Springsheds of the Santa Fe River Basin

Powerpoint presentation (PDF has 45 pages.)

Springs and swallets of the lower Santa Fe River

Many of our surface waters go underground to the aquifer via sinkholes (or swallets) and the water is then called groundwater. Most of us rely on groundwater for our drinking water. Springs are where the groundwater comes to the surface to once again become surface waters. Below is a map of the springs and swallets of the Lower Santa Fe River.

Santa Fe River watershed conservation lands

Conservation lands, which are essential to protecting water resources in the Santa Fe River basin.

The A Posteriori Aspects of Estuarine Modeling

This exercise is the application of an analytical method for systematically modeling ecosystems data to observations made on a naturally eutrophic, mesohaline planktonic microcosm. The theory and experimental design are briefly outlined and the particular steps in the acutal modeling process follow. Then there is a discussion as to how the whole endeavor can be refined to culminate in models with predictive capabilities. (PDF has 16 pages.)

Modeling the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries: a synopsis

The last decade has seen the development and application of a spectrum of physical and numerical hydrographic models of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The success of the James River Hydraulic Model has initiated the construction of an estuarine hydraulic model of the entire Chesapeake System. Numerical analogues for hydrographic behavior and contaminant dispersion in one-, two-, and three dimensional model estuaries exist for various regions of the Bay. From an engineering viewpoint, one dimensional models are sufficiently advanced to be routinely employed in aiding management decisions. Bay investigators are playing leading roles in the development of two- and three-dimensional models of estuarine flows.

The Empirical Modeling of an Ecosystem

The authors have endeavored to create a verified a-posteriori model of a planktonic ecosystem. Verification of an empirically derived set of first-order, quadratic differential equations proved elusive due to the sensitivity of the model system to changes in initial conditions. Efforts to verify a similarly derived set of linear differential equations were more encouraging, yielding reasonable behavior for half of the ten ecosystem compartments modeled. The well-behaved species models gave indications as to the rate-controlling processes in the ecosystem.

Modeling Environmental Stress

The word stress when applied to ecosystems is ambiguous. Stress may be low-level, with accompanying near-linear strain, or it may be of finite magnitude, with nonlinear response and possible disintegration of the system. Since there are practically no widely accepted definitions of ecosystem strain, classification of models of stressed systems is tenuous. Despite appearances, most ecosystem models seem to fall into the low-level linear response category. Although they sometimes simulate systems behavior well, they do not provide necessary and sufficient information about sudden structural changes nor structure after transition. Dynamic models of finiteamplitude response to stress are rare because of analytical difficulties. Some idea as to future transition states can be obtained by regarding the behavior of unperturbed functions under limiting strain conditions. Preliminary work shows that, since community variables do respond in a coherent manner to stress, macroscopic analyses of stressed ecosystems offer possible alternatives to compartmental models.

Establishing National Ocean Service Priorities for Estuarine, Coastal, and Ocean Modeling: Capabilities, Gaps, and Preliminary Prioritization Factors

This report was developed to help establish National Ocean Service priorities and chart new directions for research and development of models for estuarine, coastal and ocean ecosystems based on user-driven requirements and supportive of sound coastal management, stewardship, and an ecosystem approach to management. (PDF contains 63 pages)

Stormwater runoff - modeling impacts of urbanization and climate change

Development pressure throughout the coastal areas of the United States continues to build, particularly in the southeast (Allen and Lu 2003, Crossett et al. 2004). It is well known that development alters watershed hydrology: as land becomes covered with surfaces impervious to rain, water is redirected from groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration to stormwater runoff, and as the area of impervious cover increases, so does the volume and rate of runoff (Schueler 1994, Corbett et al. 1997). Pollutants accumulate on impervious surfaces, and the increased runoff with urbanization is a leading cause of nonpoint source pollution (USEPA 2002). Sediment, chemicals, bacteria, viruses, and other pollutants are carried into receiving water bodies, resulting in degraded water quality (Holland et al. 2004, Sanger et al. 2008). (PDF contains 5 pages)

Panel discussion: U.S. EPA using modeling and ecosystem services to enhance coastal decision making

This panel will discuss the research being conducted, and the models being used in three current coastal EPA studies being conducted on ecosystem services in Tampa Bay, the Chesapeake Bay and the Coastal Carolinas. These studies are intended to provide a broader and more comprehensive approach to policy and decision-making affecting coastal ecosystems as well as provide an account of valued services that have heretofore been largely unrecognized. Interim research products, including updated and integrated spatial data, models and model frameworks, and interactive decision support systems will be demonstrated to engage potential users and to elicit feedback. It is anticipated that the near-term impact of the projects will be to increase the awareness by coastal communities and coastal managers of the implications of their actions and to foster partnerships for ecosystem services research and applications. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Watershed monitoring and the TMDL modeling to assess bacterial loading in estuarine environments to improve management

Shellfish bed closures along the North Carolina coast have increased over the years seemingly concurrent with increases in population (Mallin 2000). More and faster flowing storm water has come to mean more bacteria, and fecal indicator bacterial (FIB) standards for shellfish harvesting are often exceeded when no source of contamination is readily apparent (Kator and Rhodes, 1994). Could management reduce bacterial loads if the source of the bacteria where known? Several potentially useful methods for differentiating human versus animal pollution sources have emerged including Ribotyping and Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) (US EPA, 2005). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies on bacterial sources have been conducted for streams in NC mountain and Piedmont areas (U.S. EPA, 1991 and 2005) and are likely to be mandated for coastal waters. TMDL analysis estimates allowable pollutant loads and allocates them to known sources so management actions may be taken to restore water to its intended uses (U.S. EPA, 1991 and 2005). This project sought first to quantify and compare fecal contamination levels for three different types of land use on the coast, and second, to apply MAR and ribotyping techniques and assess their effectiveness for indentifying bacterial sources. Third, results from these studies would be applied to one watershed to develop a case study coastal TMDL. All three watershed study areas are within Carteret County, North Carolina. Jumping Run Creek and Pettiford Creek are within the White Oak River Basin management unit whereas the South River falls within the Neuse River Basin. Jumping Run Creek watershed encompasses approximately 320 ha. Its watershed was a dense, coastal pocosin on sandy, relic dune ridges, but current land uses are primarily medium density residential. Pettiford Creek is in the Croatan National Forest, is 1133 ha. and is basically undeveloped. The third study area is on Open Grounds Farm in the South River watershed. Half of the 630 ha. watershed is under cultivation with most under active water control (flashboard risers). The remaining portion is forested silviculture.(PDF contains 4 pages)