[Scorecard] SCORECARD: Indicator info due Friday, Aug 1

[Rainer Hoenicke]

Hi, folks -

As discussed on the phone yesterday, Mik will send documentation on the 
analysis and modeling work he did for Napa under the Ag Water Quality 
Grant we have, so you can evaluate the use of the "flashiness" 
indicator. We are taking a look at that for the CCA project as well, 
since we need to identify if local land use decision-makers can use this 
indicator as a tool to play through various BMP scenarios (e.g., what 
kind of beneficial effects would sub-surface or surface storage 
restoration (e.g., portions of Kenwood Marsh) have, in conjunction with 
multiple "artificial" projects that mimic the natural "sponge effect" in 
key locations (a la Esther Feldman's methodology).

I have yet to hear a compelling argument for NOT including an indicator 
that could be useful for the general public, elected officials, and 
planners - and that is the number of jurisdictions with land and water 
management responsibilities that follow sustainability principles, as 
outlined in the Ahwahnee Principles, for example. It's easy to count, we 
have a baseline, someone already tracks it (the LGC), and it's very 
useful for public education, and enhancement of civic processes. Unless 
I hear convincing arguments to the contrary, I'd like to see that one go 
on the list.

ALSO: Please keep in mind that, while the Score Card project is on a 
different timeline, we ought to do our best to include indicators in the 
narrative (even if they aren't quite "ready" yet) of the report AND THEN 
DEVELOP THEM FURTHER under the WAF projects we have. All the "candidate" 
indicators we decided took too much time to develop (meaning: data exist 
but not in a readily available form to be useful for analysis) should be 
prioritized for WAF follow-up. Can we do that at the next meeting?

Rainer

Frances Knapczyk wrote:
>
> Dear team,
>
> Thanks for all of your thoughts during last Friday’s meeting. There 
> are a few points about the reporting of our project that I’d like to 
> reiterate-
>
>     * The Scorecard (one page per watershed) drafts are due in mid
>       August. *By Friday, August 1*, I need the following information
>       from each indicator lead (leads are listed at end of email) for
>       each watershed:
>           o score for indicator (on a 1-5 scale, 5 = “great”, 1 = “poor”)
>           o trend for indicator ( up, down, no change. If you know
>             slope of change, please send this information too)
>           o timescale over which trend is measured
>           o one or two sentence summary of what the indicator is.
>
>     * The Technical Reports (3-5 pg per indicator) for the Scorecards
>       should be worked on next. There will be one report for each
>       watershed. Deanne & I will supply the template for the technical
>       report next week. The deadline for the technical report will
>       probably be the last week of September. Indicator leads will
>       coordinate writing of their indicator.
>
>     * The Scorecard Reports (1 pg per index) will be completed last,
>       but should be in your thoughts as you work on the Tech Report.
>       This report will be our opportunity to report the key findings
>       for each index. The report will include, for each index, a small
>       paragraph of context, graphs of key results, bullets of results&
>       interpretation, 1-2 pieces of information that we need or
>       recommendations for future. Deanne & I plan to work closely with
>       indicator leads to create this product. This product will be
>       completed by the last week of October.
>
> *_Indicator Leads_*
>
> Runoff coefficient – Lisa
>
> Dry season flows – Bob
>
> Impervious area – Kat***
>
> Surface storage – Alex
>
> Ground water – Bob
>
> Consumption – Peter ***
>
> Residential Water Use – Peter
>
> Demand on Ground water – Alex & Peter ***
>
> Imports – Bob & Alex
>
> Recharge Protection – Deanne***
>
> *** = no score possible for this indicator now; however, it is very 
> important for knowledge of water quantity. Therefore, it will probably 
> be included on scorecard w/o score or trend. From these leads, I need 
> only a 1-2 sentence description of indicator by Aug 1.
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 3303 (20080728) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scorecard mailing list
> Scorecard at sonomacreek.net
> http://sonomacreek.net/mailman/listinfo/scorecard_sonomacreek.net
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 3303 (20080728) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>   


-- 

Rainer Hoenicke, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
San Francisco Estuary Institute
7770 Pardee Lane
Oakland, CA 94621
510-746-7381
www.sfei.org