Datasets:
patrickbdevaney
/
mia9

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
6.44k
exist at some level satisfactory to water managers, citizens and scientists.
Appendix E Tables E-1 to E-6 list the various alternatives considered for use for
each of the six sub-regions, with values established on a scale of 0-5 for by bestprofessional-judgment by the two principal scientists writing this report: Greg
Braun and Roy R. "Robin" Lewis III, combined with knowledge derived from the
reviewed literature, and comments by interviewees to the principal scientists.
Each potential approach was rated on a scale of 0-5, and the six values were then
added together for a final score. The minimum score could therefore be 0, and
the maximum 30. Each of these final totaled values is listed in summary in Table
5. The highest scores are highlighted. For one region, Central Biscayne Bay, two
possible approaches are tied with the same score, 22. Since the valued ecosystem
components and the chosen indicator species are the same for this region, this
does not impact the choice of approach.
Table 6 is modified from Table 5 to now include a subjective rating by the
principal scientists of the currently existing strength of scientific data support for
a particular recommended approach. On a rating scale of 0-5, 0 is pure conjecture
with no data support, 3 is moderate data support, and 5 is very strong data
support. For most of the recommended approaches, the current scientific data
base to support a specific quantitative MFL is low to moderate. As noted by
Browder et al. (2001), "(D)evelopment of the information and modeling tools
necessary to link water management, salinity envelopes, and biological
performance measures is still in their early stages with respect to Biscayne
Bay...thus far it has not been possible to translate changes in freshwater flow into
terms meaningful to the Bay ecosystem in more than a general sense."
The highest rated approaches, strength of scientific data support for that
approach and recommended contingency plan for each region are listed below.
Table 6
Comparison of the Relative Strength of Scientific Support for the
Different MFL Approaches for Each Sub-region
Oleta River
Snake Creek
Northern
Biscayne Bay
Miami River
Gov't Cut
Central
Biscayne Bay
South-Central
Biscayne Bay
Southern
Biscayne Bay
2 2 4
Relative Strength of
Scientific Support (0-5) 2 3 2
Soil Characteristics
Requirement for preferred
fish communities
Food Web Support
Sub-Region
Pre-development Scenario
Valued Ecosystem
Component(s)
Community Index
Indicator Species
POTENTIAL APPROACHES
Presence/Absence/Vitality
of Preferred Habitats
Ecological Preservation
22 22
17
14 8
17
21
12
15
16
22 15
6
18 18 16
22
17
14
14
12
12
12 12 6
5
12 20
12
12
12
6
15 11
5
22 16
13
26
10
5
15
12
5
10
Shaded bocks indicate the recommended approach for each sub-region, based on it receiving the highest ranking.
It is important to note that these values represent a composite of multiple factors (see Appendix E).
12
15
5
10
12
12 12