Planning Guide for Watershed Success Metrics.xlsx

	A	B	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M
1	Planning Guide for Watershed Success Metrics
2	Use this Planning Guide resource to help determine supporting processes to identify, measure or manage metrics.
3	To be used in coordination with Watershed Success Metrics Framework©.
4			NARRATIVE SUCCESS	QUANTITATIVE METRIC	CURRENT METRIC VALUE (optional)	CURRENT METRIC GOAL (optional)	OUTLINE THE PROCESS & NECESSARY DATA INPUTS TO QUANTIFY THIS METRIC	ESTIMATE STAFF TIME REQUIREMENTS	IS A PROCESS IN PLACE OR WOULD ONE NEED TO BE DEVELOPED	EVALUATION FREQUENCY (ANNUAL, OR LONGER?)	WATERSHED ORGANIZATION INTERNAL METRIC, OR PARTNER ORGANIZATION METRIC?	LIST POTENTIAL PARTNERS
5	OUTCOME: Public & policy-maker prioritization of healthy watersheds	Education	INDICATOR: Workshops & training
6			Unique participants attend workshops & training events.	% unique participants
7			The majority of workshop participants report adopting a best management practice (BMP).	% attendees that adopt BMPs
8			Collaborators return to learn about & adopt enhanced or additional BMPs.	% collaborators that adopt multiple or enhanced BMPs
9			Prior collaborators recruit new participants in workshops & training events.	% participants that report grassroots recruitment
10			INDICATOR: Fact sheets & reference manuals
11			Educational materials are developed or identified to communicate the science underpinning all aspects of watershed success.	% Watershed Success Indicators in this Framework with supporting educational materials on website
12			Stakeholders utilize provided educational materials for information & planning.	rolling average of downloads per month
13			INDICATOR: Youth development programming serving minoritized communities
14			Participating youth complete post-secondary education.	% participants completing a post-secondary degree
15			Participating youth choose STEM fields of study & careers.	# of STEM degrees obtained by participants
16			The opportunity gap for minoritized students to obtain employment in STEM fields is closed.	% participants who report placements in STEM fields
17			INDICATOR: Policy maker programming
18			Incoming elected policy makers at all levels of governance prioritize watershed sustainability success training.	% incoming officials from watershed jurisdictions who attend training
19			Best-practice model policy outlines are available for all components of watershed protection.	% Watershed Success Indicators in the Framework with best-practice models
20
21		Outreach	INDICATOR: Newsletters, website & social media
22			All watershed landowners receive regular mailed communications, such as quarterly newsletters.	% watershed landowners receiving newsletters
23			All households in majority-renter neighborhoods receive regular mailed communications, such as quarterly newsletters.	% households receiving newsletters in majority-renter neighborhoods
24			New stakeholders are continually signing up for communications.	rolling average of newsletter sign-ups per month
25			Stakeholders visit the organization's website at stable or increasing frequency.	rolling average of website visits per month
26			Stakeholders interact with the organization's social media posts at stable or increasing frequency.	rolling average of social media interactions per month
27			INDICATOR: Advocacy for environmental equity, inclusion & social justice (EISJ)
28			EISJ messaging present on website, flyers, media & program campaigns	yes/no
29
30		Community Building	INDICATOR: Diverse collaborations
31			All entities & sectors identified for inclusion are represented on the Board.	% target entities or sectors with a representative on the Board
32			Leadership, staff, & partner demographics mirror the watershed population.	% individuals representing minoritized communities at each organizational level
33			Partnerships are robust and represent all sectors of watershed management.	# partners in each category: Agriculture, Forest, Urban, Stream, Water Quality, Science, University, Government, & Civic Organizations
34			INDICATOR: Commitment to environmental EISJ
35			Commitment to EISJ is codified in the mission statements of the organization & its partners.	yes/no
36			A community-appointed committee sets EISJ goals & steers EISJ programming.	yes/no
37			A target has been set for % staff hours dedicated to EISJ goals that reflects the historically disproportionate environmental impacts on minoritized communities.	% staff hours dedicated to EISJ goals
38			Funding dedicated to EISJ goals is pursued & proportional to the target % effort.	% funding dedicated to EISJ goals
39			High-trust community instititions are a touch-stone for involving minoritized communities in watershed activities.	yes/no
40			All materials are available in two or more languages spoken in the watershed.	% materials available in two or more languages
41
42		Legislative Encouragement	INDICATOR: Resource availability
43			All organization funding comes from sustainable sources.	% funding from sustainable sources
44			INDICATOR: Policy advancing watershed sustainability
45			Watershed municipalities have adopted regionally consistent policies & incentives that align with best practices for watershed protection.	% municipalities that have adopted these policies & incentives
46			INDICATOR: Policy advancing EISJ
47			Governing bodies at all jurisdictional levels in the watershed have adopted policies that prioritize environmental EISJ.	% watershed governing bodies with EISJ policies
48
49		Address Knowledge Gaps	INDICATOR: Stakeholder assessment
50			Stakeholders report fewer barriers to adoption of watershed protection practices, increased knowledge, more favorable attitudes, & greater willingness to act.	Survey scores or index
51			Stakeholder perceptions of water quality & watershed condition align with formal scientific assessment.	Survey scores or index
52			INDICATOR: Staff continuing education (technical & EISJ)
53			The areas of expertise needed for watershed sustainability success are identified & represented in staff competencies at the organization & its partners.	% target areas of expertise represented in staff competencies
54			Staff report a high level of preparedness for assigned job functions at the organization & its partners.	Survey scores or index
55			INDICATOR: Robust watershed monitoring
56			All State Assessment Units in the watershed have at least one high-frequency ambient monitoring location across government entity, academic, & citizen science programs.	%Assessment Units with one or more monitoring stations
57			All 303(d)-listed impairments include an identified source.	%303(d)-listings with an identified source
58			Impairments on 303(d) list are effectively remediated, resulting in removal from the 303(d) list.	% of previously impaired stream miles or kilometers that are delisted
59			INDICATOR: Equitable & effective communication around environmental EISJ
60			Science communication mediators (boundary organizations) are active in the watershed & among the organizations partnerships.	yes/no
61			Minoritized & socioeconomically disadvantaged communities self-identify environmental EISJ concerns.	Community-led focus group results
62			Citizen science programs engage with & collect data in minoritized communities.	% of minoritized communities with active citizen science monitoring programs
63
64	OUTCOME: Resilient, non-degrading human footprint	Rural lands best management practices (BMPs)L Low-impact development (LID) in urban & urbanizing areas	INDICATOR: Funding decisions that maximize return on investment
65			Every dollar of core funding generates additional dollars through grants & fundraising.	dollars of additional funding per dollar of core funding
66			The average cost share % provided to collaborating communities or individuals is sufficient to overcome financial barriers to BMP & LID adoption.	average cost share to collaborators as % of total project cost
67			INDICATOR: Projects implementing BMPs & LID
68			A full suite of watershed protection best practices are in use in projects, based on target modes of action identified as approriate for the watershed.	% of BMP & LID types in use in the watershed
69			Best practices for watershed protection convey cost savings or added value to the landowner or community.	dollars saved or value added
70			Sediment & nutrient loads & runoff to adjacent waterways are reduced.	loading in tons & runoff in cubic feet
71			INDICATOR: Environmental EISJ investment & prioritization for BMPs & LID
72			Collaboration frequency with minoritized individuals & communities reflects the need to correct the historical disproportionate burdens of environmental degradation.	% collaborating individuals or communities representing minoritized populations
73			The spatial distribution of projects reflects the need to correct the historical disproportionate burdens of environmental degradation on minoritized communities.	% BMP & LID projects located in minoritized communities
74			Financial assistance to minoritized & socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals or communities reflects the need to correct the historical disproportionate burdens of environmental degradation.	% of total budget used for projects in minoritized communities
75			Technical assistance hours provided to minoritized or socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals or communities reflects the historical disproportionate burdens of environmental degradation.	% of total technical assistance hours used for projects in minoritized communities
76
77		Urban forestry & green spaces	INDICATOR: Tree plantings
78			Tree plantings use native varieties that are well-adapted to watershed conditions & survive long-term.	Average survival rate of large tree plantings
79			Tree plantings survive to maturity & reduce runoff volume to adjacent waterways.	Runoff in cubic feet
80			INDICATOR: Canopy cover maintenance
81			Canopy cover is maintained at adequate extent to protect against the impacts of impervious surfaces.	Ratio of % canopy cover to % impervious surface
82			The average canopy cover % in the watershed is greater than the target published by American Forests.	Ratio of % canopy cover to American Forests target %
83			INDICATOR: Green spaces
84			Public access to green space areas that are functional and safe meets World Health Organization recommendations.	Ratio of urban green space per capita relative to recommended 9 m2
85			INDICATOR: Equitable distribution of green space & tree benefits
86			Tree Equity Scores in minoritized & socioeconomically disadvantaged communities are equal to scores in advantaged communities.	Ratio of Tree Equity Scores between communities
87			Canopy cover extent in minoritized & socioeconomically disadvantaged communities is equal to the extent in advantaged communities.	Ratio of canopy cover % between communities
88			Park & other public green space area in minoritized & socioeconomically disadvantaged communities is equal to the area in advantaged communities.	Ratio of the public green space area between communities
89
90		Infrastructure improvements	INDICATOR: Stormwater management retrofits
91			Projects reduce nutrient & sediment loads & runoff volume to adjacent waterways.	Loading in tons; runoff volume in cubic feet
92			Projects reduce peak flow during storm events in adjacent waterways.	Peak flow reduction in cubic feet per second
93			INDICATOR: Rural road BMPs
94			Projects reduce runoff & erosion on & around rural roads.	Runoff volume in cubic feet; sediment load in tons
95			Projects reduce the number of days spent on maintenance by county road crews.	Number of maintenance days
96			INDICATOR: Sewer system upgrades
97			All households in the watershed are connected by central sewer to treatment facilities.	% households on central sewer
98			Incentives & cost sharing are utilized to replace old & failing septic systems.	Average age of septic systems in the watershed
99			All septic systems in the watershed are mapped to inform regulation & management decisions.	% watershed with mapped septic systems
100			INDICATOR: Drinking water