A realistic environmental assessment project for upperlevel science majors: teaching scientific skills in an
engaging context.
This document contains an overview of a semester-long laboratory project designed for
upper-level biology majors at Radford University. The project centered around a
constructed stormwater remediation wetland on campus. The project had three main
components: field investigations to fill data gaps in our understanding of the wetland,
toxicological tests based on what organisms and chemicals had been found in the
wetland, and a class report synthesizing our new data with existing data from the
wetland.
Although the module is tailored to a specific environmental site, the module can be easily
adapted to sites of new development, other environmental management practices, or
natural sites. Moreover, subsections of the project can be used when an entire semester
can’t be devoted to the project; for instance, the toxicological test section could be
accomplished in one or two lab periods.
For specific questions or feedback contact Dr. Jeremy M. Wojdak, Assistant Professor of
Biology,
Radford
University,
PO
Box
6931,
Radford,
VA
24142,
jmwojdakiwirgau@radford.edu , 540-831-5395.
Contents:
2…. Environmental Impact Assessment Course Project Overview
3…. Field Investigation Reports
4…. Explanation of Metadata and Data protocols for the project
7…. Toxicological Test
9…. Final Report Sub-sections
10… Oral presentations grading rubric
11… Written reports grading rubric
12… Pre-post test content assessment
1
Biology 392- Pollution Biology / Environmental Toxicology
Environmental Impact Assessment Course Project
As a class we will all work together to assess the impact that a recently constructed
stormwater remediation wetland is having on the Radford University campus and
surrounding areas. Our plan has three major components:
1. Assess the existing knowledge regarding:
a. the site before the wetland was built
b. the construction of the wetland
c. the current state of the site.
2. Determine what new information needs to be collected
a. perform field investigations to determine the biological status of the site.
b. perform toxicological tests relevant to the site’s organisms and pollutants.
3. Synthesize old and new information into a comprehensive report of the wetland’s
impact.
Assignments:
Field Investigations
Student groups will work together for several weeks to design, implement, analyze, and
report field investigations that will contribute to our understanding of the wetland.
Student groups will have 1 lab period to plan their work, 2 to carry it out, 1 to analyze it,
and then will report briefly to the class.
Field investigations might be chemical, physical, or biological in nature. Ideally these
investigations will complement existing data collected by other courses.
Toxicological Tests
Student groups will work together for several weeks to design, implement, analyze, and
report toxicological tests that will contribute to our understanding of the wetland.
Student groups will have 1 lab period to plan their work, 2 to carry it out, 1 to analyze it,
and then will report briefly to the class.
Toxicological tests will focus on pollutants identified as possible concerns either because
of theoretical pollution or evidence from existing chemical data. Tests will also, to the
extent possible, use organisms found in the wetland or indicative of wetland organisms
pollution tolerance.
Final Report sub-sections
Student groups will work together to synthesize everything that is known about a
particular topic for the final report. For instance, one group will probably summarize all
of the toxicological data. Another group will synthesize the existing field data. Another
might report on the site history and construction of the wetland. You can probably see
that to be successful the groups will need open and effective communication with other
classmates.
2
Field Investigation Reports
BIOL 392
You will present the results of your field work in two ways – a short oral presentation to
the class (Monday October 9th), and in written form (Due anytime during the week of
October 9th) which will become a part of the final document we as a class write
describing the wetland’s function. The oral presentation is meant mostly to convey the
intent and results of your project to the class – this information may influence the
toxicological tests that we develop in the next phase of this project, and will certainly be
necessary as we as a class synthesize the current state of knowledge of the wetland in the
last phase of our project. The written reports will give us a headstart on this last phase.
Oral Presentation
You should prepare an 8-10 minute oral presentation describing your project. A typical
talk will outline the overall project, why the information you sought was important
(introduction), how you collected your information (methods), what you found (results),
and how we can interpret your new information in the light of what we already know
about the wetland (discussion). Discussing potential ways to improve your data
collection or ways to follow up to collect complementary information might be useful.
You should cover your project in sufficient detail that the listener can easily envision
what you did at each step and how they can interpret your results.
Each member of the group should participate in the presentation. You should
ABSOLUTELY practice your talk out loud before giving it to the class – the most
common mistake student groups make is in timing – going on forever or finishing much
too quickly… in a professional setting this can be a deadly error.
Written Report
You should prepare a short description (4-6 pages?) of your project that will share a lot of
commonalities with your oral presentation. The organizational structure will likely be
very similar (introduction, methods, results, discussion). Particularly helpful in the
discussion would be links to other existing data or known problems, concerns, factors in
the wetland. In the written report you have a bit more room/time to elaborate in the
introduction and discussion sections – what approaches did you consider, what problems
did you encounter, what sources of error or bias concern you?
You should turn the written report into me electronically, no later than October 13th.
As appendices to your report you should include raw data (an Excel file) and metadata
(Word document) files. Read the attached handout (prepared for instructors involved in
the project) on the structure and utility of metadata, and use those guidelines to construct
these files. This is absolutely critical for your data to contribute to the growing wetland
project. If your data are lost or uninterpretable, you should have not bothered to collect
it.
You will have a chance to consider my feedback on your written report, revise it, and turn
it in again before a grade is assigned. The second draft is optional, but clearly you grade
may improve from considering my feedback.
3
Need for Metadata and Data Standards
Radford University Stormwater Wetland Project
Successful data sharing is dependent on very clear and accurate communication of not only the actual
data collected by different courses, but of the metadata that corresponds to the data. Metadata is the
information typically found scribbled in margins of field or lab notebooks – the when, where, how,
what, and why that is necessary to understand and interpret the actual data. Metadata typically includes
methods used to collect the data, the date/time/location of collection, who owns the rights to the data,
units of measurement, degree of precision of measurements, and who should be contacted with
questions regarding the study.
Have you ever opened an old Excel file like this:
plot
a
a
a
b
b
b
c
c
site
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
mass
9.66
8.36
6.71
1.43
5.09
5.39
4.15
1.99
height
40.93
20.72
2.28
22.77
27.28
42.98
40.71
17.41
or worse yet like this:
x
c
v
x
c
v
x
c
v
11.1
11.2
11.3
21.1
21.2
21.2
11.1
11.2
11.3
0.08
0.35
2.25
0.38
3.04
4.14
3.91
2.82
3.17
and tried to figure out the units of measurement, methods used, date and time of collection….. so you
could use the data?
If you have, you already know (deep down) why detailed, structured metadata is important. Especially
today as nearly all data is stored electronically, the lack of corresponding electronic metadata cripples
efforts to share data. The National Science Foundation is in the process of requiring investigators to
distribute and share data more freely – there has been a realization that the Foundation’s money will
have greater impact if data is shared and reused. High quality data that is well documented can be used
many times for different purposes – data without documentation will likely “die” within several years
after collection and will benefit only the original investigator. Another way to consider the issue is
that proper documentation will increase one’s own scientific contribution and legacy. Moreover,
large-scale synthetic questions will likely only be tackled through data sharing because the scope of
the questions precludes any individual or group from collecting sufficient data.
To allow students from different courses and disciplines to collaborate via data sharing, I will need to
receive high quality data and metadata files. Much of the metadata documentation will already be done
in preparing lab handouts (that describe methods, for instance). However, descriptions of projects may
need to broadened and free from subject-specific jargon so a general scientific audience can
understand why and how the data was collected.
Below are some guidelines to ensure high-quality data that will be useful to the maximum number of
students at RU and elsewhere:
1.) You are responsible for part of a much larger project, and if you slack off you are hurting
yourselves, classmates, and students in other courses. Your names will be associated with the
data you collect so that you can be contacted if questions arise later.
4
2.) Check for data entry errors, then check for “problem data” using simple descriptive statistics.
For example, a quick look at the range of values in a data column might indicate a typing error
or a unit of measurement error…. If data is supposed to vary from 0.0 – 50.0 cm and the range
of data in that column goes from 0-137 that might indicate a 13.7cm was typed in as 137 or
someone measured in mm.
3.) Look over existing files in the database and use the same data names, type, and units for the
same kinds of data, where feasible.
e.g., if you measure the concentration of dissolved oxygen in standing water in various
locations, and other classes have done the same thing at other times, naming your data
columns the same thing and reporting the data in the same units (% saturation or mg/L or
ppm) would be really helpful… it makes it unambiguous that these data are comparable
and can be usefully merged.
4.) Provide detailed and jargon free descriptions of the methods used in data collection.
Specifically include these descriptors:
a. Time, date (including year), spatial location (see appendix)
b. Principal investigator (instructor), course, module name
c. Description of each column in data file
i. Define the data in each column – e.g., “above-ground plant biomass”,
“extractable organic compounds”, “water depth”
ii. Column name, data type (see appendix), precision, units of measurement, if a
data column contains codes (treatments, plots, etc.) describe coding system
iii. Describe the actual processes and methods used in data collection
d. Data permissions – can anyone use the data for any purpose? Should people contact the
PI (instructor) before using data?
5.) Please follow the submission guidelines (see appendix) when forwarding your data for
inclusion in the database.
6.) Suggestions for improvements to any aspect of this data sharing enterprise are very
welcome….
Appendix. Data conventions.
General Guidelines
 Please submit data (except GIS or map files) as Excel files or as tab-delimited text files. Email
files to jmwojdak@radford.edu, if files are very large burn them to a CD.
 Data files should be named as such: topic-date-investigator.xls or topic-dateinvestigator.txt (e.g., waterchemistry-12312005-wojdak.xls)
 Please submit metadata associated with a data file as a similarly named Word document: topicdate-investigator.doc (e.g., waterchemistry-12312005-wojdak.doc)
 Data should be in columns, with the first row being column headers.
o Do not put text comments or notes in columns with data (text comments shouldn’t be in
the data file at all, but instead in the metadata).
 Dates should be reported as mm/dd/year.
 Times should be reported as 00:00 to 24:00 (as in 2:30 am = 2:30 and 2:30 pm = 14:30).
Data types
 Unordered or nominal: unordered categories or text (e.g., Male, Female)
 Ordered or ordinal: ordered categories (e.g., low, medium, high)
 Relative or interval: values from a scale with equidistant points (e.g., 12.2 meters)
 Absolute or ratio: measurement scale with a meaningful zero point (e.g., 273 Kelvin)
 Date-Time: (e.g, 2:30 11/30/2002)
5
IMPORTANT - Spatial Reference for Data Collection
One module in this project is the collaboration between Geography and Ecology courses (and anybody
else who would find it valuable) to construct a GIS database and use the power of GIS tools to look for
spatial co-variation between the various sets of data we collect. This will only be possible if individual
investigators map their data collection efforts. For example, if the Biology 121 class collects plant
data, but records no spatial reference for each plot sampled, other students will not be able to look for
relationships between chemical, geological, or other biological features of the wetland and the plant
data (e.g., students might explore spatial variation in plant community composition in response to
spatial variation in water level). C. Manyara will in his classes create a grid of permanent markers in
the wetland and a topographical base map of the wetland site. Once this is complete, students who visit
the wetland to collect data can record the spatial location of their sampling by identifying what grid
cell they are in, and perhaps making some simple distance and direction measurements to the nearest
markers. Once the grid is established, we will circulate a set of standard protocols for locating
yourself in the wetland. For those collecting data in the wetland in the meantime, you could mark the
location of your sampling with semi-permanent markers, and then once the grid is complete you (or
you and I) could go back and record the location of those sampling sites.
6
Toxicological Tests
BIOL 392
1) As a class we need to decide what toxicological testing would complement the existing data from
the RU stormwater wetland. Clearly it will make sense to focus on chemicals that have been found or
are likely to be found in the wetland. Beyond that, however, there are lots of decisions we need to
make:
We have enough time/people/resources to conduct 6 experiments. Should we coordinate the projects to
“fit together” into a cohesive project? Or should experiments be used to address many separate
questions?
Should our tests look for acute or chronic effects, or both?
Should our response variable be mortality, or sub-lethal effects on behavior or physiology?
Should our tests look at chemical interactions or individual chemicals?
Should our tests focus on only one representative or logistically easy species, or examine many species
that actually are found in the wetland?
Should our tests focus on terrestrial or aquatic organisms? Invertebrates, plants, or microbes?
What range of concentrations should we use (for each chemical)? How can we find information to aid
this decision?
1) Spend a few minutes considering these questions… talk to your neighbors – devise an overall plan
and a justification for that plan.
2) Form groups.
3) Devise a specific proposal for your group’s experiment. This proposal should include:
Organism(s) – total needed, life stage, source
Chemical(s) - Dose/concentrations (justification), # of levels, route of exposure, source
Containers/Context - # of replicates necessary, source of water/soil/plants
Safety – any special equipment or precautions necessary?
Response variable(s)
Duration
Plan for observations
Tips:
1) Plan to use more than 10 organisms per treatment. Fewer will make being able to detect meaningful
differences unlikely. For example, if you use 10 organisms per treatment for a mortality study, your
resolution (minimum effect measurable) is a 10% difference.
2) Use prior knowledge to establish concentrations, else you risk seeing no effect or killing everything.
Try searching EPA’s ECOTOX database for information from previous toxicological testing
(http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecotox_home.htm).
3) Design something more ambitious than a simple acute mortality study with no other complications
(multiple chemicals, chemical interactions, multiple species, etc.).
7
4) Find and include the MSDS (material safety data sheet) for your chemical(s) with your proposal.
Identify potential hazards and precautions you will take.
5) Devise a timeline, select a project manager, and assign tasks to individual people. Include this with
your proposal.
DUE BY END OF LAB TIME TODAY - GO TO COMPUTER LABS AS NEEDED
8
Environmental Impact Assessment Report
BIOL 392
As a class we have been working together to assess the impact that the Stormwater Remediation Wetland is having on the
RU campus and surrounding areas. Our plan has had three major components:
4. Assess the existing knowledge regarding:
a. the site before the wetland was built
b. the construction of the wetland
c. the current state of the site.
5. Determine what new information needs to be collected
a. perform field investigations to determine the biological status of the site.
b. perform toxicological tests relevant to the site’s organisms and pollutants.
6. Synthesize old and new information into a comprehensive report of the wetland’s impact.
We now need to tackle #3 – synthesis of all information regarding the wetland’s function. In previous discussion we agreed
on the following general outline for the report:
1.
2.
Summary
Site History
a. Site before construction
b. Construction
c. Solutions to construction problems
i. Fixing outlet pipe
ii. Fixing leaks with betonite clay
iii. Damming outlet pool
d. Current Site Description
i. topographical map
3. Field Data
a. Hydrological Data
i. water level data
ii. rain data
iii. evaporation experiment data
b. Chemical Data
i. Oxygen, pH, Conductivity, temperature data
ii. heavy metal data
a. in soil
b. in water
c. in plants
iii. PAH data
c. Biological Data
i. plant data
a. community data
b. primary productivity data
ii. aquatic invertebrate data
iii. anecdotal species observations
4. Toxicological Test Data
a. Copper
b. Zinc
c. Copper and Zinc interactions
d. Road Salt
5. Data gaps
a. terrestrial invertebrates, birds, amphibians
b. chemicals not examined
6. Costs and Benefits
a. economic
b. educational
c. aesthetic
d. alternative use
e. environmental
7. References
8. Figures
9. Tables
4 students (also get another section*)
1 student
4 students
4 students
3 students
3 students
4 students
4 (*)
9
10. Appendices
10
Research Project Presentations – Grading Rubric
Biology 392
Was the presentation clear, organized, well-paced, and professionally delivered?
1 -Much too fast or too slow, unorganized, incoherent, speakers read from scripts or stared at screen.
2 -Too fast or too slow, unorganized, unclear, speakers rarely addressed audience directly.
3 -Well paced, mostly organized, speakers address audience as much as screen or notes.
4 -Presenters clearly organized, prepared, and deliver a well-paced and organized talk with little or no
reference to
notes.
+1 –Presenters gave an exceptional talk, very engaging and entertaining, in addition to all those attributes listed
for #4.
Did the presenters introduce the topic – did you know what they were talking about and why you should
care?
1 -I didn’t know what the presenters were talking about and I didn’t know why to care.
2 –There was some introduction but it was insufficient to understand what and why the group studied what
they did.
3 –The presenters framed their research in what is already known, and provided a rationale for study of their
topic.
4 –The presentation provided a comprehensive introduction to the topic and made a very compelling case for
study.
Were the methods and results clearly and adequately described?
1 -Superficial coverage of the methods, unclear reporting of the results.
2 –Some specific methods, results were described but not explained.
3 –Methods and results were described and explained adequately.
4 –I could repeat this research given what I heard, and would know what to expect in terms of results.
Were the conclusions appropriately grounded in the results?
1 –Conclusions were wildly speculative and did not conform to the results of the research.
2 –Conclusions did not match the results of the research.
3 –Conclusions followed logically from the results.
4 -Conclusions were an insightful interpretation of the results.
BONUS
+1 -unique synthetic or analytical discovery or description, not present in original analysis.
+1 -Data or ideas from previous published research was incorporated into the presentation or project.
11
Research Project Written Reports – Grading Rubric
Biology 392
Was the paper clearly written, grammatically correct, organized, and in an appropriate scientific style?
1 -unorganized, incoherent, many grammatical/spelling errors, causal style.
2 -unorganized, unclear, some grammatical/spelling errors, not very concise.
3 -mostly organized, few grammatical/spelling errors, good style.
4 -clearly organized, few grammatical/spelling errors, well-written, concise and direct style.
+1 –A great paper, very engaging and interesting, in addition to all those attributes listed for #4.
Did the authors introduce the topic – did you know what they were talking about and why you should care?
5 -I didn’t know what the authors were talking about and I didn’t know why to care.
6 –There was some introduction but it was insufficient to understand what and why the group studied what
they did.
7 –The presenters framed their research in what is already known, and provided a rationale for study of their
topic.
8 –The presentation provided a comprehensive introduction to the topic and made a very compelling case for
study.
Were the methods and results clearly and adequately described?
5 -Superficial coverage of the methods, unclear reporting of the results.
6 –Some specific methods, results were described but not explained.
7 –Methods and results were described and explained adequately.
8 –I could repeat this research given what I heard, and would know what to expect in terms of results.
Were the data presented clearly and analyzed thoughtfully?
1 -unorganized, redundant or unhelpful presentation of the data with minimal or no analysis.
2 -data were graphed and analyzed, but severe problems exist with the presentation or interpretation (i.e.
graph axes not labeled, incorrect statistical interpretation).
3 -graphs and analysis are helpful in understanding what happened in the study.
4 -clear and concise graphical and analytical treatment of the data – insightful.
Were the conclusions appropriately grounded in the results?
4 –Conclusions were wildly speculative and did not conform to the results of the research.
5 –Conclusions did not match the results of the research.
6 –Conclusions followed logically from the results, and consider outside knowledge (previous published
work).
4 -Conclusions were an insightful interpretation of the results, and synthesize new knowledge with previous
published work.
BONUS +1 -Data/ideas from published research or other wetland projects was incorporated into the
presentation or project.
12
Assessment of course content and skills
Biology 392
Final exam, part I
This test is intended to assess your understanding of some principles of environmental toxicology,
scientific reasoning, analysis and communication. Please do your best to provide thoughtful and detailed
answers.
1. A 1 mile by 1 mile square plot of grassland adjacent to an abandoned paper factory is suspected of
containing unsafe levels of cadmium in the soil. A small creek borders the property. As a newly hired
environmental consultant you are assigned to investigate whether the area is safe for a new housing
development that is planned. Answer the following multipart question to show how you would carry out
that research.
Data Collection
a. What variables would you want to measure? What information would you want to know? Be specific
and detailed.
b. Develop a sampling plan for this investigation, describing what factors and issues must be
considered. Provide as much detail as possible.
Data Analysis / Communication
c. How would you know if your field work described above was rigorous enough, accurate enough,
complete enough? How would you assess your confidence in your conclusions?
d. Explain how you would communicate the results of this study in an oral presentation. Specify what
you would present, in what manner, with what organizational structure, etc.
2. Let’s pretend that PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) concentrations above 10 ppm (parts per million) are
acutely toxic to humans. 20 samples are collected and analyzed in an area like that described in the
above question – a field that developers plan to turn into a neighborhood. The average concentration
was found to be 4.3 ppm, and some individual samples had no detectable PCB’s. Draw a conclusion
about the potential for human health risk from PCB’s in that field. Defend your answer.
3. You decide to test the hypothesis that landfills contaminate their surrounding areas with zinc because
of batteries people throw away. You test an area next to a landfill and an area two miles from the
landfill. The concentration of zinc near the landfill averaged 125 mg/kg and two miles from the landfill
it averaged 35 mg/kg. Does this prove your hypothesis true? Defend your answer.
4. The following graph was generated describing the relationship between the concentration of calcium in
the soil and the distance from the New River. What can be inferred from the graph?
50
45
[Ca] (ppm)
40
35
30
25
20
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
distance from river (miles)
13
5. You are asked to conduct an experiment in the laboratory where you expose crayfish to a volatile
organic chemical to assess the chemical’s toxicity to aquatic invertebrates.
a. Describe a suitable experiment in detail that would allow you to assess the toxicity of the chemical –
mention all of the most important features of the experiment.
b. Draw a graph that describes what the results of the experiment you described above will likely look
like, and provide a biological explanation for why the data look like they do.
14