Watershed Report Card Template Iloilo Watershed Management Council

Template for Preparing Report Cards
on the Health of Watersheds in the

Philippines
Prepared By:
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of the Iloilo
Provincial Government and University of the Philippines Visayas (UPV).
With technical support provided by the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI)
This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International
Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
July 2016
www.canurb.org
TEMPLATE FOR PREPARING REPORT CARDS ON THE HEALTH OF WATERSHEDS IN THE PHILIPPINES
August 2016
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. III
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
2. CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................................................. 2
3. WATERSHED REPORT CARD COMPONENTS ............................................................................................. 4
3.1. Indicators and Measures .............................................................................................................................. 4

3.2. Grading........................................................................................................................................................ 6
3.3. Trend Indicator ............................................................................................................................................ 7
3.4. Targets ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.5. Recent Major Efforts ................................................................................................................................... 7
3.6. Recommended Actions ............................................................................................................................... 8
3.7. Lead Partners Responsible for Recommended Actions .............................................................................. 8
4. INDICATOR GUIDELINES .............................................................................................................................. 8
4.1. Natural Cover .............................................................................................................................................. 8
4.2. Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................... 10
4.3. Water ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
4.4. Agriculture and Land-use .......................................................................................................................... 19
4.5. Waste Management ................................................................................................................................... 20
4.6. Watershed Governance ............................................................................................................................. 22
5. TEMPLATE STYLE GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................. 24
5.1. Scale .......................................................................................................................................................... 24
5.2. Target Audience ........................................................................................................................................ 24
5.3. Timing of Report Cards and Periodic Bulletins ........................................................................................ 24
5.4. Format ....................................................................................................................................................... 25
5.5. Sample Report Card Templates ................................................................................................................. 26
6. LITERATURE CITED..................................................................................................................................... 29
i|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

August 2016
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of Indicators, Parameters and Measures for Iloilo Province .....................................................................4
Table 2: Description of Grades ......................................................................................................................................6
Table 3: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Forest Quantity ............................................................................................8
Table 4: Grades for Forest Quantity by Sub-watershed .................................................................................................8
Table 5: Grades for Forest Quantity in Each Watershed Municipality ..........................................................................9
Table 6: Ranking Criteria of Compliance with Riparian Coastal Easement Laws and Reforestation Requirements ....9
Table 7: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Forest Quality ..............................................................................................9
Table 8: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Species Richness and Flagship Species .....................................................10
Table 9: Species Richness and Flagship Species, and Grades by Sub-watershed or Municipality ..............................11
Table 10: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Surface Water Quality .............................................................................11
Table 11: Grades for Total Suspended Solids by Sub-watershed ................................................................................12
Table 12: Grades for E. coli Levels by Sub-watershed ................................................................................................12
Table 13: Grades for Nitrate or Nitrite Levels by Sub-watershed ...............................................................................13
Table 14: Grades for Pesticides (to be determined) by Sub-watershed .......................................................................13
Table 15: Grade for Stations that do not exceed Philippine Standards for the Presence of Metal by Sub-watershed .14
Table 16: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Percent Change in Mean Annual Total Flow or Mean Monthly Flow
Over Five Years ..........................................................................................................................................15
Table 17: Grades for Percent Change in Mean Annual Total Flow or Mean Monthly Flow by Sub-watershed .........15
Table 18: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Bacteria, Chloride and Nitrates/Nitrite in Groundwater Supplies Based
on Percent of Samples Not Exceeding the Maximum Philippine Water Quality Standard ........................16
Table 19: Grades for E. coli Levels in Groundwater by Sub-watershed ......................................................................16
Table 20: Grades for Total Coliform Levels in Groundwater by Sub-watershed ........................................................17
Table 21: Grades for Chloride and Nitrate/Nitrite Levels in Groundwater by Sub-watershed ....................................17
Table 22: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Groundwater Quantity Management Specific to Inventories ..................18
Table 23: Grades for Level of Completeness of Groundwater Inventories by Municipality .......................................18
Table 24: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Residential Water Consumption ..............................................................19
Table 25: Grades for Residential Water Consumption by Municipality ......................................................................19
Table 26: Ranking Criteria and Grade for the Protection of Prime and Non-Irrigated Agricultural Land ..................19
Table 27: Grades for the Conversion of Prime and Non-Irrigated Agricultural Land to Other uses by Sub-
watershed or Municipality ..........................................................................................................................20
Table 28: Ranking Criteria for Conversion and Protection of Forest and Production Forest to Agricultural Land.....20
Table 29: Grades for the Conversion of Protection and Production of Forests to Agricultural Land by Sub-
watershed or Municipality ..........................................................................................................................20
Table 30: Ranking Criteria and Grades Based on the Percent Reduction of Residential Solid Waste Diverted from
Landfill Sites Over Five Years ...................................................................................................................21
Table 31: Grades Based on the Percent Reduction of Residential Solid Waste Diverted from Landfill Sites by
Municipality ................................................................................................................................................21
Table 32: Ranking Criteria and Grades Based on the Percent Wastes That Have Been Reused or Recycled Over
Five Years ...................................................................................................................................................21
Table 33: Grades Based on the Percent of Diverted Wastes Reused or Recycled by Municipality.............................21
Table 34: Ranking Criteria and Grades Based on the Percent of Sanitation Standards and Action Plans Present for
the Reporting Period ...................................................................................................................................22
Table 35: Grades based on the Percent of Sanitation Standards and Action by Municipality .....................................22
Table 36: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Watershed Governance Based on the Organizational, Regulatory
Outputs and Market Incentives of Watershed Management Councils ........................................................22
Table 37: Number of Selected Instruments in Place for Watershed Management Councils and Associated Grade ....23
Table 38: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Governance Based on the Percent of Selected Stakeholders
Participating in Watershed Management Councils .....................................................................................23
Table 39: Grades based on the Percent of Selected Stakeholders Participating in Watershed Management
Councils ......................................................................................................................................................24
ii | M o n i t o r i n g F r a m e w o r k v . 8 . 1 6
August 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is the first generation of an environmental report card for the Philippines that attempts to
communicate watershed conditions. This report card focuses on six indicators; natural cover, biodiversity, water,
agriculture and land-use, waste management, and watershed governance. It is understood that over time more
indicators may be added to the report card when information and other resources becomes available. It is also
recognized that some factors that impact environmental health such as economic, social, and agency performance
are very important but those indicators for now have been left to be reported through other means.
Each indicator in the watershed report card is measured by using one or more specific parameters. A ranking scheme
is provided so that watershed data can be evaluated and watershed health rated in a consistent fashion over time.
Current efforts that affect watershed conditions are included. The report card makes provision for recommending
Next Steps intended to provoke action that will impact watershed health over time. A standardized reporting
format is also provided that identifies necessary content and graphic style to ensure consistent branding of the
products across jurisdictions.
This template for preparing report cards on the health of watersheds in the Philippines was developed under the
leadership of Philippine staff from the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of the Iloilo
Provincial Government and University of the Philippines in the Visayas (UPV). The Canadian Urban Institute (CUI)
delivered technical advice and project management. The Toronto Region and Conservation Authority also provided
technical assistance through seconding Gary Wilkins, a former TRCA staff person to the project; Mr. Wilkins also
acted as principal author of this document. A number of Canadian and Filipino graduate students supported the
research component of the project. All partners provided contributions to the project, mostly in kind.
Financial support was provided by the Government of Canadas International Research and Development Centre
(IDRC) within the project Improving Evidence-based Planning for Watersheds in the Philippines (IDRC Project
No: 107718-00020199-015)
iii | M o n i t o r i n g F r a m e w o r k v . 8 . 1 6
August 2016
1. INTRODUCTION
A State of the Watershed Report (SoWR) was prepared in 2013 that summarizes the current characteristics of the Tigum-
Aganan Watershed (TAW). The TAW is located in Iloilo province on Panay Island in the Western Visayas Region of the
Philippines This SoWR was part of the Metro Iloilo-Guimarus Sustainable Bioregion Initiative; a project made possible by a
financial contribution of Global Affairs Canada (then Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) through the
Canadian Urban Institute (CUI).
After producing the SoWR, the next logical step was to develop a Watershed Report Card program. Adding Watershed
Report Cards (WRC) to the watershed planning cycle in the Philippines will enable periodic measurement and reporting on
watershed health, and progress towards watershed protection and rehabilitation. Watershed Report Cards will also aid in
priority setting, budgeting and good communications with decision-makers agencies, groups and the general public.
The primary objectives of this template and the guidelines it offers are as follows:
1. Identify indicators where information is currently available or can easily be collected, and are easily understood by the
target audience.
2. Prepare a ranking/grading system for consistently evaluating watershed health over time.
3. Identify short and long term targets.
4. Identify community actions that are contributing to the health of watersheds.
5. Identify priority recommendations aimed at improving watershed conditions, and the primary agencies and groups
responsible for taking action.
6. Establish a template based on the above information that will be used across the province of Iloilo for consistent
reporting on watershed health and to target programs that will influence positive environmental change in the future.
This Watershed Report Card template is to be used as a guideline for communicating the health or condition of watersheds
using environmental indicators. This should not be confused with reporting efforts. Efforts are the actions undertaken by
stakeholders that affect watershed condition. Nevertheless, efforts should be tracked as a way of recognizing and
quantifying what is being done to protect and restore environmental conditions and celebrate watersheds.
Watershed report cards have been used in other jurisdictions as a means of delivering technical information in an
understandable format to residents, groups, municipalities and other government agencies. Ideally, the provincial and sub-
provincial scales (i.e., municipal/city and village levels) need to be aligned and coordinated in creating the report cards.
That way provincial policy and program/project objectives for watersheds can guide local actions. Such local alignment
with provincial frameworks enhances local collaboration and sharing of best practices.
This template and associated guidelines have been modeled after work done by Conservation Ontario, 2011 and other
sources as noted in final section of this report: Literature Cited. Standardizing data collection, formalizing a grading system
and maintaining a consistent presentation format are all considered important factors so watershed conditions can be
compared within and across jurisdictions.
Short of a catastrophic event, changing environmental conditions usually occurs slowly. Therefore, a report card cycle of
every five years is considered adequate. However, major news worthy stories could be issued at any time in a more
abbreviated format. If resources permit, this is desirable to help keep attention on local environmental issues,
accomplishments and setbacks.
Indicators of environmental health are chosen as a means of communicating the health of watersheds to stakeholders. The
indicators are simply topics that are relevant and easily understood by the target audience. Each indicator could have one or
1|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

August 2016
more specific parameters that are used to tell the story about the indicators current environmental condition. The six
indicators that have been chosen are natural cover, biodiversity, water, agriculture and land-use, waste management and
watershed governance (Table 1).
A number of specific parameters under several indicators have been included in the template despite there being little or no
information available at the present time. Pesticides is one example. Electing to include Under Development indicators in
this first generation report card is to acknowledge their importance and encourage actions that will result in collecting and
evaluating relevant information in a timely fashion.
This document was developed under the leadership of Philippine staff from the Provincial Environment and Natural
Resources Office (PENRO) of the Iloilo Provincial Government and University of the Philippines in the Visayas (UPV).
The Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) delivered technical advice and project management. The Toronto Region and
Conservation Authority also provided technical assistance through seconding Gary Wilkins, a former TRCA staff person to
the project; Mr. Wilkins also acted as principal author of this document. A number of Canadian and Filipino graduate
students supported the research component of the project. All partners provided contributions to the project, mostly in kind.
Financial support was provided by the Government of Canadas International Research and Development Centre (IDRC)
within the project Improving Evidence-based Planning for Watersheds in the Philippines (IDRC Project No: 107718-
00020199-015)
2. CONSULTATION
Consultation was important to ensure the final product was understandable, pilot tested and accepted by stakeholders across
the province focusing particularly on those persons and agencies ultimately responsible for using the report card template
in the future. A summary of the consultation that occurred throughout the project is described below.
Consultation for the Evidence-Based Decision-Making for Watersheds in the Philippines project started on May 29, 2015.
The first consultation meeting was attended by the members of the Iloilo Watershed Management Council, the Tigum-
Aganan Watershed Management Council, the University of the Philippines in the Visayas and the Canadian Urban Institute.
During the meeting, the project objectives, deliverables and activities were presented and discussed. The Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) was also drafted and the partner signatories identified.
A series of meetings and project presentations were conducted in June 2015. Meetings were conducted in the Jar-ao,
Tangyan-Guimbal Watershed through a visit to the Municipality of Tubungan. A meeting with the Tigum-Aganan
Watershed Council was held at the Municipalities of Leon with Mayor Rolito Cajilig and in Alimodian with Mayor Geoffre
Alonsabe. To balance the view of watershed areas, visits were also conducted to the Municipalities of Lambunao and
Calinog with the Jalaur River Basin Management Council. During these visits, presentations and discussions on the State of
the Watershed Reports were undertaken. The project objectives were presented and the watershed units committed to
participate in the project.
A first set of watershed management indicators that were used by the Governors Prize on Blue Waters Competition was
reviewed and modified to meet the needs of a report card aimed at communicating the health of watersheds in Iloilo
province. In June and July 2015, workshops were conducted with technical staff of the Iloilo Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Office (PENRO) and the Iloilo Watershed Management Council to enhance the watershed reporting
indicators. The enhanced watershed indicators were presented to the Technical Working Group of the Tigum-Aganan
Watershed Management Council in August of 2015 for comments.
In October 2015, in preparation for the first pretest of the enhanced watershed indicators, an expert panel workshop was
convened. The workshop was attended by the technical experts from the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), the Environmental Management Bureau, the National Irrigation Administration, and the Foundation for
Philippine Environment, the University of the Philippines in the Visayas and a well-regarded local environmental NGO, the

August 2016
Kahublagan Sa Panimalay Foundation. The workshop resulted in a final set of watershed health indicators. The same set of
members also sat as a panel of evaluators for the December 2015 Governors Prize on Blue Waters Competition.
The enhanced watershed health indicators were presented and discussed at the Tigum-Aganan Water Quality Management
Area (TAW WQMA) meeting on September, 2015. The same occurred at the Jalaur Water Quality Management
Area (JRBWQMA) meeting in December 2015. The inputs of the members were noted and incorporated into subsequent
iterations of the watershed report card template and monitoring framework.
On November 2015, the 2-day Governors Prize on Blue Waters Competition was conducted using the enhanced watershed
indicators. PENRO provided technical support to design an enhanced template for the watershed management and
distributed these to the watershed management councils for their score card presentation. In total, 12 watershed management
councils attended this event and used the enhanced format. The panel of evaluators were the same set of experts who
participated in the November workshop and included the participation of Gary Wilkins, an expert from the Canadian Urban
Institute and Toronto Region and Conservation Authority (TRCA). The results of the enhanced watershed indicators were
presented to the Technical Working Groups of the Iloilo Watershed Management Council and the Jalaur River Basin
Management Council.
In February of 2016, preparations for the final project workshops were planned. From March to April of 2016, a series of
workshops were conducted to gather final inputs on the watershed report card and the monitoring framework. The
workshops were divided by parameters including natural cover, biodiversity, riparian and coastal, watershed governance,
waste management, water, land use allocations, agriculture and mapping for monitoring stations. Separate sessions were
scheduled to finalize the report card template and monitoring framework presentation, and the rolling out of both protocols.
A round table workshop was conducted in May 2016 to present the final report template and monitoring framework. This
workshop was attended by experts from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, West Visayas State
University, the Technical Officers of the Watershed Division of the PENRO LGU, Housing and Land Use Regulator
Bureau, Provincial Assessors Office, Provincial Health Office, Environment and Management Bureau, Department of
Agrarian Reform, Provincial Planning and Development Office, National Irrigation Administration, Metro Iloilo Water
District, Be Secure (a USAID-funded project on water management), and municipal representatives from Alimodian, Pavia,
Maasin, Janiuay, Duenas, New Lucena, Tigbauan, Dumangas, San Miguel, Lambunao, San Enrique, Calinog and Cabatuan.
In addition, representatives in attendance also included Forclime II (a German development-funded project), Provincial
Agriculture staff, Central Philippine University, University of the Philippines.
On May 12, 2016, the Report Card Template (with the score card) and Monitoring Framework were presented to the
Technical Working Group of the Jar-ao, Tangyan- Guimbal Watershed Management Council, the Tigum-Aganan
Watershed Management Council and the Sibalom Baguingin Watershed Management Council in Tigbauan, Iloilo. Twelve
municipal representatives participated from Igbaras, Pavia, Sta. Barbara, Guimbal, Oton, San Miguel, Alimodian,
Tubungan, Maasin, Cabatuan, Leon and Tigbauan. Government and other agencies who attended the consultation were
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Metro Iloilo Water District, the National Irrigation Administration and
the Iloilo Watershed Management Council.
The activity resulted in additional comments and suggestions for both the report card template and the monitoring
framework. Inputs were also gathered on time frames for implementation. Agreement was made to develop Watershed
Report Cards in each watershed council and these report cards will be published by December 2016. This activity would
build on, but be outside of the scope of the IDRC-funded project.

August 2016
3. WATERSHED REPORT CARD COMPONENTS

Watershed Report Cards are an assessment of the current environmental health of river/coastal systems. For each of the
reports six indicators (Table 1) two or more specific parameters are assessed to describe current watershed conditions. For
each parameter a specific measure is used. For example, when presenting the current condition of natural cover, the
percentage of the watershed area with upland, riparian, beach and mangrove forest is compared to the amount that science
has identified as the standard to be achieved. The following sections reference the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA)s Living City Report Card (2013) and other sources for guidance.
3.1. INDICATORS AND MEASURES

Indicators are topics or specific parameters that can be used to communicate the health or conditions of the environment to
agencies, institutions, groups and the public at large. At this time, six watershed health indicators have been chosen: natural
cover, biodiversity, water, agriculture and land-use, waste management and watershed governance. Each of these indicators
has two or more specific parameter and measure to help describe watershed condition (Table 1).
The following criteria were used for selecting the most appropriate indicators for watershed report cards:
1. Is the indicator relevant and understandable by the target audience?

2. Is data currently collected and available?
3. Is it feasible to collect necessary data over the long term?
4. Is the indicator responsive to change?
5. Will the indicator show trends over time?
6. Is the indicator scientifically defensible?
7. Will the indicator tell multiple stories?
8. Is the indicator consistent with the objectives of partner agencies?
Table 1: List of Indicators, Parameters and Measures for Iloilo Province
Indicator Parameter Measure

1. Natural Cover Forest Quantity (upland, % Forest Cover
riparian, beach and
mangrove)
Forest Quality (upland, Ratio of Indigenous Species to Exotic Species
riparian, beach and # of growth stages present out of four.
mangrove)
Riparian Law Compliance % of streambank in compliance with easement law.
(40m in forest area, 20m in agriculture area and 3 m
in urban areas).
Coastal Law Compliance % of beach forest and mangrove zones in compliance
with easement law. (25m wide measured from high
tide mark).
Quarry Operator Compliance % of quarry operators abiding by riparian/coastal
easement laws (having no violation).
2. Biodiversity Species Richness % of expected species present
Flagship Species # of flagship species identified, categorized and

inventoried

August 2016
Indicator Parameter Measure

3. Water Total Suspended Solids % of samples not exceeding mg/L standard
Surface Water
Quality Escherichia coli (E. coli) % of samples not exceeding maximum fecal
Dept. of Health, coliforms per 100 mL standard
2007
Nitrates/Nitrites % of samples not exceeding mg/L standard
Pesticides % of samples not exceeding mg/L standard

Metals % of samples not exceeding mg/L standard
Flow % Deviation of mean monthly flow over 5 Years

(m3/s). Baseline is 1970-1990 data.
E. coli % of samples not exceeding maximum fecal
coliforms per 100 mL standard
Total Coliforms % of samples not exceeding coliforms per 100 mL
Surface Water standard
Quantity Chlorides % of samples not exceeding mg/L standard
Nitrates/Nitrites % of samples not exceeding mg/L standard

Ground Water
Quality
Dept. of Health, Baseline on Extraction Rates completeness of inventory of deep wells, level 1 and
2007 2 wells, and permits
Residential liters/day/person standard
(Liters/day/person)
Groundwater Crop Water Duty % of days not exceeding liters/day standard
Quantity
Industrial Water Use % of days not exceeding liters/day standard
Water
Consumption
4. Agriculture and Prime Agricultural Land % converted to other uses
Land-use
Non-irrigated Agricultural % converted to other uses.
Land
Protection Forest Converted % protection forest converted to agriculture
to Agriculture
Production Forest Converted % production forest converted to agriculture
to Agriculture
5. Waste Residential Solid Waste % reduced every 5 years.
Management Diverted from Landfill
Usage of Diverted Waste % of recycled/reused waste
Sanitation Compliance % compliance with sanitation standards
(access to potable water,
sanitary toilets, proper solid
waste disposal)
6. Watershed Watershed Management meetings, SOWRs, score cards, ordinances,
Governance Councils (Organizational, resolutions, funds allocated, short/long term
Regulatory Outputs, Market plans/targets, designated MENRO and/or watershed
Incentives) based personnel, others.
Stakeholder Participation in # of participating watershed stakeholders
Watershed Management
Councils

August 2016
The report card needs to make three key assessments for the indicators presented above:
1. Assign a numerical grade (1 being the worst grade and 5 is the best) that indicates current conditions based on the
adopted ranking criteria. This ensures consistent evaluations;
2. Use a progress arrow that shows trends in the condition of the indicator over time; and
3. Identify short and long-term regional targets as objectives for improving conditions.
3.2. GRADING
Regardless of whether the audience of the watershed report card is other agency staff or the general public, a definition of
how grades are arrived at is important. A ranking scheme is identified in this guideline so that consistency is maintained for
assigning a numerical grade each time a report card is issued.
The numerical grade is symbolic of the current conditions versus the long-term regional target or other appropriate ranking
scheme accepted by the partners. The grade gives an indication of how far things have to change to achieve an aspirational,
but achievable, long-term goal (Table 2). The ranking criteria and grades are outlined within these report card guidelines
and vary by indicator.
Table 2: Description of Grades

Description Grade
Excellent and target has been achieved 5
Good but minor action is still required to meet the target 4
Average with moderate action still required to meet the target 3
Poor with major effort still required to meet the target 2
Very poor with significant action still required to meet the target 1

August 2016
3.3. TREND INDICATOR

When sufficient data is available changes in watershed conditions or progress can be illustrated with an arrow as illustrated
below. Multiple years of data will be required to use the trend indicators.
Much better data suggests condition is significantly improving
Better data suggests condition is moderately improving
No Change data suggests no measureable change in condition
Worse data suggests condition has degraded moderately
Much worse data suggests condition is significantly getting worse
3.4. TARGETS
Two targets can be reported for each indicator: a short-term target and a long-term target. The short-term target is five years
from the present. This should coincide with the timing of the next report card. The long-term target is more ambitious but
should still be achievable with serious commitment. Consider the long-term target as 25 years in the future.
Identifying targets is important. It sets a future goal that should drive priority setting, budgeting and general action planning.
Without targets you have not established an endpoint to strive for.
Five-year target This is a regional target that can be reached if current programs continue and/or new feasible
programs are quickly implemented.
Long-term target This regional target is based on local, provincial or national targets where they already exist,
or the expert opinion on an appropriate target taking into consideration global benchmarks and the desired
healthy long-term state of watersheds in the Philippines. The long-term targets represent aspirational goals
established by the country, province or local authorities, and are set irrespective of progress made to date.
3.5. RECENT MAJOR EFFORTS

In many cases there is work underway or recently completed that will ultimately improve the condition of the environmental
indicators that have been measured. The report card should recognize significant planning, policy and other implementation
actions by governments, municipalities, businesses, educational institutions, community groups and individuals that will
result in long term involvement and positive change to watershed health in the future.

August 2016
3.6. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Action is required by everyone to achieve a sustainable region. It is good practice to include in the report card several major
next steps that will bring attention to policy, protection, restoration, investment and education initiatives needed to improve
conditions in each of the report cards key topic areas.
3.7. LEAD PARTNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Action often stalls or is not initiated at all because responsibility is overlooked or not clearly assigned. In your report card
identify the agency, group or other authority that has primary responsible for initiating the next steps that are recommended.
Add supporting implementing agencies and groups when appropriate.
4. INDICATOR GUIDELINES
4.1. NATURAL COVER
FOREST QUANTITY
One parameter used to assess natural cover is the percent of existing forest land. Forest land is defined in this document as
upland forest, beach forests, riparian zones and mangroves. Hectares can also be provided but the percent forest cover better
describes the quantity of forest cover relative to the total watershed or sub-watershed area. Forest cover includes patches
greater than 0.5 hectares with at least 10% closed canopy and trees not less than five metres in height. How to rank forest
cover is provided in Table 3.
Table 3: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Forest Quantity

Percent Forest Cover Grade
> 45 5
39 to 45 4
30 to 38 3
20 to 29 2
< 20 1
Forest cover data can be presented in several ways. One method is to present the quantity of forest cover by sub-watershed
(Table 4). The second method is by municipality but only including that portion of the municipality within the subject
watershed (Table 5). Both methods can be used in the report card subject to available resources for gathering the data.
Describing forest cover by sub-watershed and by municipality is most effective since readers want information more
specific to their jurisdiction. Forest cover should also be shown on a map to provide a visual of the distribution of forest
cover across the watershed.
Table 4: Grades for Forest Quantity by Sub-watershed

Sub-watershed Forest Cover % of Watershed Grade
(ha)
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed

August 2016
Table 5: Grades for Forest Quantity in Each Watershed Municipality

Municipality Forest Cover % of Watershed Grade
(ha)
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
RIPARIAN, MANGROVE AND BEACH FOREST COMPLIANCE, AND QUARRY OPERATORS COMPLIANT
WITH REFORESTATION REQUIREMENTS
Ranking criteria and grades are also to be presented for compliance with riparian and coastal easement laws, and quarry
operator compliance with reforestation requirements as illustrated in Table 6. Also present the data by municipality and sub-
watershed as illustrated in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 6: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Degree of Compliance with Riparian Coastal Easement Laws and Quarry Operator
Compliance with Reforestation Requirements
Percent Compliant with Riparian and Coastal Easement Laws Grade
>80 5
70 to 80 4
40 to 69 3
20 to 39 2
<20 1
Percent of Quarry Operators in Compliance with Reforestation Requirements Grade
>90 5
84 to 90 4
79 to 83 3
70 to 78 2
<70 1
FOREST QUALITY
The health of watersheds can also be attributed to forest quality. The two measures of forest quality are: (a) ratio of
indigenous species to exotic species, and (b) presence/absence of four growth stages. The ranking criteria and grades are
presented in Table 7. When possible, also present the data by municipality and sub-watershed as illustrated in Tables 4 and
5.
Table 7: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Forest Quality

Ratio of Indigenous Species to Exotic Species Grade
>60 5
46 to 60 4
36 to 45 3
20 to 35 2
<20 1
# of Forest Growth Stages Present Grade

Ideal Ratio of Seedlings, Sapling, Pole and Mature Trees 5
4 Growth Stages 4
3 Growth Stages 3
2 Growth Stages 2
1 Growth Stage 1

August 2016
4.2. BIODIVERSITY
The amount of biodiversity that exists in any given place indicates the stability and health of an ecosystem. Although often
forgotten, biodiversity is an important element in the foundation of a sustainable community. The extent of urban
development and other human intervention reduces the diversity of habitats and the plant and animal species that inhabit
them. Non-native species, pollution and overuse are common causes of reduced biodiversity.
Unfortunately, losses in biodiversity are often irreversible. The Philippines is one of the most heavily impacted of the
biodiversity hotspots, with over 93% of its original natural vegetation gone. As a result, the Philippines contains one of the
highest concentrations of critically endangered and endangered species on Earth. The country ranks the second on the
worlds bird list, with 25 species in these two endangered categories, while for mammals it is fifth on the worlds list. In the
opinion of many, the Philippines is the hottest of the hot spots on Earth (Mittermeier, 2002). Biodiversity needs to be
protected to ensure there is resilience to the changes that are inevitable.
SPECIES RICHNESS
The grade is determined by dividing the number of current species by the number of species you would have expected to
find in a healthy watershed before pollution, habitat loss and other human interventions impacted the environment
(historical number of species). A higher ratio of existing versus expected species generally indicates a higher quality
environment as represented in Table 8.
Present the information by sub-watershed and municipality if it would be helpful in communicating varying conditions
(Table 9). This is important because watersheds are often not homogenous. Showing the variation tells a better story.
Table 8: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Species Richness and Flagship Species
Percent of Expected Species Grade
> 80 5
61 to 80 4
41 to 60 3
20 to 40 2
< 20 1
Presence of Flagship Species Grade
Flagship species Identified, Categorized and inventoried 5
Flagship Species Identified and Categorized 3
Flagship Species Identified 1
FLAGSHIP SPECIES
Communicating information about flagship species is a way of bringing attention to special plants and animals that tell
important stories about watershed conditions simply by their presence. Flagship species are chosen because they frequently
indicate a superior quality environment exists that allows them to survive and reproduce.
The ranking criteria and grades are presented in Table 8. Present the information by sub-watershed and municipality if it
would be helpful in communicating varying conditions (Table 9). Watersheds are often not homogenous.
10 | M o n i t o r i n g F r a m e w o r k v . 8 . 1 6
August 2016
Table 9: Species Richness and Flagship Species, and Grades by Sub-watershed or Municipality
Sub-watershed % of Expected Species or Grade
or Flagship Species
Municipality
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
4.3. WATER
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
The five parameters listed below are used to describe the condition of surface water.
(a) Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

(b) Escherichia coli (E. coli)
(c) Nitrates/Nitrites
(d) Pesticides
(e) Metals
These parameters reflect some of the key issues affecting watercourses such as bacterial contamination, nutrient loading,
persistent organic contaminants, and metals. Table 10 summarizes the ranking criteria and grades for each. In the report card
narrative, results that significantly deviate from the standard may be highlighted to emphasize major issues that need quick
attention.
Table 10: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Surface Water Quality
Percent of Total E. coli Nitrates Pesticides Metals Grade
Samples Not Suspended Nitrites
Exceeding Solids
Water % of samples % of % of samples % of samples
Quality <50mg/L samples < 50mg/L Under < 0.05mg/L Arsenic
Standard (Class A) <1.1CF (Nitrates) Development <0.003mg/L Cadmium
U <0.05mg/L Total
/100mL Organic Chromium
<80mg/L ) < 3mg/L chemicals to <0.01 mg/L Lead
(Class C) (Nitrites) be <0.001mg/L Total
determined Mercury
<1.0 mg/L Iron
<0.4 mg/L Manganese
<1.0 mg/L Copper
>80 5
70-80 4
60-69 3
50-59 2
<50 1
August 2016
Calculating Scores:
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Suspended soil particles in water results in cloudiness or turbidity. This is an important aspect of water quality. Turbidity
can be the result of streamflow that causes erosion, mining and aggregate extraction, construction activities, agricultural
practices or runoff from urban areas. Soil particles in water can elevate the levels of bacteria, pesticides and metals because
these substances attach to the soil particles thus becoming more available to aquatic organisms. The Philippine Water
Quality Guideline (2007) for TSS is <50mg/L for class A water and <80mg/L for class C waters. Report card grades are
determined by calculating the percent of water samples that dont exceed the Philippine standard. Grades for TSS by sub-
watershed can be presented using Table11.
Table 11: Grades for Total Suspended Solids by Sub-watershed

Sub-watershed % of Samples Not Exceeding Grade
Standard <50mg/L class A and
<80mg/L class C
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI)
Escherichia coli is a relatively harmless bacterium, which is commonly found in the digestive systems of warm-blooded
animals. Although it represents only 0.1% of gut flora in humans, it is exponentially more abundant than most pathogenic
bacteria. Rather than attempting to detect presence and abundance of scarce/rare pathogenic bacteria, due its abundance, E.
coli is utilized as an indicator of harmful pathogens. If E. coli levels are low, then the assumption is that pathogenic bacteria
levels would be correspondingly low as well. High levels of E. coli are indicative of recent human and/or animal fecal
contamination and raw sewage loading. Elevated bacteria levels in water are often related to land use and waste inputs. E.
coli levels may increase in urbanized areas due to inadequately designed sewer systems, illegal connections between storm
and sanitary sewers, and precipitation events that carry waste overland into bodies of water. Municipalities use E. coli
analyses to ensure that drinking water and recreational bathing waters are safe (TRCA, 2014). Grades for E. coli levels by
sub-watershed are presented using Table 12.
Table 12: Grades for E. coli Levels by Sub-watershed

Sub-watershed % of Samples Meeting Grade
Standard (<1.1 CFU/100mL)
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
NITRATES AND NITRITES
Nitrogen occurs naturally in rocks and groundwater. Nitrogen also occurs in various forms in water such as nitrite (NO2),
nitrate (NO3-). Nitrate is the most common form of nitrogen entering freshwater systems and is assimilated by plants. Upon
the decomposition of plant matter, nitrate is converted to ammonia, an energy-efficient source of nitrogen for plants.
Bacteria convert ammonia into nitrate, nitrite, and nitrogen. Nitrite is easily converted and rarely accumulates unless organic
pollution is high. (Wetzel, 2001). Presenting the grade for nitrate and nitrite levels in surface water is illustrated in Table 13.
August 2016
Table 13: Grades for Nitrate or Nitrite Levels by Sub-watershed

Sub-watershed % of Samples Not Exceeding Grade
Standard (50 mg/L nitrates, 3
mg/L nitrites
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
PESTICIDES
Numerous hazardous substances derived from chemicals are found in various concentrations in the environment.
Widespread contamination of surface and groundwater comes from pesticides and herbicides used in agriculture.
Monitoring for these products should be guided by information related to agricultural land use, types and quantities of
agricultural chemicals used, chemical characteristics, and application patterns and methods. Determine the chemicals that
are most likely to be used and monitor for those products. Grades for the presence of pesticides are presented according to
Table 14.
Table 14: Grades for Pesticides (to be determined) by Sub-watershed

Sub-watershed % of Samples Not Exceeding Standard Grade
(chemical to be determined)
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
METALS
Metals can occur naturally in water and in trace amounts are necessary for metabolic processes. However, when added
artificially such as by industrial uses, metals can bio-accumulate in living tissue. With prolonged exposure to elevated
concentrations metals can harm people and wild life. Some preliminary investigation is advisable to determine the kinds of
mining and industrial processes that exist within a watershed. This will guide proper sampling and analysis.
Water quality in industrial areas may be affected by contaminates such as hydrocarbons, phenols, polychlorinated
biphenyls, benzene, cyanide, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, iron, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium and
zinc (Bartram and Ballance, 1996). Metals tend to be strongly associated with sediments and are released to the water due to
factors such as pH and organic matter content in the water as is the case with phosphorus and pesticides (World
Meteorological Organization, 2013).
The ranking criteria and grades for selected metals are provided in Table 10. Use Table 15 format to provide the percent of
stations that do not exceed Philippine standards for concentrations of individual metals and associated grade.
August 2016
Table 15: Grade for Percent of Stations that do not Exceed Philippine Standards for the Presence of Selected Metal by Sub-
watershed
Sub-watershed % of Samples Not Exceeding Standard for Grade
Selected Metal
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
(a) Arsenic
The weathering of rocks and soils, and smelting and refining industries are sources of arsenic. Arsenic is an odourless,
tasteless, and toxic metal, for which the Philippine standard is 0.05mg/L (Public Health Department, 2007).
(b) Cadmium
Cadmium is used in the manufacture of steel, plastics, and batteries. It is released into the environment through wastewater
or fumes. Cadmium is released in the water supply as an impurity of the zinc coating process for galvanizing pipes and
metal fittings. The Philippine standard is 0.003mg/L (Public Health Department, 2007).
(c) Chromium (Total)

Chromium is widely distributed in the earths crust. It also occurs in wastewater in certain industries such as chromium
plating of car bumpers, grills and ornaments. The Philippine standard is 0.05mg/L (Public Health Department, 2007).
(d) Copper
Copper is a trace metal whose elevated concentrations are associated with urbanization. It may readily bind to soil particles
(particularly organic matter) and is therefore relatively immobile. Anthropogenic sources of copper include textile
manufacturing, paints, electrical conductors, plumbing fixtures and pipes, wood preservatives, pesticides, fungicides, and
sewage treatment plant effluent (OMOE, 2003). The Philippine Department of Health water quality standard for copper is
1.0 mg/L.
(e) Iron
Precipitation increases runoff that may increase iron concentrations given the fact that iron has an affinity to bind to
sediment particles. The Philippine Department of Public Health (2007) water quality standard for iron is 1.0 mg/L.
(f) Lead
Most lead concentrations found in the environment are the result of human activities. Lead can cause serious health effects
in people including learning disabilities and behavioural disruptions. Lead accumulates in bodies of water and soil
organisms thus entering the food chain resulting in negative health effects. The Philippine Department of Public Health
(2007) water quality standard for lead is 0.01mg/L.
(g) Manganese
Can be found in existing and new water supply systems. Manganese is naturally occurring in many surface and groundwater
sources, particularly in anaerobic or low oxidation conditions. The Philippine Department of Public (2007) water quality
standard for iron is 0.4 mg/L.
(h) Mercury (Total)

Mercury is used in industries such as in the electrolytic production of chlorine, in electrical appliances, in dental amalgams
and as a raw material for various mercury compounds. Mercury occurs naturally in freshwater and groundwater in the
inorganic form. Methlyation of inorganic mercury occurs in freshwater and seawater. The Philippine Department of Public
Health (2007) water quality standard for lead is 0.001mg/L.
August 2016
SURFACE WATER QUANTITY
Mean Annual Total Flow and Mean Monthly Flow
Streamflow or discharge, is defined as the total volume of water flowing through a given section of stream at any one time,
and is mainly comprised of groundwater and surface runoff (TRCA, 2014).
Mean annual total stream flow data are used for stormwater management, water budget models, flood infrastructure
operations, flood forecasting and warning, water quality studies, trend analysis, and impairment models in rivers and lakes.
Permanent gauging stations can provide reliable data on river flow. If this is not available, managers will have to resort to
flow estimates.
Mean annual discharge for the Tigum River from 1950 to 1971 was 4.96 m3/s and 2.10 m3/s from 1985 1989. The mean
annual discharge for the Aganan River from 1951 1971 was 1.69 m3/s (MIWD and CUI. 2013). Reliable data over
extended periods can be used to help communicate trends in the report card.
Jurisdictions should determine mean annual total flow (Stream Flow) and mean monthly flow across all seasons. These data
can be evaluated and presented by total watershed, by river tributary, and by river class. Flow data from 1970 to 1990 serves
as the baseline. Determine mean monthly flow from the most recent five year period. Then produce a graph with twelve
monthly data points. The data points represent the mean monthly flow over a five year period. By graphing this data trends
and major differences can be observed monthly for dry and rainy season months. The Watershed Units are to determine the
percent increase or decrease in mean annual or monthly total flow.
The condition of mean annual total flow or mean monthly flow is presented using Table 16. Presenting grades by sub-
watershed (Table 17) may also be worthwhile depending on what the data shows.
Table 16: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Percent Change in Mean Annual Total Flow or Mean Monthly Flow Over Five Years
Mean Annual or Monthly Total Flow (m3/s) Grade
Maintained 1970-1990 Average (Baseline) 5
5 % Deviation from Baseline 4
10% Deviation from Baseline 3
Table 17: Grades for Percent Change in Mean Annual Total Flow or Mean Monthly Flow by Sub-watershed
Sub-watershed % Change in Mean Annual Total Flow Grade
or Mean Monthly Flow
1
2
4
4
Total Watershed
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Millions of people rely on groundwater from municipal and private wells as their primary source of drinking water. Many
commercial, industrial, agricultural and institutional operations are also dependent on a reliable supply of good quality
groundwater. Overdrawing and contaminating groundwater can have serious implications on individuals and other users.
Therefore, monitoring and communicating current groundwater conditions is an important early warning system for
detecting and responding to changes in water quality and water levels in wells.
August 2016
The ranking criteria and grades for groundwater quality are provided in Table 18.
Table 18: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Bacteria, Chloride and Nitrates/Nitrite in Groundwater Supplies Based on Percent
of Samples Not Exceeding the Maximum Philippine Water Quality Standard
Percent of Nitrate/Nitrite Chloride E. coli Total Grade
Samples Not Coliform
Exceeding (50 mg/L for (250mg/L) Blue Colorless is
Groundwater Nitrates, 80 mg/L fluorescent negative
Quality for Nitrites) positive for
Standard E. coli Yellow is
positive for
coliform
>80 5
70-80 4
60-69 3
50-59 2
<50 1
ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI)
Escherichia coli is a relatively harmless bacterium, which is commonly found in the digestive systems of warm-blooded
animals. Although it represents only 0.1% of gut flora in humans, it is exponentially more abundant than most pathogenic
bacteria. Rather than attempting to detect presence and abundance of scarce/rare pathogenic bacteria, due its abundance, E.
coli is utilized as an indicator of harmful pathogens. If E. coli levels are low, then the assumption is that pathogenic bacteria
levels would be correspondingly low as well. High levels of E. coli are indicative of recent human and/or animal fecal
contamination and raw sewage loading. Elevated bacteria levels in water are often related to land use and waste inputs. E.
coli levels may increase in urbanized areas due to
inadequately designed sewer systems, illegal connections between storm and sanitary sewers, and precipitation events that
carry waste overland into bodies of water. Municipalities use E. coli analyses to ensure that drinking water and recreational
bathing waters are safe (TRCA, 2014). Grades for E. coli are presented using Table 19.
Table 19: Grades for E. coli Levels in Groundwater by Sub-watershed

Sub-watershed % of Samples Meeting Colilert Test Grade
Standard (Fluorescent)
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
TOTAL COLIFORMS
The total coliform group of bacteria are aerobic and facultative anaerobic, gram-negative, non-spore forming, rod-shaped
bacteria. This includes E. coli, the most numerous facultative bacterium in the feces of warm-blooded animals. Total
coliforms are considered part of the natural aquatic flora because of their regrowth in water. Grades for total coliforms by
sub-watershed are presented using Table 20.
August 2016
Table 20: Grades for Total Coliform Levels in Groundwater by Sub-watershed

Sub-watershed % of Samples Meeting ColiAlert Test Grade
Standard (Colourless for Negative vs.
Yellow for Positive)
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
CHLORIDES
Chloride is sometimes found naturally occurring in groundwater supplies. In small background concentrations it doesnt
pose a serious threat. However, wells can be contaminated with elevated chloride levels due to natural causes such as sea-
level variations and hydrologic cycle. Anthropogenic drivers can also result in elevated chloride levels in well water.
Several examples include excessive groundwater removal, disposal of wastes and pollution.
Chloride does not readily absorb onto mineral surfaces, and thus concentrations can also be high in surface water and
shallow aquifers, the latter releasing chloride throughout the year (CCME, 2011). It can be toxic to aquatic organisms with
acute toxic effects at high concentrations and chronic effects (on growth and reproduction) at lower concentrations (OMOE,
2003). The Philippine Department of Health (2007) guideline for chloride is 250 mg/L. Determining the grade for chloride
levels in groundwater is illustrated in Table 21.
Table 21: Grades for Chloride and Nitrate/Nitrite Levels in Groundwater by Sub-watershed
Sub-watershed % of Samples Not Exceeding Water Quality Grade
Standard for Chloride or Nitrates/Nitrites
in Groundwater
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
NITRATES AND NITRITES
Nitrogen occurs naturally in rocks and groundwater. Nitrogen also occurs in various forms in water such as nitrite (NO2),
nitrate (NO3-). Nitrate is the most common form of nitrogen entering freshwater systems and is assimilated by plants. Upon
the decomposition of plant matter, nitrate is converted to ammonia, an energy-efficient source of nitrogen for plants.
Bacteria convert ammonia into nitrate, nitrite, and nitrogen. Nitrite is easily converted and rarely accumulates unless organic
pollution is high. (Wetzel, 2001).
The concentration of nitrogen in groundwater can be significantly increased by anthropogenic activities such as applications
of excessive amounts of fertilizer and manure, and leaky septic systems Nitrite is unstable in aerated water and is generally
considered to be an indicator of pollution through improper disposal of sewage or organic waste. Nitrate can be an indicator
of sewage and organic pollution as well, however the pollution may have occurred in the past or at another location away
from the current point of sampling. The Philippine Department of Health (2007) drinking water quality standard for nitrates
is 50mg/L and 80mg/L for nitrites.
Small watersheds less than 1000 km2 with relatively homogenous geology may only need five or fewer wells for collecting
data. In general, five or more years of data should provide enough information to at least make general comments on the
aquifers water quality (Conservation Ontario, 2013).
August 2016
Determining the grade for nitrate and nitrite levels in groundwater is illustrated in Table 21 above.
GROUNDWATER QUANTITY
The National Irrigation Association (NIA) warned in 1992 that pumping beyond GL-50m levels would be detrimental to
groundwater supplies. Once again in 1997 NIA stated that Metro Iloilo Water District deep wells had reached their
maximum pumping levels at GL-50m over the previous 10 years. In 2009 CSIRI-AusAID validated NIAs observation and
warned over-extraction of the aquifers could lead to further land subsidence and possible saline intrusion into groundwater
supplies of the Tigum-Aganan watershed. This was already being observed in Oton (TAWMB and CUI, 2013). But Metro
Iloilo Water District (MIWD) forecasts that water demand will double in the next 10 years. Water conservation needs to be
taken seriously by everyone.
Communicating the status of groundwater quantity management is based, in part, using Table 22. There is a need to report
well data by Municipality as recommended in Table 23. In the short term, complete inventories of deep wells, well water
levels and water taking permits should be a priority. In the future, extraction and recovery rates need to be monitored in
wells and reported.
Table 22: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Groundwater Quantity Management Specific to Inventories
Groundwater Quantity Management Grade
Completed Inventory of Deep Wells, Water Levels and Permits 5
Inventory 50% Complete 3
No Inventory 1
Table 23: Grades for Level of Completeness of Groundwater Inventories by Municipality

Municipality Degree of Inventory Completeness Grade
1
2
3
4 etc.
WATER CONSUMPTION
Residential, Agricultural and Industrial

The greatest pressure on water consumption in Iloilo province comes from the need to service a growing population. From
2000 to 2010 average daily water consumption grew by almost 27%. In the next 10 years, the Metro Iloilo Water District
(MIWD) estimates that daily demand for water will be twice the MIWDs current capacity (TAWMB and CUI, 2013).
Currently the average water consumption is 164 liters per person per day (L/p/d)
The need to safeguard sources of water and reduce water consumption per capita is part of the solution for a sustainable
water supply in the future.
Refer to Table 24 to determine the grade for current residential water use. Presenting this data by municipality may also be
valuable (Table 25). Grades can also be determined for agricultural and industrial water consumption and reported on a
municipal basis similar to Table 25.
August 2016
Table 24: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Residential Water Consumption
% Complying to Usage Residential Agriculture Industrial Grade
Standard Demand/Supply
164 Crop Water Ratio
L/d/p Duty Standard
Standard
80 and Greater 5
70 to 79 4
60 to 69 3
50 to 59 2
<50 1
Table 25: Grades for Residential Water Consumption by Municipality

Municipality % Complying with Usage Standards Grade
(164 L/d/p) or Less
1
2
3
4 etc.
4.4. AGRICULTURE AND LAND-USE

Prime and Non-Irrigated Agricultural Land Converted to Other Uses
Agriculture is an important contributor to the economy and the lives of Philippine people. It will always be important for
maintaining secure, safe and healthy food production close at hand to city regions to ensure a sustainable region in the
future. But as has been seen in the past there is a constant competition between maintaining good agriculture land for food
production close to large populations and alternative urban development uses.
Monitoring and communicating how well agricultural land is being protected is important because of the need to be able to
grow healthy food close to people. Having abundant agricultural land close to large populations helps to avoid added costs
of packaging and transportation, and reduces energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
How well prime agricultural land and non-irrigated land is being protected from conversion to other uses can be
communicated by using Table 26 and Table 27.
Table 26: Ranking Criteria and Grade for the Protection of Prime and Non-Irrigated Agricultural Land
% of Prime Agricultural Land or Non-Irrigated Agricultural Land Converted to Grade
Other Land Uses
0 5
1 to 2 4
3 to 4 3
5 to 6 2
7 to 8 1
August 2016
Table 27: Grades for the Conversion of Prime and Non-Irrigated Agricultural Land to Other uses by Sub-watershed or
Municipality
Sub-watershed % of Prime or Non-Irrigated Agricultural Land Grade
or Converted to Other Uses
Municipality
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
Protection and Production of Forests Converted to Agriculture
Sometimes the quantity of agricultural land increases at the expense of natural cover such as forests. This can be
communicated by using Tables 28 and 29.
Table 28: Ranking Criteria and Grades for the Conversion and Protection of Forest and Production Forest to Agricultural Land
% of Protection Forest or Production Forest Converted to Agriculture Grade
0 5
1 to 2 4
3 to 4 3
5 to 6 2
7 to 8 1
Table 29: Grades for the Conversion of Protection and Production Forests to Agricultural Land by Sub-watershed or
Municipality
Sub-watershed % of Protection and Production Forest Grade
or Converted to Agricultural Land
Municipality
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
4.5. WASTE MANAGEMENT

Residential Solid Waste
Landfill sites have a finite capacity. As such, it is important that residents, businesses and government agencies divert waste
from landfill sites by reducing, reusing and recycling waste. Decreasing the environmental impact of landfills can come
from producing less waste. Good waste management programs and infrastructure is necessary to reach long-term targets.
Tables 30 and 31 illustrate how to report how well you are doing at diverting residential solid waste from landfill sites.
August 2016
Table 30: Ranking Criteria and Grades Based on the Percent Reduction of Residential Solid Waste Diverted from Landfill Sites
Over Five Years
% Reduction of Solid Waste Diverted From Landfill Sites Over Five Years Grade
10 or Greater 5
8 to 9 4
6 to 7 3
4 to 5 2
<4 1
Table 31: Grades Based on the Percent Reduction of Residential Solid Waste Diverted from Landfill Sites by Municipality
Municipality % Reduction of Solid Wastes Diverted Grade
From Landfill Sites Over Five Years
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
Use of Diverted Waste
Table 32 and 33 illustrates how to report the degree of success for reusing or recycling residential solid waste diverted from
landfill sites
Table 32: Ranking Criteria and Grades Based on the Percent Wastes That Have Been Reused or Recycled Over Five Years
% of Diverted Wastes That Have Been Reused or Recycled Grade
10 or Greater 5
8 to 9 4
6 to 7 3
4 to 5 2
<4 1
Table 33: Grades Based on the Percent of Diverted Wastes Reused or Recycled by Municipality
Municipality % of Diverted Wastes Reused or Recycled Grade
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
Sanitation Compliance and Other Action Plans
Tables 34 and 35 illustrate how to communicate the percentage of sanitation and action plans present for the reporting
period.
August 2016
Table 34: Ranking Criteria and Grades Based on the Percent of Sanitation Standards and Action Plans Present for the Reporting
Period
Percent of Sanitation Standards and Action Plans Present Grade
(Ex. Access to potable water,
sanitary toilets,
proper disposal of solid wastes, assessed by proper inspectors)
>80 5
61 to 80 4
41 to 60 3
20 to 40 2
<20 1
Table 35: Grades based on the Percent of Sanitation Standards and Action by Municipality
Municipality Percent of Sanitation Standards and Action Grade
Plans Present
1
2
3
4 etc.
Total Watershed
4.6. WATERSHED GOVERNANCE
Good environmental governance involves the state, market place and civil society in making decisions and taking actions as
a means of managing environmental matters. Each is bound by rules, procedures, processes and widely accepted behavior.
The condition of watersheds is driven by governance. In some cases it is directed by the decisions and programs of
governments. It can also be affected by how businesses operate, and the attitudes and behaviours of all citizens whose daily
lives impact watersheds.
The condition of watersheds will be influenced by the collective efforts of all stakeholders. These efforts should be tracked.
Recognizing partners and their accomplishments is important. Several key accomplishments can be communicated through
the watershed report cards. Other media opportunities should be used to periodically acknowledge stakeholders who are
making important contributions to protecting, restoring and celebrating their local watersheds.
Watershed Management Councils
Table 36 illustrates the ranking criteria for determining grades based on values considered to be important elements of
functional and effective Watershed Management Councils interested in good watershed management. The first step is to
prepare a matrix identifying the Councils and the selected instruments to be considered part of good governance as
illustrated in Table 37. Each Watershed Management Council within a watershed can be measured in this fashion. An
average grade can then be determined.
Table 36: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Watershed Governance Based on the Organizational, Regulatory Outputs and
Market Incentives of Watershed Management Councils
Number of Selected Instruments In Place for Watershed Management Council Grade
7 to 8 5
5 to 6 4
3 to 4 3
1 to 2 2
Only Proposals 1
August 2016
Table 37: Number of Selected Instruments in Place for Watershed Management Councils and Associated Grade
Instrument Quarterly SOWR Watershed Watershed Environm Short/Long- Designated Other Total Grade
Meetings Updated Mgt. Mgt. ent Fund term Plans PENRO and Instruments
Every Ordinances Resolutions in Allocation and Targets Other
Two In Place Place Watershed
Years Staff
Council 1
Council 2
Council 3
Council 4
Etc.
Average of All
Councils
Stakeholder Participation in Watershed Management Councils
Stakeholders include Indigenous People, businesses, NGOs, funding agencies, foreign governments, farmers, irrigators,
women, youth, cooperatives, POs, NGAs, LGUs, and Academe in the achievement of plans and targets. More grades are
achieved for multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder representation. Participation includes assessment, planning and
implementation actions.
Table 38 illustrates the ranking criteria for determining grades for stakeholder participation in Watershed Management
Councils. Table 39 is used to assign grades to Watershed Management Councils based on the percentage of selected
stakeholders that are participating.
Table 38: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Governance Based on the Percent of Selected Stakeholders Participating in
Watershed Management Councils
Degree of Stakeholder Participation Grade
Full Participation by Majority of Stakeholders 5
Full Participation by Many Stakeholders 4
Full Participation by Some Stakeholders 3
Majority of Stakeholders in Consultation 2
Some Stakeholders in Consultation 1
August 2016
Table 39: Grades based on the Percent of Selected Stakeholders Participating in Watershed Management Councils
Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Other Councils
Indigenous
People
Business
Foreign Govt
Farmers
Irrigators
Women
Youth
Cooperatives
POs
NGAs
LGUs
Academe
Total
Stakeholders
Grade
5. TEMPLATE STYLE GUIDELINES

5.1. SCALE
The sub-watershed level is the most appropriate scale for reporting. The audience will better relate to smaller units.
Information can be presented by municipality as well wherever possible. Government organizations, community groups and
citizens would benefit by knowing how their jurisdiction fares against other units. It provides a means for sharing lessons
learned in watershed management.
Sub-watershed reporting allows environmental changes to be detected more easily over time and this facilitates program
targeting based on environmental need. The actual size and number of sub-watersheds chosen will vary based on a variety
of factors. The key is to identify sub-watersheds that are meaningful and identifiable to the intended audiences. For
example, a watershed that is known already by name and identified by the local public would be an appropriate choice. Sub-
watersheds that can be used to communicate conditions to political jurisdictions could be valuable as well. The number of
sub-watersheds should be practical to monitor on a long-term basis given the available resources of the local partners. For
example, it is preferred to have one water quality monitoring site per sub-watershed that represents the quality of water at
the outlet. However, it is left to the discretion of each governing jurisdictions to determine the appropriate site or sites to
represent conditions in the sub-watershed. Where there is not yet a monitoring site established in a particular sub-watershed,
this should be indicated as a data gap and this could be a recommendation for future action. Generally, the number of sub-
watersheds used by Conservation Authorities in Ontario, Canada for watershed report cards ranges from 10 to 20.
5.2. TARGET AUDIENCE

It is good practice to confirm the intended audience of the report card: is it residents, agencies, government, media,
businesses? The report card should be written to suit the targeted audience.
5.3. TIMING OF REPORT CARDS AND PERIODIC BULLETINS

Since changes in the environment happen slowly. A five-year cycle is generally considered a suitable timeframe for
producing report cards. In the interim, smaller bulletins could be considered to report news worthy events, changes, or
efforts to help keep environmental reporting forefront in the minds of decision makers and constituents.
August 2016
5.4. FORMAT
A common appearance for report cards across the province will strengthen the brand:
DIMENSIONS
8.5 x 11 landscape
Folded to two column, 8 panel
Margins .5
FONT
9 to 11 Calibri
COLOUR SCHEME
Use colour pallet based on cultural preferences.
CONTENT
Cover page include name of watershed, names of persons/agency who prepared the report and date. Centre
this information on the page.
Introductory pages include an executive summary, acknowledgements, background and purpose of the report
card; explain how conditions are assessed using ranking criteria and the report card components such as trend
arrow, targets, current key efforts, recommended priority actions, and responsible lead organization.
Indicator pages refer to two sample templates in Sections 5.5 and 5.6. The location of content and
approximate space allocation for the subsections (ranking criteria, grade, trend arrow, targets, key efforts,
recommended actions, stakeholder responsible for recommended action) is provided.
LOGOS
Use provincial, municipal and Iloilo Watershed Management Council logos.
MAPPING
Use provincial context map, watershed map requirements and reference details such as place names, sub-
watershed boundaries, legend, title box, symbols and directional arrow so readers can easily relate to the
watershed being presented and consistency is maintained for all outputs.
FIGURES AND TABLES
All figures and tables should have a consistent appearance. Each should be numbered and have a title that
corresponds to the List of Figures and Tables in the Table of Content. Label tables and figures sufficiently so
they are clear on what information and messages they are attempting to convey.
August 2016
CONTACT INFORMATION
Include electronic addresses, phone numbers and names of persons to contact at PENRO and Watershed
Management Council.
DATA SOURCES
Include data sources and year(s) on maps, figures, tables, charts and other images.
5.5. SAMPLE REPORT CARD TEMPLATES

The following two examples illustrate the style guidelines when applied to the forest cover indicator for the Jar-ao,Tangyan-
Guimbal watershed, and the water quality indicator for the Tigum-Aganan watershed.
August 2016
Sample Report Card Template Rural Typology

Sample #1: Forest Cover Template for Jar-ao, Tangyan-Guimbal Watershed
August 2016
Sample Report Card Template Urban Typology

Sample #2: Surface Water Quality Template for the Tigum- Aganan
August 2016
6. LITERATURE CITED
Conservation Ontario, 2011. Guide to Developing Conservation Authority Watershed Report Cards.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2007. Summary of Canadian water quality guidelines for the
protection of aquatic life. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 2007, Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, Winnipeg.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2011. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of
aquatic life: Chloride. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, Winnipeg.
Makela, A. and M. Meybeck, 1996. Designing a Monitoring Program. United Nations Environment Program and World
Health Organization.
Mittermeier, R.A. 2002. In Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities: A Second Iteration of the National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan. Dept. of Environment and Natural resources-Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Conservation
International Philippines, Biodiversity Conservation Program-University of the Philippines Centre for Integrative and
development Studies, and Foundation for Philippine Environment, Quezon City, Philippines.
Ontario Ministry Environment and Energy (OMOEE). 2003. Water Sampling and Data Analysis Manual for Partners in the
Ontario Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (DRAFT).
Republic of the Philippines Department of Health, 2007. Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water.
Tigum-Aganan Watershed Management Board and Canadian Urban Institute. 2013. State of the Tigum-Aganan Watershed
Report.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2011. The Living City Report Card.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2014. 2013 Surface Water Quality Summary: Regional Watershed Monitoring
Program.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2014. Water Monitoring and Reporting Progress Report.
Wetzel, R. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. Third edition. San Diego. Academic Press.
World Meteorological Organization. 2013. Planning of Water Quality Monitoring Systems. Geneva, Switzerland

Watershed Report Card Template Iloilo Watershed Management Council

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Watershed Report Card Template Iloilo Watershed Management Council

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Template for Preparing Report Cards

on the Health of Watersheds in the

With technical support provided by the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI)

3.1. Indicators and Measures .............................................................................................................................. 4

i|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

3. Identify short and long term targets.

4. Identify community actions that are contributing to the health of watersheds.

1|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

2|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

3|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

3. WATERSHED REPORT CARD COMPONENTS

3.1. INDICATORS AND MEASURES

1. Is the indicator relevant and understandable by the target audience?

Table 1: List of Indicators, Parameters and Measures for Iloilo Province

Indicator Parameter Measure

Flagship Species # of flagship species identified, categorized and

4|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

Indicator Parameter Measure

Pesticides % of samples not exceeding mg/L standard

Flow % Deviation of mean monthly flow over 5 Years

Nitrates/Nitrites % of samples not exceeding mg/L standard

5|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

Table 2: Description of Grades

6|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

3.3. TREND INDICATOR

Much better data suggests condition is significantly improving

Better data suggests condition is moderately improving

No Change data suggests no measureable change in condition

Worse data suggests condition has degraded moderately

Much worse data suggests condition is significantly getting worse

3.5. RECENT MAJOR EFFORTS

7|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

3.6. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

3.7. LEAD PARTNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Table 3: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Forest Quantity

Table 4: Grades for Forest Quantity by Sub-watershed

8|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

Table 5: Grades for Forest Quantity in Each Watershed Municipality

Table 7: Ranking Criteria and Grades for Forest Quality

# of Forest Growth Stages Present Grade

9|Monitoring Framework v.8.16

Flagship Species Identified and Categorized 3

Flagship Species Identified 1

(a) Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS

Table 11: Grades for Total Suspended Solids by Sub-watershed

ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI)

Table 12: Grades for E. coli Levels by Sub-watershed

NITRATES AND NITRITES

Table 13: Grades for Nitrate or Nitrite Levels by Sub-watershed

Table 14: Grades for Pesticides (to be determined) by Sub-watershed

(c) Chromium (Total)

(h) Mercury (Total)

SURFACE WATER QUANTITY

Mean Annual Total Flow and Mean Monthly Flow

ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI)

Table 19: Grades for E. coli Levels in Groundwater by Sub-watershed

Table 20: Grades for Total Coliform Levels in Groundwater by Sub-watershed

NITRATES AND NITRITES

Table 23: Grades for Level of Completeness of Groundwater Inventories by Municipality

Residential, Agricultural and Industrial

Table 25: Grades for Residential Water Consumption by Municipality

4.4. AGRICULTURE AND LAND-USE

Protection and Production of Forests Converted to Agriculture