text stringlengths 0 6.44k |
|---|
2 |
Medium |
Restoration to pre-development |
conditions would be too expensive and |
not likely politically viable |
Inexpensive, but difficult to interpret |
3 3 |
2 3 |
Slow 1 |
3 |
12 |
1 1 |
5 |
12 |
1 15 |
1 5 |
2 |
3 |
Medium |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Would require add'l approach for |
open-water areas |
Adverse impacts from non-salinity water |
quality parameters |
3 1 |
Soil Characteristics |
STRENGTHS & Score |
(0 - no strengths, 5 = strong) |
WEAKNESSES & Score |
(0 = Very weak, 5 = few weaknesses) |
3 |
Presence/Absence/Vitality |
of Preferred Habitats |
Ecological Preservation |
Valued Ecosystem Components |
(Sustainable shrimp fishery, some |
shoalgrass, Manatees & Johnsons |
Seagrass N. of 270 45' N Latitude) |
Pre-development Scenario |
Community Index |
There is general agreement that returning to |
anything close to predevelopment water flows is |
not likely |
1 |
1 0 |
SPEED OF |
ADAPTIVE MGMT |
(Slow (0), Medium (3) , Fast (5)) |
4 |
Suitability of unvegetated sediments |
for colonization by shoal grass unknown |
Medium |
1 |
Fairly Slow |
Fast |
OPPORTUNITIES & Score |
(0 = creates numerous problems; |
5 = creates few problems) |
THREATS & Score |
(0 = large # of threats, 5= few) |
Slow |
FEASIBILITY OF COST-EFFECTIVE |
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS |
(Very costly (0), Comparatively inexpensive (5) |
3 5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
Population declines may be unrelated to |
reductions in freshwater flow |
Rev 11-14-03 |
Table E-5 |
Advantages and Disadvantages of Different MFL Approaches for Biscayne Bay |
South-Central Sub-region |
POTENTIAL APPROACHES APPROACH SCORE |
(Cumulative Total) |
Easily quantifiable Difficulty in relating pop. declines to flow Yes - Data already being compiled |
Public can relate Confounding impacts re commercial harvest |
Relatively easy to ID Significant Harm Pink shrimp annual recruitment Previously id'd in conceptual model Yes - Data already being compiled |
A lot of scientific work already done Difficulty in monitoring minimal changes |
Impacts of commercial harvest unknown May require controls on commercial harvest of shr |
Sounds good to the public Preferred habitats is a fuzzy concept -for what sp Public acceptance Difficult to quantify "vitality" Expensive and long term |
Heterogeneous habitats |
Public acceptance The situation would only get worse with time Inexpensive but not legal |
Few Reduction in current legal uses of water |
Public acceptance Lack of scientific base to work from Expensive and long term |
Common scientific tool Not developed for Biscayne Bay May be useful with much further study Not understandable as real Expensive and long term |
Common scientific tool Not developed for Biscayne Bay May be useful with much further study Impacts from acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes) Very expensive and long term |
Easy to monitor Not connected to salinity changes alone |
Only applicable west of shoreline |
Fast |
Slow |
FEASIBILITY OF COST-EFFECTIVE |
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS |
(Very costly (0), Comparatively inexpensive (5) |
3 5 |
SPEED OF |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.