Objective: Students describe how topography and land use influence non-point source pollution in the watershed.

Objectives: After taking the Tour, students can describe how precipitation effects runoff and thus nutrient loads/concentrations. Students can explain how indicator levels at the exit point of the watershed represent mixed land use. Students can compare the indicator levels or water originating from the pristine forest to the water from these mixed land use conditions.

• Compare indicators at station 0 (precipitation-runoff, precipitation-groundwater, runoff-sediments, runoff-nitrogen, runoff-phosphorus, air temperature-water temperature).
• Compare station 0 with 7 (runoff, sediments, nitrogen, phosphorus, water temperature, toxins, heavy metals, pH, dissolved oxygen).

Objectives: Students determine which of the WQS variables are "independent" from the simulator perspective. Students describe the effect of precipitation amount and land use in affecting indicator level and explain the role of runoff.

• Large group activity - discussion and creation of initial concept map depicting connection between "independent" variables, runoff, and water quality.
• Small group activity - prediction of the effect of land use on runoff and other indicator values (students assigned to land use groups)

Objectives: Students compare the water quality of their land use to the pristine forest using the WQS. They form tentative hypotheses about the effect of independent and intervening variables on water quality.

• Students compare values of groundwater, total flow, sediments, and air temperature at their station to the values at station 0 (pristine forest).
• Students synthesize the relationship between indicator value at their station to station 0, considering minimum, maximum, and average values as well as variability.
• Students compare values of the other water quality indicators at their station with station 0 (pristine forest).
• Students form tentative hypotheses relating the second group of indicators to the first.

Objectives: Students compare the change in a particular indicator over a variety of land uses. Students revise their hypotheses to include mediating causes by land use.

• Each student describes how the indicator varies at his/her land use compared to station 0 (pristine forest).
  
• Students determine the information they need about the particular indicator. They use the RiverWeb links and other resources to find connections between their land use and that indicator.
  
• Students expand the initial concept map to include their land uses, mediating land causes, intervening variables (e.g. runoff), and connections to their indicator.
  

Objectives: Students generalize the importance of runoff in causing high indicator levels and determine commonalties in contributing causes. They deduce that improvements involve decreasing indicator-laden runoff.

• Large Class Discussion - integrate refined concept maps for entire watershed.

Objectives: Students deepen their understanding of the interrelated nature of the watershed, how selected indicators point to problems across the watershed and the impacts of mitigation on the indicators within specific land use areas and across the entire watershed.

• Report indicator variation findings from Jigsaw Part 2.
• Investigate, anticipate impacts of, and implement best management practice.
• Assess results (on indicators).

Objective: Students synthesize findings into a set of recommendations for watershed management, taking into account limitations of the model.

• Compare and generalize mitigation strategies and impacts on indicators.
• Discuss limitations of simulator.
• Discuss trade-offs for best management.