Developed by Vancouver Water Resources Education Center with funding from the WA Department of Ecology

Field Investigations Overview and Evaluation Introduction Watershed Monitoring Network Background Over the past 16 years, the Vancouver Water Resources Education Center, with funding from the City of Vancouver and Clark County, have brought more than 35,000 students to nearby streams, lakes or bioswales to collect watershed data in 12 of the 16 major watersheds in Clark County, Washington. Data collection has focused on physical water quality parameters, macroinvertebrates and fecal coliform. Annually, between 2,500 to 3,000 students, grades 1 through 12 participate in this program which includes not only field monitoring but an annual “Congress” at which students present their findings to the broader community of professionals and other citizens. Participating teachers, usually about 50, are invited to a “kick-off” training in early fall that informs new teachers and provides additional professional development on watershed issues to returning teachers. Program Expansion with Washington Department of Ecology (GROSS) grant Ecology funding for 2014 and the first two months of 2015 allowed staff to expand student investigations beyond water quality parameters and macroinvertebrates. The focus of the new studies was on stormwater factors related to monitoring or school sites. Eight new investigations were developed: 4 soil, 2 plant, 1 photo point monitoring and an expanded initial site survey. These and the existing water quality investigations were aligned to Common Core standards in use by upper elementary and middle schools and to the new Next Generation Science Standards (NGGS) adopted in 2013 by the State of Washington. Additional program components were the organization of three Family Watershed Festivals during the grant period that were designed to attract the families of monitoring students and the community. Guidelines to Leading Students in Investigations

The Vancouver Watershed Monitoring Network is a multi-age, multi-school district program that works primarily with grades 4 through 8 from 6 school districts located within Clark County, Washington. The Investigations were written for a target audience of about 6th grade. Since we also work with grades both lower and higher than this range, we have tried to include extensions that can be customized to best fit the monitoring group. This grade level range has also guided our choice of monitoring equipment. We deliberately chose tools that are not “black box” so that students could understand more clearly what the test means. For example, we do not use meters very often: students

understand turbidity more clearly when they use a visual instrument like a turbidity tube rather than a turbidimeter that provides just a number for describing water clarity. Format/Design of Investigations Headings for each section of the Investigation were chosen deliberately. These headings use the 5E Instructional Model (see below), which is a research based instructional sequence model recommended by the National Research Council (NRC). We have also tried to incorporate Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels that measure student depth of knowledge using key words that vary in their level of complexity. These levels are similar to those of Bloom’s Taxonomy for developing critical thinking skills. Explanatory notes on various headings: Why/How

Clearly relates why soil and plant data collected in this investigation impacts water quality. We recommend these be reviewed as part of the “training” for each monitoring activity. Example: What is the relationship between soil permeability and water quality?

Suggestions Includes time required, recommended order of investigations, how frequent

and what season Standards

Alignment is provided in separate documents for elementary and middle school NOTE: Washington adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in October, 2013. Until the new NGSS assessments become operational (spring 2017 or 2018), there will be an overlap between the assessment of the 2009 standards and the implementation of NGSS. For current information, go to http://www.k12.wa.us/Science/NGSS/NGSS-AssessmentDescriptionTimeline.pdf Vocabulary

By “vocabulary,” we mean terms students may not already know. Not all these words are defined in the Why/How text. Educators can work them in at whatever level is appropriate for students.

Engage: Activities for the classroom prior to field investigation. Explore: Procedure for field investigation. Explain: Questions directly based on field investigation. Evaluate: In the classroom or in the field after the field investigation, these questions require deeper thinking and synthesis of concepts. Extend: Classroom activities for varying student levels after field investigation.

Resources: Some are references used to develop our version of the investigations; others are technical studies applicable to various student levels.

For activities recommended in the Engage and Extend sections, we have chosen to use several from well-tested and award winning curricula to support Investigation concepts. There are many other excellent activities available from these curricula for extension or to meet other classroom content needs. 2 | P a g e

1. Project Wet www.projectwet.org

Curricula used include: Project Wet 2.0, Healthy Water, Healthy People Water Quality Education Guide, Healthy Water, Healthy People Field Investigations and many Project Wet downloadable activities

From the Project Wet website: “The award-winning, NSTA-recommended Project WET Curriculum and Activity Guide 2.0 continues Project WET’s dedication to 21st-century, cutting-edge water education. Correlated to Common Core Standards and with correlations to Next Generation Science Standards underway, the Curriculum and Activity Guide 2.0 gives educators of children from kindergarten to twelfth grade the tools they need to integrate water education into every school subject. The guide also includes numerous extensions for using the activities in Pre-K environments. Featuring 64 field-tested activities, more than 500 color photographs and illustrations, and useful appendices with information on teaching methods, assessment strategies, and more, this guide is an essential classroom tool and an excellent resource for pre-service teachers.”

Availability: Project Wet 2.0 is available through workshops. To find a workshop near you, go to the Project Wet website. Other Project Wet activities are available without attending a workshop.

2. Project Learning Tree www.plt.org

Curricula include: Examples of Books: Environmental Education Activity Guide, Green Schools! Investigations and Places We Live.

From the Project Learning Tree website: “Project Learning Tree's award-winning curriculum resources help over half a million educators teach complex environmental issues. They can be integrated into lesson plans for all grades and subject areas to help students learn how to make sound choices about the environment.”

Availability: Most PLT materials are made available to educators through professional development workshops. Go to the PLT website to look for workshops in Washington and other states. Some PLT materials can be purchased directly from the PLT store.https://www.plt.org. Others are available through workshops.

3. Wonder of Wetlands www.wetland.org/education_wow.htm

From the WOW website: “WOW! The Wonders of Wetlands is an instructional guide for educators that provides a resourceful and creative collection of wetland activities, information, and ideas. WOW! includes over 50 hands-on multidisciplinary activities in lesson plan format, extensive background information on wetlands, ideas for student action projects, and a wetlands resource guide.” Availability: The Project Wet store offers this guide. You are not required to take a workshop to purchase the book. Notes for specific Investigations (Not all Investigations require additional notes) Initial Site Assessment and Observations Feel free to adapt to your class The form is inclusive so you can pick and choose pertinent data to collect. Use this data as reference for subsequent visits: Review before returning to the site Map: fit level of detail to ability of your class. The objective is to sharpen observational skills. Some classes create a “master map” after the first visit and add changes during the year. 3 | P a g e

Riparian Zone Vegetation Survey

PVC vegetation survey frame construction instructions Materials

• 4 meters (13 feet) PVC irrigation pipe, ¾ inch to 1 inch diameter • 4 PVC elbow joints to fit the pipe • ABS cement or silicone seal • 2 1.5 meter lengths of string or twine

Instructions

• Cut the pipe into 4 one meter sections. • Drill a hole through the center point of each section through both sides of the pipe • Use glue (for permanent) or silicone seal (for detachable) use. Attach one elbow joint to each

section and let dry. • Thread the string through the hole and tie off one end one two of the sections • Assemble the square by pushing the ends of the pipes into the joints until the square is formed. • Tie the loose end of a string into the center hole on the opposite section. Repeat with the other

sections. Canopy viewer construction instructions

Materials • Plastic potato chip can (such as Lays) • String • Duct tape

Instructions

• Remove can lid and cut bottom off can. • Cut two pieces of string long enough to go across can opening and extend down both sides 2

inches. • Place on string across can opening and tape into position.

4 | P a g e

• Place second string perpendicular to first string across can opening and tape down. • Wrap tape around sides of can to cover string ends.

Erosion and Compaction Question 3 in the “Evaluate” section asks students to predict areas on their site that might show the most erosion after rainfall. Bring these predictions with you on each field trip to compare predictions to observations of erosion. Of course, this depends on the timing of rain events with site visits. Soil Corers: Color, Texture and Moisture Warning: This Investigation is messy! As noted in the Materials list, take buckets for water and towels to clean up As mentioned in the rationale for this Investigation, urban soils are very different from non-disturbed soils which are the model used in most textbooks. Disturbed soils will most likely not show typical soil horizons. The soil corer does not collect soil deep enough to look at undisturbed soils. Soil Permeability Your students are measuring infiltration in this Investigation. If you or they are familiar with septic fields, you might make an analogy to “perc” tests necessary to permit septic systems. However, all we have set up here is a activity that looks at the relative time it takes one liter of water to go through soil. This is not a permeability or porosity number but can be used on the same day to compare different areas at the monitoring site. Investigations Available From the Project As noted above, the project resulted in the completion of eleven investigations that detail lesson plans for the following field studies. Each of these is available as a separate document from the project website. Site Survey

• Initial Site Assessment and Observations

• Photo-point Monitoring

Water Quality • Temperature, pH and Dissolved Oxygen

• Nitrate and Phosphate

• Turbidity and Stream Measurements

Plant • Riparian Zone Vegetation Survey

• Riparian Zone Tree Survey Soil

• Soil Cores: Color, Texture and Moisture

• Soil Temperature, Moisture and pH

• Soil Permeability

• Erosion Sources and Soil Compaction Implementation of Investigations during the Grant Period From January 2014 through February 2015, the Department of Ecology grant supported the ongoing efforts of the Water Center’s Student Watershed Monitoring Network operations in Clark County. As new investigations were added, they were field tested to assure that the instructions, equipment and approaches were effective from the perspective of classroom students, teachers and the Water Center staff and contractors who support the program. Evaluation and refinement of the investigations was a primary objective throughout the year so that those unfamiliar with the program could pick-up the investigation documents once finalized and have a reasonable expectation for success in utilizing them with their own students. The following pages explain the 6 goals for the investigations that were selected and implemented as well as the evaluation that was undertaken of the program’s experience in achieving targeted outcomes within the grant period. A brief discussion after the Goals section provides a useful summary of what worked and of ways that the program and the investigations might be improved. The posted investigations have been improved as a result of the evaluation process.

5 | P a g e

Following this discussion is a summary of the Watershed Congress event on May 23, 2014. Ideally, the grant effort would have extended into mid 2015 so that a full academic year (2014-2015) of experience in utilizing the investigations, and particularly the new added ones, would have been concluded; however, this was not possible due to the grant funding cycle. The 2014 Watershed Congress was none-the-less the culmination of the 2013-2014 academic experience for students involved in the program and provided a great end of the year opportunity for students and teachers alike to share the results of their new knowledge and experiences with others involved in similar endeavors and also with key community members interested in their efforts. Evaluation of Investigations Project Goals Staff documented metrics of success for the newly implemented Investigations based on the following goals:

Goal 1: To add plant and soil student monitoring investigations to water investigations of streams, rivers, wetlands and bioswales in Clark County. These and existing investigations will be aligned to state standards. Goal 2: To take students from diverse schools outdoors to a waterbody and lead them in monitoring land and water to increase understanding of their watershed and natural neighborhood. Goal 3: By developing investigations that explore soil and water, students will begin to understand that what happens on the land impacts water quality in the watershed.

Goal 4: To help students make the connection between rain water and stormwater; to suggest ways that student and family activities impact water quality.

Goal 5: To inform and train teachers to understand the significance of land monitoring to water quality. Goal 6: To encourage students and teachers in identifying ways to improve the habitat and/or water quality at their monitoring site or school.

6 | P a g e

Goal 1: New soil and plant investigations; alignment to state standards Program Components New (soil, plant, photo point monitoring) investigations Water quality investigations (redesigned to fit newly developed format) Alignment of investigations to Common Core and NGGS standards for grades 4-5 and 6-8 New Investigations - Eight new land and plant investigations were developed (as noted in blue below).

Site Survey

• Initial Site Assessment and Observations

• Photo-point Monitoring

Soil

• Soil Cores: Color, Texture and Moisture

• Soil Temperature, Moisture and pH

• Erosion Sources and Soil Compaction

• Soil Permeability

Plant

• Riparian Zone Tree Survey

• Riparian Zone Vegetation Survey

Water Quality

• Temperature, pH and Dissolved Oxygen

• Nitrate and Phosphate

• Turbidity and Stream Measurements

Alignment to Washington State Standards An important element of the project undertaken for the Department of Ecology was to demonstrate how the investigations meet Washington State’s Learning Standards. It is important for teachers and administrators to be able to explain how work being undertaken by students in the classroom aligns with these standards. The vast majority of students participating in the Watershed Monitoring Network are in grades 4 through 8. Of the 102 classes monitoring in the 2014-15 school year, only 10 do not fall in the grades 4 through 8 range. Therefore, the investigations were written to primarily target those students in grades 4 through 8 with the suggestion that teachers can pick and choose among the investigations and make any modifications needed to tailor the content for their particular grade level/classes. Most investigations can also be easily used with general high school science classes. Existing or previous Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRS) and Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) have been tied to assessment in different grades for different content areas. The new Common Core standards have just been fully implemented in the 2014-2015 school year to assess reading, writing and math in grades 4 and 7 and high school. Other assessment, such as the EOC (End of Course) for high school mathematics and biology is only done in grade 10.

7 | P a g e

The twelve investigations developed by the Watershed Monitoring Network team are aligned in two separate documents: Grades 4-5 and grades 6-8. Each investigation was aligned with current Washington State K-12 learning standards, with math and language arts (ELA) Common Core and with the adopted but not yet implemented Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Please note: The Washington State 2009 K-12 Science Learning Standards are being phased out as the State transitions to the newly adopted Washington State 2013 K-12 Science Learning Standards (Next Generation Science Standards). The new standards describe what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. Goal 2: Include diverse schools/students About 2,600 Clark County students, grades 1 through 12, representing 102 classes from 23 schools participated in the 2014-2015 Watershed Monitoring Network. Schools are located in both urban and rural areas and in Vancouver, the largest city in Clark County and smaller cities like Camas and La Center. An average of 35% of students in Network schools participate in the free and reduced lunch program which often is a measure of different levels of diversity in schools. In the two largest school districts, Vancouver and Evergreen, an average of 50% of students participate in the free and reduced lunch program. In most of the other districts, participation in this lunch program is about 30%. Multiple languages are spoken as first languages in many classrooms. Many participating students fall on the autism spectrum, have physical disabilities or other learning challenges. One fifth grade student in a a wheel chair does not have much interaction in the classroom with other students. But outside at the testing site, she is the premier macroinvertebrate expert; other students take their bugs to her and she identifies them by whispering their names to her aide who communicates it to the group. Goals 3 & 4: Understanding stormwater and activities that impact it Evaluation components:

• Pre and post surveys

• Anecdotes

Pre and post surveys About three hundred students were given a survey assessing their understanding of stormwater before they started the Watershed Monitoring Program and also later on, after they had been monitoring in the field. Two of the schools were urban and two were rural. Since many schools have participated in the Monitoring Network over many school years, we selected classes for this survey that are either new to the Network or have probably not participated in monitoring in previous school years. Survey hint: In some districts, permission needs to be obtained from the administration to allow a non-school district education provider to survey students. Therefore, be prepared by sending the survey early to the teacher and administration.

8 | P a g e

Roosevelt Elementary: urban Grade 5 82% free and reduced lunch Ogden Middle School: urban Grades 6-7 80% free and reduced lunch Maple Grove Elementary: rural Grade 6 52% free and reduced lunch Amboy Middle School: rural Grade 8 52% free and reduce lunch The questions, graphs and analyses below show percent correct response before field monitoring began and again in February, half way through the monitoring season. There appears to be different base level understanding of what a watershed is in the rural communities. Before monitoring, a higher percent of students answered Question 2 correctly (When rain falls on trees and grass, where does it go?) than after monitoring. After the concept of watershed was introduced, students then saw water as going to the lowest point but not necessary sinking into the ground. We hypothesize that because many students’ homes are on septic systems and that storm drains are open and not piped, students understand more about where rainwater goes. After we teach the concept of watersheds, these same students change their thinking about where rain water goes. In a watershed, they think it goes to the lowest point (which of course it does) but they now are not as clear about where rainwater goes. Pre-and Post-Survey Questions Question 1: What is a watershed? Question 2: When rain falls on trees and grass, where does it go? Question 3: When rain falls on roofs, streets and parking lots, where does it go? Question 4: What is stormwater? How does it affect the health of a river, stream or lake? Question 5: What happens to the water that goes down the toilet or sinks in our house; where does it go? Question 6: How does dog poop or bug spray put on your lawn end up in the stream? Question 7: What role do the soil and plants near a stream play in protecting the health of our rivers, lakes and streams? Question 8: Name three things you and your family can do to keep stormwater and our streams clean?

9 | P a g e

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

Perc

ent

Question

E.Roosevelt Elementary 5th Grade Percent Correct Responses

pre-survey

post-survey

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

Perc

ent

Question

Maple Grove 6th Grade Percentage Correct Responses

pre-survey

post-survey

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

Perc

ent

Question

Amboy MS 8th Grade Percent Correct Responses

pre-survey

post-survey

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

Perc

ent

Question

P.S. Ogden Elementary Percent Correct Responses

pre-survey

post-survey

10 | P a g e

Post survey only question Question 9: Did going down to the stream or pond help you understand more about keeping streams and ponds healthy for fish and people? Analysis or survey responses by school Roosevelt

• Students showed an increase in correct responses to all questions. • The greatest increase was in their understanding of the term “watershed” (Question 1). • Significant increases occurred with Questions 3, 4, and 6, all relating to stormwater and runoff. • 90% of students indicated that going down to the stream helped them to understand more about keeping

streams healthy for fish and people (Question 9). Maple Grove

• Students showed an increase in correct responses to all but one question (Question 2). • Question 2 - Most students already understood that rain on natural areas soaks into the ground. When

presented with the concept of a watershed, some students focused on the water moving to the lowest point or ocean and not how it got there (ground versus drains).

• Significant increase in correct responses occurred with Question 4 regarding stormwater. Their monitoring site is really a very large retention pond and physically visiting the site helped the students to visualize the impacts of runoff.

• 85% of students indicated that going down to the stream helped them to understand more about keeping streams healthy for fish and people (Question 9).

Amboy • Students showed an increase in correct responses to all but one question (Question 2). • Question 2 - Most students already understood that rain on natural areas soaks into the ground. When

presented with the concept of a watershed, some students focused on the water moving to the lowest point or ocean and not how it got there (ground versus drains).

• 80% of students indicated that going down to the stream helped them to understand more about keeping streams healthy for fish and people. Since this school is in a forested rural area of the county, more students felt they were already familiar with streams.

P.S. Ogden Elementary • Students showed an increase in correct

responses to all but one question. • Question 2 - Most students already

understood that rain on natural areas soaks into the ground. When presented with the concept of a watershed, some students focused on the water moving to the lowest point or ocean and not how it got there (ground versus drains).

• 85% of students indicated that going down to the stream helped them to understand more about keeping streams healthy for fish and people.

11 | P a g e

Staff observations and anecdotes Comments made by students about going down to their monitoring site told us that many were “getting” the message about stream health. The variety of responses told us that student responses were not just rote but that they thought through how they and their families could take care of a stream. Here are some highlights of student responses:

• Many students observed wildlife and macroinvertebrates at their site and this was highly motivating to them to keep their stream/waterbody clean. “…now I know a few of the macroinvertebrates that live there and that we need to protect them.”

• “What most caught my attention was how our creek doesn’t have many sensitive macros which is something we need so we can secure the health for our creek. I would love to learn how I could contribute to the community.”

• Students commented on various changes on their site through different seasons. Comments made by students about what they can do to keep stormwater and streams clean:

• Rural students advised to not use bug spray and lots of chemicals. They also advised to not cut trees and to plant more.

• Urban students focused more on litter. Students who monitored school bioswales took great pride in keeping them clean.

• Other ways students advised to take care of their streams were to pick up dog poop and other animal waste, to check for oil leaks and to wash cars at the car wash.

Goal 5: Teacher training for land investigations Evaluation components Annual teacher training (“Kickoff”) On site teacher training Introductory sections in investigations Teacher evaluations from Congress Annual Teacher Training (Kickoff) Twenty teachers and 4 partners attended the October 2, 2014 Watershed Monitoring Network teacher “Kickoff.” The primary focus for this year was the new investigations which were available in close to final draft form. After introducing the Department of Ecology grant, we informed the group about project funding available for stormwater improvements at their schools or monitoring sites. We allowed time for teachers and partners to try out the activities and give us feedback. The project website includes the presentation utilized for explaining new investigations during the kick-off event – same as that used for the NAME conference. Teachers answered the following questions:

1. Did the directions (in the investigations) make sense and did the equipment work?

2. Do you think your students can do the investigations?

3. Does this new investigation fit with what you teach?

4. Is there another teacher in your building that might be interested in monitoring since we have added soil and plant investigations?

12 | P a g e

5. How might this investigation be used with your class?

6. Example: Split the class and have one group do soil and another group do water each time you go out? …Or focus on water testing one monitoring trip and focus on soil and/or plants the next time...or something else?

In general, teachers thought the step by step procedures worked well. Some suggestions were to number and mark the trees in the tree survey and to change or offer both metric and English for units. We also identified a need to offer a procedure for measuring DBH for multi-stemmed trees since many willows and other similar trees grow in the riparian areas. Teacher training about the rationale for adding land and plant investigations We used the first section of each investigation to make the connection between stormwater and the parameter being monitored. Each begins with: How is water quality impacted by…soil erosion, soil texture, etc. After reviewing many soil and plant investigations developed by others, we did not see a strong connection made in those curricula between various soil and plant investigations and how the factor impacted streams, water bodies and stormwater. Therefore, we made this connection prominent in the investigations that we developed and used this information as a teacher training tool. At Kickoff: Teachers suggested inquiry studies for new investigations Teacher comments showed us that they had internalized many of the new investigations in order to come up with testable questions, including the following:

• How does distance away from the stream affect diversity of plant life, pH, moisture, compaction, permeability, type of soil?

• How does erosion affect water quality?

• How does diversity of plants affect macros? How does canopy cover affect number, type, diversity of macros?

• How does canopy cover affect all?

• How does human activity affect plant growth?

• How does slope/soil type affect turbidity after rain?

• What impact does surrounding land use have on plant diversity?

13 | P a g e

In the field at monitoring sites: Teacher training For teachers that did not attend Kickoff, our team trained teachers in the new investigations with students at the monitoring sites. Questions and feedback were handled one-on-one with these teachers. End of 2013-2014 school year teachers’ evaluations At Watershed Congress on May 23, 2014, we asked teachers to evaluate both Congress and the program as a whole. Teacher comments are overwhelmingly positive and inspiring. Below are highlights from their feedback about monitoring experiences with their students in response to two key questions. What benefit is Watershed Monitoring for your students? Comments made tell us that students see ways they can positively impact their communities. Teachers see student growth in responsibility and do the program year after year because it allows their students the opportunity to do “real” science. This is a comment that we hear over and over.

• From a teacher new to monitoring: “I am thoroughly impressed by the science these students are taking part in, the higher level analysis they are engaging in and the raised awareness as citizens of the importance of maintaining higher water quality through conscious acts in the environment.”

• “Connection to the local environment and knowledge of how everyday habits affect the environment.”

• “Students become increasingly comfortable and protective of their monitoring site. Some are very hesitant at first because it is a new environment for them. There is a salmon redd at one of the Brezee Creek sites and students warn each other not to step on it.” At other sites, students remind each other to stay on the trail, don’t feed the ducks and pick up dropped pencils or trash from their pockets.

14 | P a g e

• “My students do real hands-on science and feel empowered to make change in the world.”

• “Learned about nature and protecting it and how water quality connects to other areas.”

• “Familiarization with our pond-next-door connection!”

• “Learning to be an expert and that they make a difference.”

• “Environmental awareness and responsibility.”

• “The opportunity to do real science.”

• “The best part is walking to the creek and watching my students “light up” when they made discoveries.”

• “The best part is getting the students outside and excited about science and the environment.”

What benefit is Watershed Monitoring to you as a teacher? The Watershed Monitoring Network also helps teachers meet various district requirements and connections with the community

• “Being part of real-world science with my students.”

• For the new teacher evaluation system”…helps meet participation in a professional community and relationship with the community agency.”

• “Great connection and relationship with the City of Battle Ground.”

15 | P a g e

Goal 6: Opportunities to identify and improve habitat and water quality at monitoring sites In developing the scope of work for the Department of Ecology grant it was anticipated, from input provided in prior years, that students and their teachers would have a keen interest in considering and undertaking projects to address concerns that they identify with impacts to their sites. Consequently, one task element of the grant provided for the development of hands-on project toolkits and resources for accomplishing a handful of these projects at Clark County schools or near their monitoring sites during the implementation phase of the project. A separate document and associated links from the project website detail the four toolkits that were developed through the active leadership of the Clark Conservation District and the six projects that were implemented in late 2014 and early 2015 using grant funds. The timing on installation of the projects as the grant period ended did not allow for the formal evaluation of this particular goal; however, Center staff hopes to get feedback from those teachers and classes who participated near the end for the academic year and can share that assessment as we present on the program at future opportunities.

Overall evaluation of our process for developing and implementing the new investigations What worked?

1. Spending a lengthy amount of time researching tools and equipment is essential. Over the years we have researched and observed field investigations done in other programs for some of the same activities we have selected. Often either the equipment didn’t work, was too difficult or esoteric to use or wasn’t appropriate to use with students.

We chose equipment based not only on cost but durability, ease of use and value in introducing students to some technology. We try to limit “black box” equipment that just gives a read-out without more involved engagement. The program is about student-focused learning not just having results. Sometimes we will collect data on the same parameter in a couple of different ways. For soil moisture, we offered a revised moisture test used in agriculture that is a qualitative way to describe a soil sample by hand squeezing. We also offered a moisture meter that allowed students to have experience with this simple technology.

2. Supporting teachers in a variety of ways. Our 3 person team spends a lot of time answering questions, reminding teachers of deadlines, interfacing with school district transportation offices and being the liaison with other community resources. This is all time well spent and we feel this, along with the quality of the program, is why so many teachers continue to do monitoring year after year. Over the years, we

16 | P a g e

have heard other program coordinators in similar roles lament about the need to “hold teachers’ hands,” meaning sending out reminders or working behind the scenes to make district requirements like transportation easier. We understand that teachers are swamped and cannot be expected to remember everything. We are so happy to “hold their hands” if that ensures that they return with next year’s students.

3. Partnerships with City of Battle Ground and Clark County. Although we have partnered with Clark County as a primary program funder in the past, having technical input from stormwater staff in Vancouver, Battle Ground and Clark County in reviewing the investigations was a wonderful plus and improved the quality and direction of the investigations that have been produced.

4. Working with contractors. The Watershed Monitoring Network has had the benefit of staff and contractor continuity for many years. The Water Center staff team member and the lead field contractor have been working together for over 10 years. Additional contract educators are selected for the program as needed based on their abilities, education philosophy and how they fit into the team.

Ways to improve

1. The grant work window was tight and did not span a complete school year with the same teachers and students. We delivered programs from October to June of the 2013-2014 school year and from September 2014 through February 2015 of the 2014-2015 school year. Therefore, we could not assess student learning in a complete school year since we had already started delivering programs by October 2013 and this current school year ends in June 2015. The 2015 Watershed Congress will be the first reporting back by students since the new investigations have been implemented. We won’t fully know until June 2015, how many classes developed and utilized the soil and/or plant inquiries in addition to water testing and macroinvertebrates studies which classes have traditionally done.

2. Looking for ways to ease many teachers into the new investigations is a good idea. Teachers love to get the kids out monitoring water quality since that is what they know at this point after many years. About half of the teachers were willing to try soil and plant investigations fairly quickly. The other half were eased into these investigations gradually or will be by the end of the school year.

3. Preparing the students for the soil investigations in the classroom. Unfortunately, our budget cannot pay for additional contractor time to do activities in the classroom with the exception of the introduction to watersheds that we do before field monitoring begins. And many teachers don’t have the time or expertise to do classroom soil and other activities. There are many excellent classroom activities in curricula like Project Wet, Project Wild, Project Learning Tree and the Wonders of Wetlands, if teachers did have the time to pursue these resources.

17 | P a g e

Watershed Congress Watershed Congress, was held on May 23rd at Washington State University Vancouver, and involved nearly 220 students and 38 teachers offering 46 presentations from 23 schools (11 elementary, 8 middle and 4 high schools) focused on results recorded by students over a year of actively monitoring neighborhood streams.

The Congress has benefited from the participation of many community partners over the years including: The Washington Department of Ecology, Watershed Stewards, Clark Public Utilities StreamTeam, Vancouver Watersheds Alliance, Columbia Springs, Clark County Environmental Services, Friends of Ridgefield National Wildlife Reserve, Audubon Society, Waste Connections of Washington, City of Vancouver Sensitive Lands Team and Urban Forestry, City of Battle Ground, Battle Ground School District, Clark College, Clark Conservation District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Clark County Small Acreage Program, WSU-Vancouver, ESD 112, and Mt. St. Helens Institute.

Below and on following pages are contents of this year’s program along with photos that provide a flavor for this annual event.

18 | P a g e

19 | P a g e

20 | P a g e

21 | P a g e

22 | P a g e

23 | P a g e

24 | P a g e

EVALUATION FOR STUDENT MONITORS

16th Annual Watershed Monitoring Congress May 23rd, 2014

202 responses

1) __3.6___ Morning auditorium introductions/program.

2) __4.3___The morning session. 3) __4.4___The afternoon session.

4) __N/A___ Afternoon auditorium wrap-up.

5) ___4.7___ Food provided.

6) __4.5____ Help from the staff and facilitators.

7) ___4.2___ Sharing problems and experiences with other students and the community.

8) ___4.3__ Congress helped me see the bigger picture of water in Clark County.

9) ___4.5__ Overall impression of Congress.

10) Circle your response: What grade are you currently? 2/3 – 6 4 – 20 5 – 91 6 – 25 7 – 31 8 – 27 ? – 2 11) Have you been to Watershed Congress before? Yes – 12 No – 175 No response – 13 COMMENTS? Make any criticisms, constructive or otherwise, you feel are needed.

2nd/3rd Grade

• I like this place • Great

4th Grade

• This was great. I don’t know why I was nervous. • It was great (2) • Add more time. It was fun. • It was an excellent experience and a pleasure to be here. • I think it was awesome. It should stay like this.

25 | P a g e

• I think this place is amazing. You don’t need any changes. • I really liked sharing comments about what we can do to help fish and how can keep our environment safe. • Thanks you for putting this together for us. It was great.

5th Grade

• I had a great time at congress and hope it continues • I loved Congress because I liked to see what other schools’ water quality was like! Thank you!!!!!! • Great job, loved it, I wish we had more time with activities • Fun! (5) • Loved the food! • Love Watershed Congress! (2) • This is the best place EVER!!!!!! • More signs to see where to go • Food is good/great • spend less time on the brainstorming sheets and more time on the actual poster (2) • More food options • More activities • I really liked the help given by the staff. Thanks you for the free food. • I enjoyed meeting new people and I loved it so much! • Great job. I loved watershed congress. • At end give kids a “suverner”. • I loved coming. It was so much fun. I loved to do the projects. • This was the best field trip in the world! Thank you! • Staff and facilitators are super friendly! • Staff was helpful and nice • Thank you very much! (3) • Some gluten-free options for lunch (3) • Better name tags (2) • I really had fun here. It was a great experience. I really don’t have any bad things. • By the way, the food was amazing!!!! • I really enjoyed the experience at water congress. We were engaged in something at all times and they

weren’t stupid: we always had good options. • I love this school • Make sure the food is warm • I like sharing my ideas out there in my mind • I looooooov the lunch • Better schedule • I think lunch should be later in the day (2) • I liked the field trip. It’s cool that you could come. • Keep doing this! • Cool! • I liked the pizza • Our presentation went perfectly • Overall grade for Congress is A- (2) • More food like fruit and vegetables - 2 • Give more time for the posters • Need erasers

26 | P a g e

• Had a “blast”! Both my brothers went and so did I! I really enjoyed my time and won’t forget my experience. Thank you!

• It was nice to see what other people’s problems were • I’m coming back!

6th Grade

• The kids from the other schools were very nice. (2) • Really cool • It was fine • It was fun but more activities (3 • Everything was perfect • Try to get kids to ask more questions. Get kids talking. • Staff had great ideas. (2) • Staff was amazing and helped a lot (4) • Had fun (2) • Food was great

7th Grade

• More time to present (2) • The whole watershed congress was very fun and organized. (2) • I think that watershed congress is a great, educational experience. • Being a reporter was fun. It gives you a chance to learn and meet new people.(2) • Fun (3) • Great • It was da bomb! • I enjoyed coming to WSU and being here to hear about the water • Kids were great to work with • Very fun, I would love to participate again.

8th Grade

• Make sure your helpers are good with people and good conversation makers. • I enjoyed Water Congress! • Definitely a great experience • Had fun (1) • Should be water available during lunch • Have more food options • It was a very helpful learning experience • The rooms were a little awkward, not terribly welcoming. • Make it more interesting/exciting

27 | P a g e

28 | P a g e