Activity-Based Learning and Daily Field Experiences Help Bring Watershed Restoration to Life

1
Activity-Based Learning and Daily Field
Experiences Help Bring Watershed Restoration to
Life James P. Dobrowolski, Department of Natural
Resource Sciences, Washington State University,
Pullman, WA 99164-6410 dobrowol_at_wsu.edu
ABSTRACT Adapting and adopting some of the
activity-based principles of Accelerated
Learning, supporting field experiences, daily
show-you-know and post-conference
implementation evaluation, Watershed Restoration
is a nationwide short course for agency partners
engaged in restoration of disturbed landscapes.
Presented in Wenatchee, Washington during
2001-2003 and Logan, Utah in 2001, the course is
part of the U.S. Forest Services National
Continuing Education program. Limited to 30
participants, it combines 30 presentation and
70 practice by national, regional and local
educators and practitioners to provide an
understanding of watershed linkagesparticularly
upstream-downstream and upslope-downslope
relationships, essential to the success and
longevity of all restoration approaches . . .  
Pertinent exercises, group discussion and
food-for-thought challenges are followed by a
reinforcing field experience every afternoon.
Immediate field application and observation of
session exercises provide the ability to expose,
in a non-confrontational manner, the
environmental, operational, or organizational
barriers that prevent restoration success.
Its a behavioral shiftfrom concentrating so
much on your project as the focal point to
recognizing linkages and connectivity that relate
and affect itupstream/downstream,
upslope/downslope. Learn to look up ask the
right questions.
Perceived Interdependence
?
Stakes for the Participant
A relaxed, activity-charged atmosphere supplies a
vehicle for evaluating each barrier to
successwhat can be done to eliminate it, reduce
it, or program around it? Show-you-know
exercises, clear synthesis, and detailed
participant evaluations help verify learning
success.
e.g., knowledge and understanding of the
unidirectional flow of energy (water), nutrients
and organic materials.
?
THE NUTS AND BOLTS

• Day 1 AM--Preventative Versus Restorative Is
  burned area rehabilitation the same as
  restoration? What are we trying to prevent or
  restore? Disturbance characteristics explained
  and located on our example watershed. Whats
  holding the watershed together? Ecological,
  hydrological, geomorphic stability and threshold
  concepts. Food for thought Making a case for
  prevention, defining thresholds and context.
• Day 1 PM--Field event to the main stem Entiat
  River. An introduction to a disturbed watershed,
  watershed-level issues and effects, restoration
  alternatives, and stream channel restoration.
  Informal discussion of a case study analysis of
  watershed-level restoration planning in the
  Intermountain West.
• Day 2 AM--Vegetation Patterns, Prioritizing
  Restoration and Disturbance Effects What are
  the patterns and processes of vegetation change
  (succession, recovery) and why do we care?
  Directing and modifying vegetation change, life
  forms and species. Recognizing alternatives to
  artificial revegetation. Food for thought
  Custodial versus active management? Germination
  versus establishment strategies and biodiversity
  resources for restorative activities.
  Preparation and protection of plants, mulches,
  and fertility adjustments, irrigation and soil
  amendments, and weed management issues. How do
  we prioritize sites and potential for
  restoration? We will discuss the wetness index
  approach and other prioritizing techniques. When
  are our restorative efforts enough? Food for
  thought What are your priorities for
  restoration?
• Day 2 PM--Field event to Mud Creek in the Entiat
  River watershed Wildfire intensity effects and
  fire distribution across the landscape that
  might result in hydrologic consequences for
  upland and downstream restoration success.
  Landscape-level discussion of road
  decommissioning and appropriate road locations.
  Hard and bio-engineered techniques for
  restoration, examples and group discussion.
• Day 3 AM--A Systems Approach to Watershed
  RestorationLinking Uplands and Channels, and
  Developing the Concept of Context Upland and
  road erosion management techniqueswhats new?
  Road networks that link uplands to channels
  through riparian areasthe utility of Disturbance
  WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Project). How do
  we know what a stream should look like? What are
  the tools of historical reconstruction?
• Day 3 PM--Field event to Icicle Creek watershed
  near Leavenworth, WA Stream restoration,
  partial hatchery decommissioning. Reference river
  with large woody debris--the Chiwawa. Food for
  thought How do the existing/conflicting laws
  influence the potential for your current
  projects success?
• Day 4 AM--Restorative Techniques (without money)
  Volunteerismwhat can you expect? Presentation
  and group discussion about working with and
  organizing volunteers. Develop a flexible
  planning and design approach for restoration
  projects within a watershed context.
• Day 4 PM--Field discussion of post-project and
  effectiveness monitoring, Roaring Creek. Food for
  thought Set up your project objectives and
  construct a 11 match with suggested monitoring
  objectives.
• Day 5 AM--Some Final Considerations Consensus
  building and conflict resolution as factors that
  influence watershed restoration success. Group
  discussion and personal experience sharing What
  insight might be gained from a larger-scale
  perspective for any remaining issues? Exam,
  summary, evaluation, closing and farewell.

AUDIENCE This short course is directed at
mid-career professionals in the USDA Forest
Service and Natural Resource Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of
Land Management, Soil and Water Conservation
Districts, Extension faculty, state land
management agencies, environmental groups with
land management responsibilities (e.g., The
Nature Conservancy), county and municipalities
engaged in watershed restoration, nationwide.
Each instructor provides a landscape level view
to restoration approaches, issues and relevance
by exposing participants to experiences in a
broad array of climates and geographic regions.
We are challenged to provide help with site
specific project information that many
participants desire, while emphasizing a more
holistic understanding of watershed processes.
Morning sessions take place in a room transformed
to a watershed restoration context by wall
peripherals, displays, models and new and
innovative materials. We use these materials
throughout the course for show-you-know
exercises and by leaving many unidentified, to
pique the interest of participants.
?

• How do we minimize death by PowerPoint and
  maximize learning in a short course environment?
• Choose educators that have irrefutable
  credibility in their subjects and are practiced.
• Sensitize your speakers to the need for
  activity-based and outcome driven learning. Some
  of your colleagues may balk at activity-based
  educational methods. If they are committed to
  getting people involved using their own style of
  active problem identification, problem solving
  and well rehearsed participatory effortsgreat,
  otherwise replace them.
• Continually review your teaching effectiveness
  and the effectiveness of your colleagues.
• Match your classroom materials to supporting
  field events and make sure your classroom
  speakers are available to answer questions in the
  fieldwhere some of the most insightful and most
  important questions arise.

Each session establishes clear, meaningful goals
and objectives, and promotes the espousal of
learning benefits through emphasis on real world
examples. A learning contract is forged, You
are better at making assessments You are a
better planner Your restoration efforts are
better and longer-lived You have a better
understanding of your watershed(s) and
verified by
?
COURSE EVALUATION We have delivered the course
four times with 100 total participants.
Post-course evaluation responses totaled 80. Of
the 80, 70 rated the course excellent, 25 good
and 5 fair. Ninety percent of the participants
felt that the material provided would be useful
to their jobs. Eighty percent of the respondents
felt that breaking up the educational activity
into classroom and supporting field components,
and their ability to be active participants in
the course was what they liked best about the
course. Fifty percent felt that some of the
speakers were less interactive and dynamic than
others it was what they liked least about the
course. Follow-up phone interviews after one
year indicated that about 62 of past
participants that were contacted (30) either
utilized the materials we provided, referred back
to course notes or field experiences, and/or had
altered some aspect of how they viewed/defined
restoration or applied restoration efforts.
data gathering and synthesis.
Examples of post-course evaluations
hands-on practice,
collaborative pretests and posttests and problem
solving exercises