Download the full syllabus for this course, here

SYLLABUS - 2017
ENSC 202 – Applied Environmental Assessment and Analysis – 4 credits
Instructors Objectives Overview Exams Projects Peer Review Presentations
Peer Assessment Performance Criteria Grade Elements Policies
Description: Approaches used to identify, evaluate, and manage environmental challenges. Focus on
interactions among ecological, economic, and social considerations; typically at a local to regional scale. Problem
formulation, methods selection. Case studies. Project-oriented.
Course Abstract: The focus of this service learning course is on applied environmental assessment and analysis
and the tools used by resource managers, scientists, and interested stakeholders to evaluate the likelihood that
proposed, accidental, or anticipated changes will impact valued resources. Change may arise from chemical,
biological, or physical sources that may be transmitted by any medium; e.g., air, water, soil, food, cosmetics, etc.
Impacts may occur at multiple levels including cells, organs, individuals, populations, communities, ecosystems,
regions, or the earth itself. As a consequence, environmental assessment is an inherently wide-ranging topic in
which scientifically-based recommendations must be developed in context in which knowledge is likely to
incomplete and uncertainty is high. At its heart, environmental assessment and analysis is a general framework
for environmental problem solving that relies on the application of results from environmental science to make
decisions about environmental policy and management of critical resources.
This course includes lectures, discussions, projects and presentations. As a starting point, we will discuss how the
EPA’s ecological risk assessment framework has developed over the last 4 decades. This discussion will provide
a context for specific, topical themes that you will help to identify. You will be expected to critically evaluate
primary literature, engage in informed discussion, seek outside experts, and work together in small groups on a
project of personal interest.
Instructor:
TA:
Breck Bowden
303D Aiken
656-2513 office
238-0920 mobile
[email protected]
Office hours: Typically just after class
or by appointment
Jesse Gourevitch
[email protected]
Office hours: By appointment
Course web site: This course should appear in your Blackboard listings. All important announcements and links
for the course will appear and be archived there. Messages about this course will usually have the prefix
“ENSC202:” in the subject line so that you can search for them easily in your email archive. In addition, all
messages will be retained on Blackboard for reference.
Lectures (required of all): CRN 14566, 10:05 to 11:20 Tuesday/Thursday, Lafayette L403
Discussion section options – ENSC 295 (pick one):
Discussion L01, CRN 14567, 4:25 to 5:15 Tuesdays, Rowell 115
Discussion L02, CRN 14568, 4:25 to 5:15 Thursdays, Aiken 110
Required text: None. But additional reading materials brought to your attention in class will be posted on the
course website.
ENSC202 - 1
Course Policies: I will assume that you have read and are familiar with all of the policies associated either
directly or indirectly with this course. You can find a link to these policies on the Blackboard site for the course.
These is a summary appended to this syllabus with links to my and UVM websites. Key policies you should note
include my policies on cell phone use in class (i.e., none), computer used in class (only as allowed), my grading
philosophy (class participation is important), and the UVM Code of Academic Integrity and the UVM Code of
Student Rights and Responsibilities. If you are not familiar with these policies, please read them.
Primary Learning Objectives (Top)

Students will be able to articulate the differences among probably, risk, and uncertainty in the context of
ecological assessment and analysis.

Students will recognize and become conversant with the vocabulary and concepts utilized in EPA’s
Environmental Risk and Causal Assessment approaches.

Students will employ knowledge and skills acquired in prior courses and experiences to inform a specific
ecological assessment by engaging in a team project.

Students will be able to extract meaningful information from scientific and technical reports and integrate
that information into new knowledge and/or products that are useful to a client.

Students will be able to write a profession work plan and report and make a professional public
presentation.

Students will experience and understand the rationale behind the peer-review process for scientific and
technical publications.

Students will understand and be able to address technical, policy and human dimensions of
environmental risk and causal assessments.
Overview of Lecture Topics: The Key Concepts (Top)
This is not a schedule; it is a general outline of topics that will be covered. See Blackboard for more detailed
information, due dates, and links to necessary resources.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Introduction – What is risk? Basic terminology, concepts, and frameworks
Causality: Linking cause to effects
Planning: The role of stakeholder involvement in environmental assessment
Linking general problems to specific plans: Assessment endpoints and conceptual models
Environmental analysis: Linking the possibility of exposure to the likelihood of response
Risk characterization: Communicating “likelihood” to stakeholders
Assessment at the level of individuals: physiological effects, interactions, and biomarkers
Assessment at the level of populations, communities and ecosystems
Assessment at the level regions
Case studies: Putting theory into action
Explanation of Course Components and Activities
Lectures
The lecture periods on Tuesday and Thursday mornings will be used to provide and discuss fundamental
principles and concepts in ecological assessment. All students in the course are expected to attend the lecture
periods. These lecture periods will be used for a variety of purposes, including traditional lectures, invited
presentations, discussions, peer presentation of case studies. In the first half of the semester the lecture periods
will tend to be traditional lectures and there will be one mid-term exam that covers this material. This will be the
ENSC202 - 2
only exam in the course. After the mid-term break the lecture periods will be used for invited lectures and
presentation of case studies. Evaluations will be via brief reflections. The lecture schedule may change and so be
sure to pay attention to messages about the class on Blackboard.
Exam (Top)
There will be one mid-term exam on lecture material only, just prior to the mid-term break. There will be no final
exam. But activities are planned for the final exam period and so students should plan to remain available
through the regularly-scheduled final exam period for this course. See below.
Team Projects (Top)
Overview: A major portion of this course will be devoted to an independent team project. These team projects will
mimic some of the dynamics that you are likely to encounter in the workplace at consultancies, agencies, and
non-governmental organizations. These include working with a client, development of work plans, writing and
responding to peer-reviews, and presenting and defending your work. Students will be organized into teams of 45 members to work on a collaborative project to produce the following key deliverables:
1. a project work plan describing the problem/issue you intend to investigate, the proposed
approaches/methods to be used, a time line with milestones, and an indication of who will be responsible
for specific elements of the report
2. a draft report by a specified date for peer review
3. complete a peer review (as an individual) of another team’s draft report
4. a final report, including appropriate narrative, tables, figures, etc
5. a poster presentation that summarizes the findings from your final report
Further guidance for these projects and deliverables will be discussed in class, posted on the class Blackboard
website, and are summarized briefly below. Each of these components will have strict deadlines and meeting
those deadlines will be an important component of your performance appraisal (as will be the case in any job).
The projects in which the class will engage will have a Service Learning component tied directly to interests of
real clients.
Project Development Milestones: Early in the semester we will identify a suite of projects that will be the focus of
small groups of students. Ideally each project will have an external stakeholder. Each project team will have time
to meet with the stakeholders and to organize the major components of these projects. The initial steps in this
process will include:
1. Identify individual interests to work on particular projects.
2. Meet with the stakeholders to discuss their project needs.
3. Meet together as a group to self-organize the scope of the overall project, including a focused goal, 2-4
clear objectives, and an achievable time line.
4. Meet with your client to ensure that your proposed workplan will meet their needs in the available time
and with the available resources.
5. Develop a formal work plan for your project to be vetted with your service learning sponsor/client.
Guidelines for the format of the work plan will be posted separately on the Bb site.
Your workplan will be evaluated by Breck, Jesse, and your client according to specific criteria that will be posted
on Blackboard.
ENSC202 - 3
Project Report: Each team will prepare a draft and a final written report that summarizes the key findings of their
project. The draft report will be reviewed by your client and via a peer-review process described below. Guidance
on how to prepare your draft and final reports will be provided on Blackboard. Your draft and final reports must be
posted directly to a shared file space set up for your team on Blackboard, designated for this purpose.
Project Peer Reviews: Project reports will be peer-reviewed by a process similar to that used by technical and
professional journals. As in most review processes, the reviews will be anonymous; i.e., the authors will not know
the identity of the reviewers. Each person will be asked to review one report in its draft stage, according to
instructions that will be posted on the class Blackboard website. Authors will be asked to respond to these
reviews in their final draft. The substance and care of the reviews will be evaluated and this evaluation will form a
part of the reviewer’s individual grade. For this process to work efficiently it is essential that you turn in your draft
report on time and that you complete your assigned review by the stated deadlines. We will discuss the peer
review process and your responsibilities as a reviewer, in the discussion sections. Detailed instructions on how to
proceed with your review will be provided closer to the time of the peer-reviews.
Project Defense: Each team will be expected to “defend” the final products of their project in a two-step process.
In the first step each team will meet with Breck and Jesse (and perhaps your client) to review your final report.
Second, each team will produce a poster the summarizes the key results and/or deliverables from your project.
These posters will be presented at an ensemble meeting of all of the teams, during the final exam period. Your
clients will be encouraged to attend this presentation to meet with your and provide verbal feedback. The final
project reports and poster files will be archived permanently on the Ecological Assessment website.
Case Study Presentations (Top)
Another major component of this course will be a case study presentation. The same teams that work on the
service learning projects will also work together on the case study. Case studies are historical examples of
previously completed environmental assessments. Examples of these case studies can found on the EPA
CADDIS website or through on-line searches (e.g., the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, which
has many open-access articles). Other examples of case studies will be posted on Blackboard.
Each team will be given ~1/2h to present their case study. We will present two case studies in each class period
toward the end of the semester. Presenters will be evaluated by Breck and by the non-presenting students in
audience. Non-presenting students will submit a brief evaluation of the two weekly presentations according to a
rubric that will be posted on Blackboard. The short evaluations will be due by Friday, 5pm of the week in which
the presentations are made. Submission of these evaluations will form a portion of the individual grade for each
student. The average evaluation by the class will form a portion of the team grade for each case study presented.
Peer Assessments (Top)
Individual project assessments will be accomplished as follows. Each team member will write a short summary
describing their contribution to the project and will assign themselves a grade (0-100). This summary and grade
must be reported on a personal evaluation form that can be downloaded from Blackboard. This form must be
signed by each of your fellow team members, indicating only that they have read your summary and seen the
grade you have assigned yourself. All team members will read and sign each other’s summaries. On a separate,
confidential form (also obtained from Blackboard) each team member will state whether they agree or disagree
with the contribution summary and grades claimed by their teammates. If you disagree with a team member’s
statement or grade, you must explain why and give them a peer grade you believe is fair (0-100). These
statements and peer grades will be held in confidence (i.e., no one will see these statements other than Breck
and the TA). These confidential statements should be turned in to Breck in a sealed envelope.
ENSC202 - 4
Summary of Grade Elements (Top)
The course performance criteria provide for a mix of individual as well as group assessments. As per my grading
policy, quantitative tests (e.g., the exam) will be graded on a 0-100% scale but most qualitative grading elements
(e.g., work plans, reports, presentations) will normally be graded on a 0-95% scale, on the assumption that
“perfection” in these qualitative elements is hard to assess. With the weighting elements given below (which sum
to 100%) this means that the maximum calculated grade will fall short of 100%. To account for this discrepancy, I
will assign 0 to 3 overall participation points on top of your overall calculated grade. This is an easy way to get
points that will substantially improve your grade. I will assign these points on the basis of identifiable, regular,
original, and constructive contributions by individuals to class discussions and project leadership.
By element
By participation








Mid-Term: 25% (individual)
Assignments: 10% (individual)
Project: 45%
o Work plan: 5% (team)
o Draft Project Report: 5% (team)
o Project Peer-Review: 5% (individual)
o Project report: 10% (team)
o Response to reviewers 5% (team)
o Exit interview: 5% (team)
o Project poster: 5% (team)
o Peer evaluation: 5% (individual)
Case study presentations: 20%
o Presenter (team): 15%
o Audience evaluator: 5% (individual)
Overall participation: 0-3 points (individual)
Individual: 50%
Team: 50%
Plus overall participation points
There will be a number of small, individual assignments throughout the semester, including skills development,
reflections, and peer-evaluations. These will typically be qualitative rather than quantitative assignments and will
collectively will carry the weight of 10% of your final graded as noted above. They will be evaluated as follows:
95% - done with notable professionalism
85% - done, to meet the assignment objective
75% - done in a notably cursory fashion
65% - Unacceptable
The project and case study grades are purposely in multiples of 5%. In general:
5%/10%/15% = Exemplary, beyond expectations, innovative, original thinking.
4%/8%/12% = A solid performance, expected of an ESNC student, good use of knowledge
3%/6%/9% = A bland performance, better expected of an ENSC student, uninventive reapplication
1%/2%/3% = Uninspired performance, not of an expected quality, mundane, repetitive of the known
0%/0%/0% = failure to perform on one or more aspects of the assignment
ENSC202 - 5
Performance Appraisal Criteria or Rubrics (Top)
The value of each appraisal element is noted. “Discrete” means that only the indicated grade will be used.
“Continuous” means that some leeway for higher or lower grades will be considered (e.g. 88 rather than just 85).
“Individual” indicates a grade element applied to each individual. “Group” refers to a grade element applied to a
team as a whole.
Mid-term Exam – as graded (30%, discrete, individual)
Team Environmental Assessment Projects

Work plan (5%, continuous, group)
o Excellent (95): Responsive to RFP, innovative approach, substantive literature review
o Okay (85): Responsive to RFP, adequate approach and literature review
o Undistinguished (75): Unresponsive to RFP, problematic approach, cursory literature review
o Unacceptable (65): Did not submit (zero)
o Note: Deduction of 5 points for each day the draft report is late.

Draft report (5%, continuous, group)
o Excellent (95): Major progress on all sections, well formatted, grammatically correct
o Okay (85): Adequate progress on all sections, reasonably formatted, few grammatical error
o Undistinguished (75): Undeveloped sections, poor formatting, regular grammatical errors
o Unacceptable (65): Missing sections, formatting errors, substantial grammatical problems
o Did not submit (zero)
o Note: Deduction of 5 percentage points for each day the draft report is late.

Review of another team’s draft project report (5%, discrete, individual)
o Excellent (95): Adheres to guidelines, substantive review, excellent suggestions, respectful
o Okay (85): Adequate review, useful suggestions.
o Undistinguished (75): Cursory review, lack of effort, unhelpful comments.
o Unacceptable (65): Submitted with no substantial comments
o Did not submit (zero)
o Note: Deduction of 5 percentage points for each day the draft report is late.

Presentation evaluations (5%, discrete, individual)
o Excellent (95): Responsive and thoughtful comments
o Okay (85): Reasonable summary with limited interpretation
o Undistinguished (75): Cursory response, no useful interpretation.
o Unacceptable (65): Negative, unhelpful comments
o Did not submit (zero)
o Note: Deduction of 5 percentage points for each day an evaluation is late

Final hardcopy report (10%, continuous, group)
o Excellent (95): Informative, organized, well-documented, well-formatted, grammatically correct
o Okay (85): Some weaknesses in content, organization, documentation, format, or grammar
o Undistinguished (75): Moderate weaknesses in content, organization, documentation, format, or grammar
o Unacceptable (65): Considerable weaknesses in content, organization, documentation, format, or grammar
o Did not submit (zero).
o Note: Deduction of 5 percentage points for each day the final report is late.
o Note: Individual grades may be adjusted on the basis of intra-team evaluations.

Response to reviewer comments (5%, continuous, group)
o Excellent (95): Responsive, well-organized, well-documented
o Okay (85): Some weaknesses in response, organization, or documentation
o Undistinguished (75): Considerable weaknesses in response, organization, and documentation.
o Unacceptable (65): Did not submit (zero).
o Note: Deduction of 5 (five) percentage points for each day the response to reviewers is late.
ENSC202 - 6

Defense of project in final exit interview (5%, continuous, group)
o Excellent (95): mastery of subject matter, answer questions professionally, innovative recommendations
o Acceptable: understands subject matter, answers most questions but stumbles on some, provides expected
recommendations
o Undistinguished (75): Important gaps in understanding, stumbles on questions, lack of thoughtful
recommendations.
o Unacceptable (65): Clearly does not understand the topic and has no useful recommendations.
o No show (zero). Could be applied to an individual rather than the group.
o Note: Due to schedule constraints, exit interviews cannot be rescheduled.

Project poster presentation (5%, continuous, group)
o Excellent (95): Informative, inspired thinking, well organized and formatted, well-documented, engaging delivery
that stimulates discussion.
o Good (85): Some weaknesses in content, some original thinking, acceptable organization, format,
documentation, and delivery.
o Undistinguished (75): Weak content, little more than review of literature with limited synthesis, flaws in
organization and format, missing documentation, weak delivery.
o Unacceptable (65): Poor content, just a simple review of known facts, poorly organized and formatted, little or no
documentation, poor delivery.
o No show (zero). Could be applied to an individual rather than the group.
o Note: Due to schedule constraints, presentations cannot be late.
Case study presentation

As presenter (15%, continuous, group)
o Excellent (95): Informative, inspired thinking, well organized and formatted, well-documented, engaging delivery
that stimulates discussion.
o Good (85): Some weaknesses in content, some original thinking, acceptable organization, format,
documentation, and delivery.
o Undistinguished (75): Weak content, little more than review of literature with limited synthesis, flaws in
organization and format, missing documentation, weak delivery.
o Unacceptable (65): Poor content, just a simple review of known facts, poorly organized and formatted, little or no
documentation, poor delivery.
o No show (zero). Could be applied to an individual rather than the group.
Note: Due to schedule constraints, presentations cannot be late.

As audience member (5%, discrete, individual)
o Excellent (95): Responsive and thoughtful comments
o Okay (85): Reasonable summary with limited interpretation
o Undistinguished (75): Cursory response, no useful interpretation.
o Unacceptable (65): Negative, unhelpful comments
o Did not submit (zero)
o Note: Deduction of 5 percentage points for each day an evaluation is late
Discretionary

Overall class participation (0 to 5 points on top of overall calculated grade)
o 5-points: Clearly relevant, regular, original, and constructive contributions to class discussions and project
leadership. Nearly always present.
o 3-points: Relevant, occasional, original, and constructive contributions to class discussions and project
leadership. Nearly always present.
o 1-point: A few comments that show that you are following the conversation and wish to speak up. Typically
present.
o No points will be given for simply being present without any effort to become involved or for showing up only for
key assignments.
ENSC202 - 7
Appendix: Policies - General Expectations in my Courses (Top)
(See: http://www.uvm.edu/~wbowden/Teaching/Policies/Policies_My_Expectations.htm)
All participants in this course (students, TAs, and professor) are expected to adhere to the academic policies of
the University of Vermont. In particular, students in this course (as all UVM courses) will be expected to adhere to
Code of Academic Integrity. At its heart, this code is about plagiarism, fabrication, collusion, and cheating. The
characteristics of plagiarism are sometimes not entirely clear. If you are uncertain what constitutes plagiarism, I
strongly encourage you to take a look at this helpful site. (http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-isplagiarism/). Plagiarism is a serious issue that can have serious repercussions for your career.
Students should also be aware of the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities. In the context of this course
this code emphasizes mutual respect to promote shared learning. If you are not familiar with these codes, please
take a moment to study them.
My grading policies for all of my courses are explained in detail here. One thing that you should note is that for
coursework that is qualitative in nature, grading on a 0-100% scale is - in my opinion - problematic in that
"perfection" of 100% is impossible to judge. For this reason, in courses where there are many qualitative elements
I include a special "overall participation" grade element to fill what might otherwise be a grading discrepancy
between 95-100%. See the particular course syllabus for whether and how I employ this grade element. (As an
aside, you should note that UVM does not made a distinction between a A and an A+ in calculating GPAs; i.e.,
both letter grades have the same effect on GPA.)
As one simple expression of mutual respect I ask that you refrain from using cell phones in class for any purpose
unless I specifically ask you to use them. If it is your normal habit to take notes on a laptop, that is okay, but
please let me know that this is what you are doing. Otherwise, please keep laptops, tablets, etc. closed unless I
ask you specifically to use them.
Specific policies regarding this and other rights and responsibilities of the UVM community can be foundt the UVM
Policy Site.
I welcome the use of ACCESS and other UVM-supported programs to enhance your learning experience in this
class. If you intend to use any of these services, please let me know early in the semester.
The University of Vermont's policy regarding observance of religious holidays is as follows: "Students have the
right to practice the religion of their choice. Each
semester students should submit in writing to their instructors by the end of the second full week of classes their
documented religious holiday schedule for the semester. Faculty must permit students who miss work for the
purpose of religious observance to make up this work."
ENSC202 - 8