Butte Creek
- Google Earth Tour of Cache Creek
- Google Earth Tour of the Feather River
- Google Tour of Northeast Subregion
- Google Tour of the American River Watershed and Truckee Watershed
- Google Tour of the Sacramento Mainstem
- Helicopter flight up the American River
- Resource Conservation in the Pit River watershed
- Restoring Fish Habitat on the Feather River
- Spring Run Salmon in Butte Creek
- Watershed work on the mainstem of the Sacramento River
- Wildfire Management in the Sacramento Watershed
- Sacramento River Basin Report Card
- Cover and Acknowledgements
- Table of Contents
- List of Acronyms
- Executive Summary and Report Card
- 1.0 Introduction and Background
- 2.0 Indicator Selection
- 3.0 Indicator Generation, Evaluation, Aggregation
- 3.1 Goal A: Water Quality and Supply
- 3.2 Goal B: Native biota
- 3.3 Goal C: Habitats and ecosystems
- 3.4 Goal D: Fire and Flooding
- 3.5 Goal E: Community, Social and Economic Conditions
- 3.6 Linkages and relationships among objectives, attributes, and indicators
- 4.0 General Methods and Principles
- 4.1. Reporting and analysis subwatershed units
- 4.2 Scoring: Distance to target/reference and scoring transformations
- 4.3 Trend/time series analysis
- 4.4 Confidence in Report Card findings
- 4.5 Spatial scale and aggregation of fine scale data to subwatershed
- 4.6 Temporal scale and aggregation
- 4.7 Cross-indicator score aggregation
- 4.8 Data management and transformation
- 5.0 Interpretation
- 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
- Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
- Appendix B: Indicator Selection Criteria
- SWIM Digital Atlas
- SWIM Digital Library
- Climate Change / Drought
- Invasive Plants
- Background on Invasive Plants
- Invasive Plants of the Sacramento River Watershed
- Invasive Plant Organizations
- Weed Management Areas
- Butte WMA
- Colusa, Glenn and Tehama WMA
- El Dorado County Invasive Weed Management Group
- Lake WMA
- Lassen County Noxious Weed SWAT Team
- Modoc WMA
- Napa County WMA
- Nevada/Placer WMA
- Plumas/Sierra Noxious WMA
- Sacramento WMA
- School Based Watershed Education - Upper Feather River
- Shasta WMA
- Siskiyou WMA
- Solano WMA
- Yolo WMA
- Yuba/Sutter WMA
- County Agriculture Departments
- Resource Conservation Districts
- State and Federal Agencies
- Non-Governmental Organizations
- Weed Management Areas
- Invasive Plant Mapping
- Responsible Landscaping
- On-Line Regulatory Permitting Guide
- Project Action Type
- Permit Type
- Site Type
- Permit Guide Glossary
- Rural Residential Development
- Current Uses, Plans, and Forecasts
- Model Projections and Scenarios
- Overview: Scenarios for 2050 using UPlan Model
- Overview: Case Studies Using Uplan SWIM Layers
- Background Primer on Rural Residential Development
- Adaption: Best Management Practices
- A Roadmap to Watershed Management
- Our Work
- Conferences and Workshops
- Monitoring Committee
- River of Words
- Journey through the Sacramento River Watershed
- Sacramento River Watershed Partners
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.
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.