Wetland Wednesday

July 22, 2020

This is part one in a three-part discussion on the good, the bad and the ugly of online learning.  We hope that this will help both students and teachers prepare for the upcoming school year and that they will benefit from our lessons learned discussion.  Please share this with any educators you know.

The demand for online classes and training has grown exponentially as a result of COVID-19.  Public and private elementary, middle and high schools are turning to online classes as well as colleges and universities.  Working from home and collaborating with co workers is made possible using a number of online education tools.  I think that it is a safe bet to say that online education is here to stay and may even replace traditional forms of education.

As with anything new to the marketplace there are good aspects of this and bad.  Probably the biggest issue is the lack of student social interaction coupled with a teacher’s inexperience with the online format.  Most teachers were not anticipating having to jump right into online learning and it is unfair to expect that they would immediately know how to run a virtual classroom.

Student social distancing is difficult if not impossible to manage in a traditional classroom setting.  Unfortunately, online learning makes student social interaction very limited and the life lesson cost of the loss of student social interaction will be high.  However, there are some things we can do to make it a little better with the online format and we will discuss these in the coming weeks.

Online classes have a short but dynamic history.  We can probably put a start date on the online education technology around 2003.  The Swamp School, being an early adopter to anything new and shiny started its first online wetland delineation class in 2006.  We have learned a lot about what works and what does not work having taught thousands of online students in the last 14 years.

First, a Zoom meeting is not online learning.    Zoom meetings much like its real-life counterpart, the office meeting is largely a waste of time.  There may be a few tidbits of knowledge transferred, but given the time spent versus the benefit received, there must be a better way to transfer information.  At least in the office meeting there are no barking dogs, kids running around, washing machines running and all the other generally noisy mayhem of normal home life.  There are better ways to teach online without Zoom as we will discuss.

A successful online learning program needs to be built upon a learning management system (LMS).  There are several very good LMS platforms in the marketplace.  The top three are Moodle, Blackboard, and Schoology.  There are also a few very bad ones.  Google Classroom tops this list.  The adage, “you get what you pay for” is very true when exploring LMS systems.  Blackboard and Schoology are both proprietary LMS systems.  They are hosted by the LMS providers and you pay a monthly or annual fee to keep them running.  This fee can be quite high.  Moodle is open source and therefore free to use.  However, it is like getting a free puppy.  The puppy is free but the vet bills, food, housing etc. are not.  Moodle is very good but requires a robust server system to run on and IT experts to keep it operating smoothly.  We use Moodle at the Swamp School and have been very happy with it, but it is not free to run and the server costs maintenance are similar to the hosted LMS fees.

Google Classroom is free.  It has very few features and you give Google all your private teaching materials to do what ever the heck it wants to do with it.  If you have any class materials that are unique or proprietary, they are available for all to see in the Google universe.   

Google Classroom was developed out of a much smaller company that Google purchased and put out of business.  It has very limited features, but if all you are looking for is a way to post publicly your class materials on a bulletin board then this is an easy and free way to do it. 

Classroom control is a starting point for most LMS systems.  Who can access your information and for how long is important to keep students on task.  Having due dates for assignments and tests are critical to keeping a student engaged.  We have seen this over the years.  Students need gentle reminders to keep engaged with the class.

Most of the better LMS systems start with an admissions setup that gives the student a username and password.  From there they are enrolled into a class.  There should be a defined start and end date to the class and a way for the student to see their progress in the class.  The more automated tracking of assignments the better.  This will help both the teacher and student keep up to date on the class.

Speaking of teachers, there should be one assigned to the class.  The teacher should be available to the students to answer questions in a timely manner.  Generally, student questions should be addressed by the teacher during the normal class day or the next class day at the latest.  It is critical to have a live teacher as part of the class.  As good as you think your presentation materials may be, a teacher is still needed to answer those “what if” and “I don’t understand” questions that always come up.

Many technical training schools require a subject matter expert (SME) to prepare presentation materials to explain a difficult topic.  However, SMEs generally make lousy teachers.  They may be an expert on a topic, but teaching is a skill unto its own.  If a teacher can grasp the topic, they can find a way to explain it to the student in a much more meaningful way.  The teacher’s top skill is communications which is often lacking with many SMEs.

Next week we will discuss how to organize your class materials to make it more effective for your students.

Wetland Wednesday

July 8, 2020

The Ohio EPA issued a public notice for a new Draft General Permit for Impacts to Ephemeral Streams and Isolated Wetlands to address the recently finalized Navigable Waters Protection Federal Rule that is effective as of June 22, 2020.  The OH comment period ended on June 17, 2020.  This new rule is intended to fill the jurisdictional gaps that arise form the new federal rule.  The final OH rule went into effect on June 25, 2020.

The Ohio rule is based out of a concern that the new Navigable Waters Protect Rule (NWPR) eliminates certain waters from federal jurisdiction.  The new OH rules’ intention is to regulate what would have been otherwise historically federally jurisdictional.  Ephemeral streams (those that flow primarily during rainfall events) and isolated wetlands will no longer be subject to federal oversight under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  Ohio (and many other states) that have relied on federally delegated permitting authority to protect these resources can no longer issue permits under the authority of the CWA. However, states can use their own state authority to protect these resources.

Rather than adopt new state regulations, Ohio has modified its existing permit program to include special consideration for ephemeral streams and isolated wetlands.  These include additional permit conditions for ephemeral streams that fall under these permit programs:

• Construction Storm Water General Permit
• 401 Water Quality Certification
• Isolated Wetland Permit

Ohio also has in place an existing Isolated Wetland Permit program.  This program will persist to protect isolated wetlands and has been in use since 2001.

Ephemeral streams generally are above the water table and stormwater is the primary source of stream flow.  They help control run-off and erosion.  The filter pollutants and they help reduce flooding.

Isolated wetlands tend to be small and may or may not have a groundwater connection.  They do serve as unique short-term habitat for a number of rare species (vernal pools for example).  They also help as nutrient sinks and they store storm water during wet weather events. 

The modified permit program does exclude certain water bodies from its jurisdiction including agricultural ditches, roadside ditches, and grass swale waterways.

There may or may not be mitigation required for impacts to ephemeral streams and isolated wetlands.  Currently, the existing guidance for impact thresholds seems to remain the same as it was prior to the federal rule.  However, this may change as time goes on. 

This new program is a good example of states taking the regulation of aquatic resources into their own hands.  This was anticipated in the drafting of the NWPR and will hopefully focus attention on water resources that are important to local communities.

Wetland Wednesday

June 17, 2020

As part of the new Navigable Waters Protection Rule the EPA and the US ACOE are developing national standards for classifying perennial and intermittent streams. The EPA defines Streamflow Duration Assessment Methods (SDAMs) as “rapid field assessment methods that use hydrological, geomorphological, and/or biological indicators, observable in a single site visit, to classify streamflow duration as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral at the reach scale.”

The goal of SDAM is determine if a stream can be classified as perennial, intermittent or ephemeral. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule does not include ephemeral streams as part of its Waters of the US (WotUS) definition. Therefore the SDAM serves as a jurisdictional determinant as well as a stream classification method. Only perennial and intermittent streams are regulated as WotUS.

The SDAM is envisioned to be a regional tool that will have many variations based upon local concerns and priorities. Currently there are five published methodologies that EPA is considering as eligible for its SDAM program. These include:

• SDAM for the Pacific Northwest
• North Carolina Method
• New Mexico Method
• Tennessee Guidance for Hydrologic Determinations
• Fairfax County, Virginia Perennial Stream Field Identification Protocol

In addition the EPA is expanding the development of SDAMs based upon regional ecological differences. These regions overlap the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ordinary High Water Mark Scientific Support Document as shown above. In the meantime, the aforementioned methodologies can be used to support a new jurisdictional determination request. Don’t forget these new rules go into effect next week.

Wetland Wednesday

June 3, 2020

Just how accurate are vegetation inventories? Currently, we are allowed to do a visual estimate of percent cover of a given plant species. Based upon the 2018 US Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List we can determine whether a site has a hydrophytic plant community. Two issues arise from this methodology. The first of course is the proper identification of the plant species. Most wetland biologists put forth a tremendous effort in trying to correctly identify both the genus and species of a given plant. However, the second issue is the estimate of percent cover. This is highly subjective and prone to large error.

The procedure for determining percent cover is a simple guesstimate of looking up into the sky and estimating how much cover each species occupies. Similarly, we also look downwards and estimate the aerial cover of smaller species. The problem lies in the fact that it’s a guess. If you were to have a dozen wetland biologists on a given site I can almost guarantee that you will have a dozen sets of data. The problem is exasperated by the fact that it is entirely possible for one group of individuals to identify a plant community as being hydrophytic and another group looking at the exact same plant community and finding it to be upland.

How is this possible? Well quite simply the problem lies in the data collection itself. The current methodology can have variances in excess of 20 to 30%. If you were to go to court and had to defend your data what would be your comfort level given this type of variance?

Fortunately, the US Army Corps of Engineers has published another plant collection methodology. Buried deep in the back of the regional supplements in what is usually appendix B is the procedure called the point intercept sampling method. This procedure is highly accurate and can have a variance of less than 1% among numerous data collectors. As you might suspect it takes a bit longer to do this type of procedure but the data is rock solid.

The following procedure is taken directly from US Army Corps of Engineers regional supplements for wetland delineations. It is highly recommended that you consider incorporating this procedure into your routine wetland delineation methods. As part of our wetland delineation programs we are now offering training using this methodology.  Please review the methodology outlined below and let us know your comments.

Appendix B: Point-Intercept Sampling Procedure for Determining Hydrophytic Vegetation

The following procedure for point-intercept sampling is an alternative to plot-based sampling methods to estimate the abundance of plant species in a community. The approach may be used with the approval of the appropriate Corps of Engineers District to evaluate vegetation as part of a wetland delineation. Advantages of point-intercept sampling include better quantification of plant species abundance and reduced bias com- pared with visual estimates of cover. The method is useful in communities with high species diversity, and in areas where vegetation is patchy or heterogeneous, making it difficult to identify representative locations for plot sampling. Disadvantages include the increased time required for sampling and the need for vegetation units large enough to permit the establishment of one or more transect lines within them. The approach also assumes that soil and hydrologic conditions are uniform across the area where transects are located. In particular, transects should not cross the wetland boundary. Point-intercept sampling is generally used with a transect-based prevalence index (see below) to determine whether vegetation is hydrophytic.

In point-intercept sampling, plant occurrence is determined at points located at fixed intervals along one or more transects established in random locations within the plant community or vegetation unit. If a transect is being used to sample the vegetation near a wetland boundary, the transect should be placed parallel to the boundary and should not cross either the wetland boundary or into other communities. Usually a measuring tape is laid on the ground and used for the transect line.  Transect length depends upon the size and complexity of the plant community and may range from 100 to 300 ft (30 to 90 m) or more. Plant occurrence data are collected at fixed intervals along the line, for example every 2 ft (0.6 m). At each interval, a “hit” on a species is recorded if a vertical line at that point would intercept the stem or foliage of that species. Only one “hit” is recorded for a species at a point even if the same species would be intercepted more than once at that point. Vertical intercepts can be determined using a long pin or rod protruding into and through the various vegetation layers, a sighting device (e.g., for the canopy), or an imaginary vertical line. The total number of “hits” for each species along the transect is then determined. The result is a list of species and their frequencies of occurrence along the line (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974, Tiner 1999). Species are then categorized by wetland indi- cator status (i.e., OBL, FACW, FAC, FACU, or UPL), the total number of hits determined within each category, and the data used to calculate a transect-based prevalence index. The formula is similar to that given in Chapter 2 for the plot-based prevalence index (see Indicator 3), except that frequencies are used in place of cover estimates. The community is hydrophytic if the prevalence index is 3.0 or less. To be valid, more than 80 percent of “hits” on the transect must be of species that have been identified correctly and placed in an indicator category.

The transect-based prevalence index is calculated using the following formula:

PI = FOBL + 2FFACW + 3FFAC + 4FFACU + 5FUPL

FOBL + FFACW + FFAC + FFACU + FUPL

where:

PI  =  prevalence index

FOBL   =  frequency of obligate (OBL) plant species;

FFACW  =  frequency of facultative wetland (FACW) plant species;

FFAC   =  frequency of facultative (FAC) plant species;

FFACU   =  frequency of facultative upland (FACU) plant species;

FUPL   =  frequency of upland (UPL) plant species.

Wetland Wednesday

May 20, 2020

It is with a heavy heart that I must write to you today to tell you of the demise of the New Jersey School of Conservation (NJSOC).  Montclair State University has announced the permanent closing of the school effective July 1, 2020.  It was 71 this year succumbing to complications associated with COVID-19.  It had underlying conditions that stemmed from the State of New Jersey’s withdrawal of financial support going back to 2010 leaving Montclair solely responsible for its welfare.  However, recent budget shortfalls arising out of the pandemic have forced the University to pull the plug on the school’s life support.  The school is survived by 20 now unemployed staff and tens of thousands of students who have benefited from the knowledge and experienced shared at NJSOC over the past 71 years.

The New Jersey School of Conservation was born out of the idea that, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”

In 1949, the School was built from an abandoned Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp.  Its primary mission at the time was to provide a place to educate inner city children about the outdoors.  In the subsequent years it had evolved into a teacher training facility that all NJ state college students would attend.  Montclair Normal School was New Jersey’s teaching academy and had very close ties to NJSOC that eventually lead to Montclair State College assuming control of the school in 1981.  Along with this assumption came an annual state grant to sustain the school.  The grant was to be provided by the NJ State Legislature in perpetuity however, in 2010 the grant was revoked by the state.  Since then, Montclair State University was solely responsible for the school’s upkeep.

From its founding NJSOC taught environmental stewardship values and science.  It was one of the largest centers of its type in the world and was the birthplace of environmental education.  There are many educators, scientists, authors, legislators, artists, and more who have had their lives inexorably changed because of their time at NJSOC.  From summer camp experiences to teacher training workshops, to school field trips NJSOC has been there to educate and inform its students about the importance of conservation of natural resources.

I find it ironic and quite sad that in this age of environmental awareness the school would succumb to neglect.  There are very few places, especially in New Jersey where students can immerse themselves in the beauty of a hemlock forest and learn about stream ecology.  Then, spend an evening listening to barred owls calling before going to bed.  It heralds an ancient time when we were much closer to the ecology we are very much a part of.

How important is it to learn about the trees and wildflowers around you?  Do you really care what that bird is?  Does wetland or stream ecology really matter all that much?

Without places to teach these things the knowledge will be lost.  We see this every day.  How few of us know our birds, or flowers or trees.  We expect someone out there should know them, but this needs to be handed down from generation to generation.  Without a place to teach this, it will be forgotten.

I am writing this from North Carolina.  About a decade ago North Carolina closed the Office of Environmental Education.  There was a big letter writing campaign to keep it open.  While there were some cutbacks, the program remains today stronger than ever.  Your opinion matters.  So, if you are in New Jersey write your representative and tell them to fund the New Jersey School of Conservation as was promised in 1981.  If you are not from New Jersey, spread the word that places like NJSOC are important and need to be supported.

In lieu of flowers, please send a letter of environmental education support to your elected representatives.

Thanks,

Marc Seelinger, NJSOC Camp Wapalanne Staff, 1985
Montclair State College Class of 1987

Breaking News!

Surrounded by extended family and friends the patient is showing signs of life! It is well attended by many loving caretakers and with your help we may well save it. Keep those letters coming in! They really help. To keep up to date on how the school is doing visit The Friends of the NJ School of Conservation page for all of the latest news.