Potential Effects of Loading Terminal Locations on Surface Trajectories of Oil Spill Transport

Clint Dawson; Edward Buskey; Eirik Valseth; Shoshana Reich

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Potential Effects of Loading Terminal Locations on Surface Trajectories of Oil Spill Transport

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a modeled spill at the onshore Harbor Island terminal spreads oil further into ecologically sensitive coastal ecosystems than the same spill at the offshore Bluewater Texas Terminal, across seasons and channel depths.

desk verdict A useful case study of oil-spill trajectory modeling for Corpus Christi, but the headline onshore-vs-offshore result needs a sensitivity test for windage before it can be taken as robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24610 v1 pith:LEIIEC4G submitted 2025-05-30 physics.comp-ph

Shoshana Reich , Edward Buskey , Clint Dawson , Eirik Valseth This is my paper

classification physics.comp-ph

keywords HydrodynamicsADCIRCLagrangianparticletrackingOilspilltransportCoastalcirculationPortofCorpusChristiShallowwaterequationsHurricanestormsurge

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the choice of loading terminal—an onshore deepwater dock at Harbor Island versus an offshore terminal 21 miles east of the Port of Corpus Christi—changes where a crude oil spill would end up. Using a two-step model that first computes coastal water circulation with the ADCIRC shallow-water solver and then tracks oil as passive particles, the authors find that the onshore site produces greater spread into ecologically important areas: oil released at Harbor Island reaches the Padre Island National Seashore and the inner bays, while oil released offshore mostly stays offshore. The result holds across the three seasons tested (December 2020, June 2021, August 2021) and both current and proposed channel depths. The finding implies that terminal siting, rather than channel depth, is the dominant factor in where a spill goes, and that a deepened channel only changes trajectories noticeably during extreme weather events such as Hurricane Harvey.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-step modeling chain. First, the ADCIRC finite-element model solves the two-dimensional shallow-water equations on two unstructured meshes (current and proposed channel bathymetry) forced by tides, winds, pressure, Coriolis, and bottom friction, and validated against NOAA water-level gauges. Second, a Lagrangian particle-tracking code advects 42,000 passive particles through the resulting velocity fields, with one particle per gallon of a 42,000-gallon spill. The key object is the set of particle trajectories over 30 days under normal conditions or 10 days during hurricanes, compared between the onshore Harbor Island release and the offshore Bluewater Texas Terminal release.

What would settle it

Add a windage term (typically 2–4% of the 10-m wind speed) and a turbulent-diffusion term to the particle tracker and rerun the same releases; if the offshore spill then reaches the barrier islands or inner bays as often as or more often than the onshore spill, the paper's central claim is false. A field check would be to release satellite-tracked drifters at both sites during December, June, and August and compare their 30-day distributions to the simulated ones.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the release location dominates the spatial footprint of a simulated spill. In the model, 42,000 particles (one per gallon of a 42,000-gallon release) are tracked for 30 days under normal circulation and 10 days during hurricanes, with the resulting distributions compared qualitatively. With the onshore release, particles spread along the Padre Island National Seashore and into the bays behind the barrier islands; with the offshore release, particles remain in the open Gulf in nearly all scenarios, the exception being December 2020 when some particles crossed the barrier island through the Port Mansfield channel after 22 days. Channel deepening from 14.33 m to 21.33 m makes little difference to trajectories under normal flow but becomes noticeable during Hurricane Harvey, where the proposed bathymetry leaves more particles in Corpus Christi Bay. Even in that storm case, the number of particles reaching the bays from the onshore site exceeds the number arriving from the offshore site.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that oil particles drift passively with the water currents alone, with no windage, turbulent spreading, wave drift, evaporation, or weathering, so the onshore/offshore comparison rests entirely on water circulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The proposed offshore Bluewater Texas Terminal would, if the model holds, deposit less oil on the Padre Island National Seashore and in the shallow bays than the onshore Harbor Island dock under normal conditions.
Deepening the ship channel does not materially alter spill trajectories during normal flow, so channel deepening alone is not the main spill-risk variable.
During a major hurricane like Harvey, the deepened channel can shift where oil pools, with more particles held in Corpus Christi Bay under the proposed bathymetry, so emergency planning should include the deepened-channel scenario.
Seasonal timing changes the spread pattern: in December the onshore spill spreads wider, and offshore-released particles can enter the bay system through the Port Mansfield channel after about three weeks.
The number of particles reaching sensitive bays from the onshore site exceeds the number arriving from the offshore site even in the Hurricane Harvey scenario.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the model omits windage, the onshore-versus-offshore gap could shrink or reverse if a few percent of wind speed were added to particle motion, particularly during sea-breeze and hurricane conditions; this is an inference, not a claim in the paper.
The one-particle-per-gallon tracer assumption ignores oil weathering; adding evaporation and dispersion would reduce total particle mass but likely preserve the spatial contrast, and a mass-weighted comparison would test that.
The fixed release dates (one per season) ignore tidal phase; an ensemble of release times within each month would show whether the onshore/offshore contrast is robust to when in the tidal cycle the spill begins.
The same two-site comparison could be run for other dredged barrier-island ports; the Port Mansfield crossing seen in December 2020 suggests that distant channel entrances can act as spill entry points, so local geometry matters.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, it is a genuine new application: comparing oil-spill trajectories from a proposed onshore dock at Harbor Island versus an offshore terminal 21 miles out, using an ADCIRC circulation model with current and deepened channel bathymetries. That comparison has not been done before, and it matters for a port that handles a large share of U.S. crude exports. Second, the central claim—that onshore releases spread more to ecologically sensitive areas—is plausible but rests on a particle model that omits windage, Stokes drift, and turbulent diffusion, and the spread extent is assessed only qualitatively. That is a real soft spot, not a manufactured one.

The paper does several things well. The hydrodynamic setup uses a validated, high-resolution ADCIRC mesh with 3.3 million nodes, forced by tides, winds, and pressure, and calibrated against four NOAA gauges. The seasonal and storm scenarios (December, June, August, plus Hurricanes Nicholas and Harvey) give the comparison breadth. The authors are appropriately careful about channel-depth effects, noting they are minor in normal conditions and more visible in extreme ones. The self-citations to their earlier fish-larvae and storm-surge studies are relevant and not circular.

The weaknesses are proportionate to the strength of the claim. Section 3.1 states the particle distributions are assessed "in a qualitative manner," yet the abstract makes a quantitative-sounding statement about the extent of spread. There is no metric such as shoreline contact length, particle counts crossing a boundary, or a concentration threshold. More importantly, Section 2.5 explicitly says particles are passively advected by the water circulation. Real surface oil moves with windage (typically 1–3% of the 10-m wind speed) and wave-driven drift, and this region has strong sea breezes and hurricanes. A modest windage term could push offshore-released particles toward the coast, as the December case already shows some reaching Port Mansfield. Without a sensitivity test, the onshore-vs-offshore ranking could flip. This is not a fatal flaw in the hydrodynamics, but it is a gap in the particle-transport step. The paper's own limitation list mentions weathering and mitigation, but not windage.

I would give this paper a serious referee rather than desk-reject it. The question is important, the modeling is competent, and the missing piece is a well-defined sensitivity study. A reviewer should ask for (1) a quantitative spread metric, (2) a few particle runs with windage and diffusion, and (3) some velocity validation against current data, if available. With those, the paper would be a solid case study for coastal risk assessment. Without them, the abstract overstates what the model shows.

For a reading group, it's a decent example of applied coastal modeling with a clear policy hook, though not a methodological breakthrough. I wouldn't cite it for methods, but I might cite it as a regional application if the authors address the sensitivity issue.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares the potential surface-trajectory impacts of oil spills from a proposed onshore loading terminal at Harbor Island and a proposed offshore terminal (Bluewater Texas Terminal) near Port of Corpus Christi, Texas. The authors construct two high-resolution ADCIRC shallow-water meshes representing current and proposed channel bathymetries, force them with tides and NAM winds for December 2020, June 2021, August 2021, Hurricane Nicholas, and Hurricane Harvey, validate water elevations against four NOAA gauges, and then advect 42,000 particles released from each terminal using depth-averaged currents. The central claim, stated in the abstract, is that the extent of particle spread into ecologically significant coastal regions is greater for onshore-sourced spills than for offshore-sourced spills; a secondary claim is that bathymetry changes matter little under normal conditions but matter during Hurricane Harvey. The paper closes by noting that chemical weathering, oil degradation, and mitigation strategies are not considered.

Significance. The question is practically relevant for terminal siting and spill-response planning, and the study has real strengths: the ADCIRC mesh is very high resolution along the Texas coast (30–100 m), the hydrodynamic setup is validated against independent NOAA gauge data (Section 2.4), a strong-scaling study is reported (Section 2.2), and the onshore/offshore comparison is repeated across five distinct forcing scenarios spanning seasons and hurricanes. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a visual, unmetricized comparison, and the particle model omits windage, diffusion, and Stokes drift—processes that are first-order for surface oil in a coastal, hurricane-prone region. If the requested sensitivity analysis confirms the ordering, the result would be a useful, policy-relevant case study; as it stands, the robustness of the abstract's headline claim is not established.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.5] The particle model advects particles only with the depth-averaged ADCIRC velocity (convective transport), with no windage, no turbulent diffusion, no Stokes drift, and no weathering. For surface oil, windage of order 1–3% of the 10-m wind speed is a first-order process, and in a region with strong sea breezes and hurricanes it could plausibly alter the onshore/offshore spread comparison. Because the abstract's central claim is a ranking of the extent of spread, the authors should add a sensitivity test (e.g., a windage term on particles, and ideally Stokes drift and a small diffusivity) and show that the ranking is unchanged, or state the parameter range over which it reverses. As written, the central claim is not robust to this first-order surface process.
[Section 3.1] The paper states that the distribution of particles is assessed 'in a qualitative manner' by visual comparison, and the abstract's claim that the extent of spread from the onshore site is 'greater' is never defined by a metric. A quantitative measure is needed, for example the number or fraction of particles crossing the barrier-island/inshore line, the alongshore reach on Padre Island National Seashore, the area of a convex hull or kernel-density estimate inside ecologically sensitive polygons, or residence times in those polygons. The December 2020 offshore case already shows particles crossing into the bays at Port Mansfield (Figure 10), so the reported ranking depends on how 'extent of spread' is defined; without a metric, the abstract's comparison cannot be evaluated or reproduced.
[Section 2.5 and Figure 8] The initial spatial distribution of the 42,000 particles is not specified. In a purely advective, non-diffusive flow, particles released at a single grid point would remain collocated, and the simulated 'extent of spread' would be determined entirely by the (unspecified) initial release footprint. The authors should state the initial footprint (e.g., area, shape, and placement relative to the terminal and channel) and test sensitivity to it, since the headline comparison may depend on this choice.
[Section 3.2 and Figure 13] The claim that the proposed bathymetry leads to 'far more particles in the Corpus Christi Bay' during Hurricane Harvey, and the broader conclusion that bathymetry affects trajectories under extreme conditions, is supported only by visual inspection of particle plots. This is a secondary but still load-bearing conclusion; it should be quantified with particle counts or concentrations in specified bay polygons, and it should be connected to the windage sensitivity, since storm conditions are exactly where the missing windage term is largest.

minor comments (5)

[General] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'mes' for 'mesh' (page 5), 'inital' for 'initial' (Figure 12 captions), 'is is' (Section 2.3), '1stime step' (Section 2.2), and 'at the of end' (Figure 10 caption).
[Section 2.1 and Figure 3] The sign convention for h_b is confusing: the text says bathymetry is positive above NAVD88 (dry land), while the equation H = ζ + h_b and Figure 3 suggest h_b is a positive water depth below the geoid. Please clarify the convention in Eq. (1) and Figure 3 so that the total water column H is unambiguous.
[References] Reference [16] for OceanMesh2D is a ResearchGate user-guide link rather than a formal citation; consider citing the peer-reviewed OceanMesh2D paper or a persistent DOI instead.
[Figures 9–13] The particle plots would be easier to compare if zoomed insets with common color scales and a small multiple layout per scenario were used; the current full-domain figures make the subtle onshore/offshore differences difficult to assess visually.
[Section 2.5] The statement 'one particle per gallon' should be clarified: particles are numerical tracers, not physical oil-volume elements, and the particle count does not by itself represent oil concentration. Please explain how particle density is interpreted as oil spread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the onshore/offshore comparison is a simulation output supported by external NOAA validation, not a refit or self-citation-forced result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: ADCIRC solves the shallow-water equations under tidal, wind, pressure, Coriolis, and bottom-friction forcings; the current-bathymetry mesh is validated against independent NOAA water-level observations (Section 2.4); the validated velocity fields are then used in a Lagrangian particle-tracking code (Section 2.5); and particles are released at the two proposed terminal locations. The abstract's conclusion that the onshore loading site yields greater spread into ecologically significant regions is an output of these simulations, not a fitted parameter or a quantity defined in terms of the release locations. No equation in the paper reduces the prediction to its inputs, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work to force the result. The self-citations to the authors' earlier ADCIRC and particle-tracking work ([2], [5], [20], [21]) are tool/pedigree references rather than load-bearing proof of the specific ranking; the central validation is external (NOAA gauges) and the particle code is cited as established methodology. Concerns about omitted windage, Stokes drift, or oil weathering are physical-completeness/correctness issues, not circularity, and the rubric explicitly excludes such concerns from the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard circulation modeling plus a simplified particle model. The main simplification is passive advection with no windage or diffusion, which could change the onshore/offshore comparison if surface oil is wind-dominated. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

Manning's n bottom friction coefficient = Spatially varying from land cover classification
Used in ADCIRC momentum equations (Section 2.3); value for each element is assigned from land cover data, not fitted in this study. The central claim depends on bottom friction through the circulation, but the choice is standard practice.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The 2D shallow water equations represent coastal circulation in this domain.
ADCIRC solves the depth-averaged SWE (Section 2.1); vertical stratification and 3D effects are not modeled, which could affect nearshore oil trajectories.
domain assumption The proposed bathymetry for a deepened Corpus Christi Ship Channel is as specified.
The proposed-depth mesh (Section 2.1, Figure 4b) is constructed from external project proposals [1]; the paper does not validate this hypothesized bathymetry.
ad hoc to paper Oil is a passive tracer advected by water velocity.
Section 2.5 states particles are 'passive transport resulting from the water circulation'; no windage, buoyancy, spreading, evaporation, or chemical degradation is included.
domain assumption NCEP NAM winds/pressures and TPXO9 tidal constituents are accurate forcings.
These external data are interpolated to the mesh (Section 2.3); errors in these inputs propagate to velocities and trajectories.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Potential Effects of Loading Terminal Locations on Surface Trajectories of Oil Spill Transport." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEIIEC4G

@misc{pith2026250524610,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Potential Effects of Loading Terminal Locations on Surface Trajectories of Oil Spill Transport},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEIIEC4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24610}
}

read the original abstract

We present an investigation comparing the potential impacts of offshore and onshore crude oil loading sites on surface trajectories of spilled oil particles in the regions near the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas. Oil transport is established in a two step procedure. First, the circulation and flow characteristics of seawater throughout the coastal ocean are established for various flow conditions, including current and proposed channel depth, seasonality changes, and extreme weather events. Then, spilled oil is modeled as distinct particles released at either the proposed onshore or offshore loading locations. The particle trajectories are tracked and used to assess the spread into diverse coastal ecosystems with extensive plant, sea, and land life. The models indicate that the extent of spread of these simulated oil spills to ecologically significant regions is greater when initiated at the onshore loading site than at the offshore site.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Technical report, ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER VICKSBURG United States (2018)

Hamilton, P., Wood, E., Lin, L., Campbell, T., Olson, L., Jones, S., Howard, S., Skalbeck, K.: Alternatives to manage sediment at the intersection of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and the Corpus Christi Ship Channel (CCSC). Technical report, ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER VICKSBURG United States (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

Journal of Marine Science and Engineering9(9), 935 (2021)

Valseth, E., Loveland, M.D., Dawson, C., Buskey, E.J.: A study of the potential impact of dredging the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on passive particle transport. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering9(9), 935 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources (2019)

McLean, R.P.: Survival and fledging rates of whooping and sandhill crane colts at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Wisconsin, USA. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

The Journal of Wildlife Management7(2), 203–216 (1943)

Halloran, A.F.: Management of deer and cattle on the aransas national wildlife refuge, texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management7(2), 203–216 (1943)

work page 1943
[5]

Journal of Computational Science73, 102138 (2023)

Valseth, E., Dawson, C., Buskey, E.: A study of the potential effects of deep- ening the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on hurricane storm surge. Journal of Computational Science73, 102138 (2023)

work page 2023
[6]

Report 1, Theory and methodology of ADCIRC-2DD1 and ADCIRC-3DL (1992)

Luettich, R.A., Westerink, J.J., Scheffner, N.W.: ADCIRC: an advanced three- dimensional circulation model for shelves, coasts, and estuaries. Report 1, Theory and methodology of ADCIRC-2DD1 and ADCIRC-3DL (1992)

work page 1992
[7]

Oden, J.T.: Finite elements of nonlinear continua (2006)

work page 2006
[8]

Vreugdenhil, C.B.: Numerical methods for shallow-water flow13(2013)

work page 2013

Show all 22 references

[9]

Computers & fluids7(3), 207–228 (1979)

Lynch, D.R., Gray, W.G.: A wave equation model for finite element tidal computations. Computers & fluids7(3), 207–228 (1979)

1979
[10]

Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans118(9), 4424–4460 (2013)

Hope, M.E., Westerink, J.J., Kennedy, A.B., Kerr, P., Dietrich, J.C., Dawson, C., Bender, C.J., Smith, J., Jensen, R.E., Zijlema, M.,et al.: Hindcast and val- idation of Hurricane Ike (2008) waves, forerunner, and storm surge. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans118(9), 442...

2008
[11]

Contract Report, prepared for Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS (1995)

Luettich, R., Westerink, J.: An assessment of flooding and drying techniques for use in the adcirc hydrodynamic model: Implementation and performance in one- dimensional flows. Contract Report, prepared for Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS (1995)

1995
[12]

Dietrich, J., Kolar, R., Luettich, R.A.: Assessment of ADCIRC’s wetting and drying algorithm55, 1767–1778 (2004)

2004
[13]

Journal of Scientific Computing46, 329–358 (2011)

Tanaka, S., Bunya, S., Westerink, J.J., Dawson, C.N., Luettich, R.A.: Scalability 18 of an unstructured grid continuous Galerkin based hurricane storm surge model. Journal of Scientific Computing46, 329–358 (2011)

2011
[14]

Journal of Scientific Computing52, 468–497 (2012)

Dietrich, J.C., Tanaka, S., Westerink, J.J., Dawson, C.N., Luettich, R.A., Zijlema, M., Holthuijsen, L.H., Smith, J.M., Westerink, L.G., Westerink, H.J.: Performance of the unstructured-mesh, SW AN+ADCIRC model in computing hurricane waves and surge. Journal of Scientific Comp...

2012
[15]

In: Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2020: Catch the Wave, pp

Stanzione, D., West, J., Evans, R.T., Minyard, T., Ghattas, O., Panda, D.K.: Frontera: The evolution of leadership computing at the national science founda- tion. In: Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2020: Catch the Wave, pp. 106–111 (2020)

2020
[16]

Pringle, W.: (PDF) OceanMesh2D: User guide - Precise distance-based two-dimensional automated mesh generation toolbox intended for coastal ocean/shallow water (2018). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 326327226 OceanMesh2D User guide - Precise distance-based two-dimens...

2018
[17]

Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic technology19(2), 183–204 (2002)

Egbert, G.D., Erofeeva, S.Y.: Efficient inverse modeling of barotropic ocean tides. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic technology19(2), 183–204 (2002)

2002
[18]

Technical Report AL142021, National Hurricane Center (2022)

Latto, A.S., Berg, R.: National hurricane center tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Nicholas. Technical Report AL142021, National Hurricane Center (2022)

2022
[19]

Geomorphology334, 44–57 (2019)

Goff, J.A., Swartz, J.M., Gulick, S.P., Dawson, C.N., Alegria-Arzaburu, A.R.: An outflow event on the left side of Hurricane Harvey: Erosion of barrier sand and seaward transport through Aransas Pass, Texas. Geomorphology334, 44–57 (2019)

2019
[20]

Continental Shelf Research41, 17–47 (2012)

Dietrich, J., Trahan, C., Howard, M., Fleming, J., Weaver, R., Tanaka, S., Yu, L., Luettich Jr, R., Dawson, C., Westerink, J.,et al.: Surface trajectories of oil transport along the northern coastline of the gulf of mexico. Continental Shelf Research41, 17–47 (2012)

2012
[21]

Regional Studies in Marine Science35, 101131 (2020)

Cyriac, R., Dietrich, J., Blain, C., Dawson, C., Dresback, K., Fathi, A., Bil- skie, M., Graber, H., Hagen, S., Kolar, R.: Wind and tide effects on the Choctawhatchee Bay plume and implications for surface transport at destin inlet. Regional Studies in Marine Science35, 101131 (2020)

2020
[22]

JA WRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association46(5), 1049–1059 (2010) 19

Frey, A.E., Olivera, F., Irish, J.L., Dunkin, L.M., Kaihatu, J.M., Ferreira, C.M., Edge, B.L.: Potential impact of climate change on hurricane flooding inundation, population affected and property damages in Corpus Christi 1. JA WRA Journal of the American Water Resources Asso...

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Technical report, ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER VICKSBURG United States (2018)

Hamilton, P., Wood, E., Lin, L., Campbell, T., Olson, L., Jones, S., Howard, S., Skalbeck, K.: Alternatives to manage sediment at the intersection of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and the Corpus Christi Ship Channel (CCSC). Technical report, ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER VICKSBURG United States (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Journal of Marine Science and Engineering9(9), 935 (2021)

Valseth, E., Loveland, M.D., Dawson, C., Buskey, E.J.: A study of the potential impact of dredging the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on passive particle transport. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering9(9), 935 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources (2019)

McLean, R.P.: Survival and fledging rates of whooping and sandhill crane colts at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Wisconsin, USA. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

The Journal of Wildlife Management7(2), 203–216 (1943)

Halloran, A.F.: Management of deer and cattle on the aransas national wildlife refuge, texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management7(2), 203–216 (1943)

work page 1943

[5] [5]

Journal of Computational Science73, 102138 (2023)

Valseth, E., Dawson, C., Buskey, E.: A study of the potential effects of deep- ening the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on hurricane storm surge. Journal of Computational Science73, 102138 (2023)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Report 1, Theory and methodology of ADCIRC-2DD1 and ADCIRC-3DL (1992)

Luettich, R.A., Westerink, J.J., Scheffner, N.W.: ADCIRC: an advanced three- dimensional circulation model for shelves, coasts, and estuaries. Report 1, Theory and methodology of ADCIRC-2DD1 and ADCIRC-3DL (1992)

work page 1992

[7] [7]

Oden, J.T.: Finite elements of nonlinear continua (2006)

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Vreugdenhil, C.B.: Numerical methods for shallow-water flow13(2013)

work page 2013