text stringlengths 0 6.44k |
|---|
12 |
12 |
Recommendation of Preferred Approaches |
Freshwater Flow and Ecological Relationships in Biscayne Bay 6-3 |
OLETA RIVER/SNAKE CREEK |
The recommended approach rated highest at 22 with a range of values from 6-22. |
The approach is the Indicator Species approach, with the indicator species being |
the American oyster, West Indian manatee and Johnson's seagrass (Table E-1). |
The scientific data to support for using this approach is rated 2 on a scale of 0 to |
5, where 0 is pure conjecture with no data support, 3 is moderate data support, |
and 5 is very strong data support (Table 6). |
While we know oysters are present (FDEP 2002), there is no definitive mapping |
of the existing oyster resources in this area, and the health of the oysters is |
unknown. Therefore it is not possible to say it maintaining the existing water |
flows and levels will protect this resource. We know manatees use this area |
(DERM 1995), but whether the existing water flows are optimum or suboptimum for manatee protection is unknown. We know Johnson’s seagrass is |
present in the park (FDEP 2002), but this species is only described in the |
Johnson’s seagrass recovery plan as being euryhaline and found in a salinity |
range of 15-43 psu, “…but has been observed growing perennially near the |
mouths of freshwater discharge canals…” (page 1.2-3 in NMFS 2002). Again, |
whether flows are optimum or not in this area is unknown. |
Given these uncertainties, the recommended contingency option is to maintain |
all the existing flows through wetlands and into the Bay in this area until |
additional scientific information on the specific freshwater flows and levels for |
these, or additional species occurring in this location, are scientifically |
documented. |
NORTHERN BISCAYNE BAY |
The recommended approach rated highest at 22 with a range of values from 6-22. |
The approach is the Indicator Species approach, with the indicator species being |
the spotted seatrout and manatee grass (Table E-2). |
The scientific information data support for this option is rated as a 3 on a scale of |
0-5 (Table 6). |
The moderate level of information available is reflected in the reported capture of |
96% of all seatrout from one study (Serafy et al. 1997) north of Rickenbacker |
Causeway, and 68% in this portion of the Bay. Bellmund et al. (1999)(page 7) |
confirm the use of this species with the statement that “…In North Biscayne Bay |
Recommendation of Preferred Approaches |
Freshwater Flow and Ecological Relationships in Biscayne Bay 6-4 |
sea trout spawning is believed to be linked to the presence of stable low salinity |
areas which are available seasonally…” |
The dominant species within seagrass beds in this area is manatee grass. This |
species also appears to grow best in stable salinity fluctuation areas, but data to |
support the existing freshwater flows as being protective of these seagrass beds |
is lacking. Fourqueran (pers. comm..) feels its tolerance of lower light levels than |
other species of seagrass may be the cause of its persistence and perhaps |
competitive advantage at this location, rather than a tolerance of lower salinities |
than other seagrass species. |
Given these uncertainties, the recommended contingency option is to maintain |
all the existing flows into this sub-area of the Bay until additional scientific |
information on the specific freshwater flows and levels for these, or additional |
species occurring in this location, are scientifically documented. |
MIAMI RIVER/GOVERNMENT CUT |
The recommended approach rated highest at 20 with a range of values from 5-20. |
The approach is the Community Index approach, intended to utilize a |
biodiversity index similar to that developed by Berkely and Campos (1984) for |
the Bay (Table E-3) |
The scientific information data support for this option is rated as a 2 on a scale of |
0-5 (Table 6). |
We have been able to find very little specific information on indicator species for |
this area of the Bay. Alleman (pers. comm.) notes that this part of the bay was |
reported by Serafy et al. (1997) to have the highest fish species diversity of all the |
sampled stations. The Miami River is known to have highly polluted bottom |
sediments that are now the subject of a maintenance dredging project, but the |
existing water flows likely maintain a complete gradient from freshwater in its |
upper reaches, to euhaline at the entrance to the port. This range of salinities |
overlaps a wide variety of bottom communities, and may be the reason for such a |
high diversity of fish and possibly also invertebrates. |
Given these uncertainties, the recommended contingency option is to maintain |
all the existing flows into this sub-area of the Bay until additional scientific |
information on the specific freshwater flows and levels for these, or additional |
species occurring in this location, are scientifically documented. |
Recommendation of Preferred Approaches |
Freshwater Flow and Ecological Relationships in Biscayne Bay 6-5 |
CENTRAL BISCAYNE BAY |
The recommended approach rated highest at 22 with a range of values from 5-22. |
Both the Indicator Species approach and the Valued Ecosystem Component |
approach scored the same (Table E-4). The Indicator Species approach was |
judged the better of the two by the principal scientists, and the species chosen |
were being the pink shrimp and shoalgrass. Benthic infaunal and epifaunal |
invertebrate communities were not chosen as good indicators due to the |
multiparameter responses that are not directly connected with salinity changes in |
this sub-area of the Bay (Graves et al. 2003). |
The scientific information data support for this option is rated as a 2 on a scale of |
0-5 (Table 6). |
This level of uncertainty is supported by the following quotes from the proposal |
(currently funded) for the “Biscayne Bay Coastal Biological Community |
Performance Measures Project” (Browder 2001): “…major water management |
initiatives will influence the quantity, timing and quality of freshwater inflow to |
Biscayne Bay…” however “…Biscayne Bay is handicapped by lack of |
information about conditions and communities in the western nearshore |
Bay…The benthic animal community, consisting of small forage fish, juvenile |
game fish, and invertebrates such as pink shrimp…blue crab…gray snapper…are |
linked to nearshore environments, but their relationships with freshwater inflow |
have received little investigative attention in Biscayne Bay.” The data for the first |
year of this sampling are expected to be available in nine months, and a second |
year of sampling is proposed. |
The study plan for the above reference study (Robblee et al. 2001) stated that the |
dominant vegetation type(s) for the sampling areas will be measured and |
reported along with the invertebrate and fish collected. Water quality data will |
be collected using hydrolabs. Although Fourqueran et al. (2003) characterized |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.