Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

8 Marine Module
Pages 37-40

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 37...
... This feeling was based, in part, on comments expressed by both URS Corporation, Inc., staff and professional biologists during the 2-day workshop in Key Largo in January 2001. When it received the Draft CCAM in November 2001, the Committee was therefore surprised that the only input to the marine ecosystem came from the Integrated Water Module and that the Smart Growth scenario showed no measurable impact on the marine ecosystem.
From page 38...
... . The findings from the Smart Growth scenario reported in the Draft CCAM assume complete fulfillment of all water module and terrestrial management plans outlined in the document.
From page 39...
... The time scale for mixing in the near-shore zone between storms may result in a relatively uniform distribution of discharged constituents in that zone, but there is no way of determining such a distribution from the line-source mixing model. A two-dimensional, steady-state model with provisions for exchange with offshore waters might suffice to distribute conservative constituents discharged continuously, on the average.
From page 40...
... In short, the Marine Module is not an adequate tool for generating predictions on marine water quality or other important environmental endpoints given the limitations of its diffusion model. The Draft CCAM Marine Module should not be used to make inferences about marine water quality.

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.