Text

Renewal of the Crystal River Units 1, 2 and 3 - Industrial Wastewater Permit FL0000159, Seagrass Quantification Report for the Area Adjacent to the Crystal River Power Generation Facility, Florida
	ML100210787
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	12/05/2009
From:	Holt J; Progress Energy Florida, ReMetrix
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Progress Energy Florida
References
	3F1209-10
	Download: ML100210787 (52)
	v • d • e

Seagrass QuantificationReport Setlgrtlss Quantification for the Area Adjacent to the Crystal for CrystalRiver Power Gent!rQtion Power GenerationF tlcility,. Florida Facility, Florida Data collected. Nov-Dec, Data collected: Nov-Dec, 2007 Report:

Report: Apr 24, 2008 Prepared for:

Prepared Progress Energy Florida, Inc.

Independence Highway 515 Independence Highway Inverness, Inverness, FL 34453 Prepared Prepared by:

[IJ ReNletrix-11550 N. Meridian, Meridian, Suite 600 Carmel, IN 46032 46032 317-428-4591 317 -428-4591

Table of Contents A. Introduction/Project ............................................................................................

IntroductionlProject Goals ............................................................................................ 11 B. Study Area Description Description .................................................................................................

............................................................................................ 1 W ater Quality Sampling ...............................................................................................

C. Water .......................................................................................... 2 D. Hydroacoustic M ethodology (Background)

Hydroacoustic Methodology (Background) ............................................................

................................................................. 3 E. Species Sampling Methodology Methodology .............................................................................

............................................................. :.................... .44 Sampling M Rake Sampling ethodology .........................................................................

Methodology ......... ...................................................................... 4 Video Sampling M ethodology .............................................................................

Sampling Methodology ......................................................................... 6 SCUBA D iver Survey M Diver ethodology ....................................................................

Methodology ................................................................ 7 F. M ethodology Discussion ........................................................................................

Methodology .............................................................................................. 8 G. Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................

................................................................................................................ 9 Continuous Continuous and Dot-Density Dot-DensityRepresentations ................................................

Representations .................................................... 9 EndpointsofNoise Threshold Endpoints Threshold Settings ..............................................................

......................................................... 12 H. Accuracy Assessm Assessment ent of the Model M odel ...........................................................................

..................................................................... 14 I. Vegetation Determ ination .............................................................................

Vegetation Area Determination .................................................................................. 15 15 J. Comparison to Previous Previous Work W ork ...................................................................................

............................................................................... 18 References ..........................................................................................................

References Cited ............................................................................................................... 22 22 Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 23 23

A.

A. Introduction/Project Introduction/Project Goals Progress Progress Energy is a power generating generating facility that discharges coolant water into a marine costal area containing submerged containing submerged aquatic vegetation vegetation (SA (SAV).V). The purpose of this study was to estimate the area covered covered by various species of seagrass,seagrass, various various species of macro algae, algae, and areas with with no plant cover, and to compare compare these results, results, if possible, to the conclusions conclusions of previous previous studies done in the same area from previousprevious years.

To address these goals, ReMetrix employed employed several several methods of data collection including including hydroacoustic hydroacoustic transect transect sampling, sampling, point-intercept sampling, SCUBA diver random point point-intercept rake sampling, surveys, and several underwater surveys, underwater video random samples. Each method had unique advantages advantages and limitations, but each contributed contributed to an accurate overall estimation SAV.

estimation of SA V.

B. Study Area Description Description The study area encompassed encompassed 3,522 acres acres although 688 acres were inaccessible inaccessible due to oyster beds, shoals, or very shallow shallow water. A total of 2,842 acres acres was analyzed analyzed for SA SAV V cover. The area had many challenging navigational obstacles obstacles such as, sensitive vegetation and corals, corals, shoals, oyster beds, shallow shoals, shallow water areas, and manatee.

manatee. Other challenges challenges of this study area included tide fluctuations greater greater than three feet feet,, areas with high winds, and water with low low visibility..

visibility During data collection, there were several manatee, dolphin and stingray sightings. The majority majority of these sightings occurred occurred in the area labeled labeled on the map.

1 Inaccessible Areas

Analysis Area Figure 1.

I. The area surrounded surrounded by the teal line line represents represents the the study area area for this project.

I

C. Water Water Quality Sampling Water quality information was collected at five of the ten diver sites at the same time the diver diver was in the water. Two sites representative representative of the average average depths found throughout the study area were monitored monitored every other day for the remainder of the study period. period. Five parameters parameters were collected : water temperature, collected: salinity, turbidity, temperature, salinity, turbidity, light transmittance, transmittance, and water depth.

depth.

Water temperature and salinity were measuredmeasured using a YSI 556 multi-probe multi-probe system (www.ysilifesciences.com, Figure 2a), turbidity was measured using a LaMotte (www.ysilifesciences.com. LaMotte 2020e portable portable (www.lamotte.com, Figure 2b);

turbidity meter (www.lamotte.com. 2b); all three measurements were taken 1 foot belowbelow the water surface. Light transmittance was measured water surface. measured using a Secchi Secchi disk (Figure 2c) and water water depth was measured by using a graduated graduated lead line (Figure 2d). Table 1 below shows the breakout breakout of water quality monitoring sites by depth. The full dataset of water quality information can be found in the Appendix.

Table 1. Water Quality Monitorin Sites 0.5-1.5 1 1*

1.5-2 1*

2-3 1*

3-4 1*

4-5 1*

Total 5*

Sites were sampled every every other day throughout throughout the data collection period.

Figure 2a. YSI 556 multi-probe system. Figure 2b 2b.. LaMotte 2020c turbidity meter.

Figure 2c. Secchi disk Figure 2d. Graduated lead line 22

D. Hydroacoustic Methodology D. Hydroacoustic Methodology (Background)

Hydroacoustic data is collected using a digital 420kH BioSonics Hyclroacoustic BioSonics (www.biosonicsinc (www.biosonicsinc.com) .com) transducer transducer mounted mounted on a boat actively linked to DGPS. Transects Transects are driven across the study area while the transducer pings the water column approximately approximately five-to-ten times per second.

The data from each ping are linked to a geographic coordinate coordinate via the DGPS beacon.beacon. Figure 3a depicts this process. process.

1.... r~ 11 1 Figure 3 a.

rowl Figure Figure 3b. 3b. Figure 3c Figure 3c.

Figures Figures 3a-c. General depiction of the hydroacoustic hydroacoustic mapping mapping process. See text for explanations.

explanations.

The data from each ping contains contains submerged submerged plant cover and height information information as well as the depth to the sediment sediment layer. BioSonics Inc, testing indicates that the hydroacoustic system system returns digital samples with greater greater than 0.013%

0.013% accuracy accuracy every 1.8 centimeters.

centimeters. Figure 3b (above)

(above) shows shows an example example of raw acoustic data collected collected along a sample transect.

Raw acoustic data are processed to filter out noise and calculate calculate statistics, and then exported exported for viewing viewing in a geographic information system (GIS). Data from all transects is combinedcombined in GIS and modeled using a geostatistical geostatistical GIS extension extension to produce produce a vegetative cover estimate, estimate, (biocover) maps for the entire entire study area. Biocover Biocover is an estimate estimate of the percentage percentage of the bottom covered with plants. Figure 3c above shows a whole-site biocover model.

ReMetrix ReMetrix collected data from crossing transects oriented WSW to ENE spaced spaced 400-meters apart and SSE to NNW spaced 60-meters apart. This totaled approximately approximately 140 miles of transects collected collected over the 2,842-acre 2,842-acre site. Figure 4 represents represents the proposed crossing transects used for hydroacoustic hydroacoustic sampling of this site.

3

Figure 4. Crossing transects planned for hydroacoustic hydroacoustic data collection totaled approximately approximately 140-miles 140-miles within the 2,842-acre 2,842-acre study area. Closely spaced transects transects (oriented (oriented roughly north-south) were 60-meters 60-meters apart, apart, and widely widely spaced transects (oriented roughly east-west) were 400-spaced meters apart.

E. Species Methodology Species Sampling Methodology Hydroacoustic Hydroacoustic vegetation vegetation sampling alone cannot currently explicitly determinedetennine species species by their acoustic acoustic signatures. For this reason, supplemental supplemental physical sampling must be used in order to determine detennine species. ReMetrix used three methods for collecting collecting physical physical samples:

samples: rake samples, underwater underwater video and SCUBA diver surveys.

Rake Sampling Methodology In areas deeper than three feet, a physical physical plant sample was collected by throwing a double-sided thatch rake toward the shoreline at each sampling site. A rake tethered to a 25-foot rope was tossed into the water and allowed to sink until it made contact with the bottom. The rake was then slowly dragged along the bottom back toward the boat, (Figure Sa) 5a)..

In areas shallower than three feet, a rake with a handle was dipped into the water until it made contact contact with the bottom. Steady pressure pressure was put on the rake handle as it was scraped scraped along the bottom (Figure 5b,c).

Figure Sa.

5a. 5b.

Figure Sb. 5c.

Figure Sc.

5a-c. A double-sided thatch rake was used to sample Figures Sa-c. sample submerged vegetation at 109 sample points.

4

At least two rake samples were taken at each of 109 sample points points (Figure 6). Ninety-one Ninety-one point-intercept intercept sites were located at hydroacoustic hydroacoustic transect crossings and 18 off-transect sites were transect crossings selected randomly to facilitate selected facilitate biocover model accuracy assessment. The data recorded recorded about each sample included included species name, relative abundance, density, and latitude and longitude (Table 2). If no plant was found, then "no "no plant" was recorded as the species name. Photos were taken at most sampling sites where vegetation was found. found .

Figure 6. Rake samples samples were taken at 109 locations (blue points); 91 points were collected at hydroacoustic transect crossings and 18 points were collected off-transects. Point numbers can be found on the Monitoring Sites map in the Appendix.

Appendix.

Relative Relative abundance Relative Relative abundance is a visual estimation estimation of the proportion of the two rake samples combined for a site that each species represents. For example, if two species species were found during a rake sample, represented 75%

one may have represented 75% of the sample and the other may have only represented represented 25%

25% of of the sample.

sample. In order to make this estimation estimation quickly in the field, each species'species' relative abundance was assigned a score placing them in one of five easily discernable discernable ranges. The ranges used in this study are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Relative abundance scores from two rake samples at each of 109 sample sites were paeint ve visually discernaDle rangies or cover.

I AAV I/3I0IO 4 1

I IVUYO resent as - o samp te 2 75% Present as -75% of sample 3 50% Present as -50% of samplet 4 25% Present as -25% of samplet 5 5% Present as -5% of samplet or less sample in this context refers refers to an aggregate aggregate of both samples per physical sample sample site 5

Density Density is the percent percent of the immediate sample area represented species. For example, if represented by each species.

only a few stems of a plant were pulled up by the rake, the density would be considered considered sparse.

This estimation estimation was made by gently compressingcompressing the combined vegetation sample and placing each species species onto a one one sided garden garden rake with graduated tines (Figure 7). The relative relative density of each species was estimated representative of the percent of the tines each estimated using four categories representative each species covered. Table 33 lists the categories categories and scale used for this estimation.

Figure 7. Species Species density density was estimated estimated by gently compressing compressing the sample onto a one-sided garden rake with graduated tines.

tines.

The white stripes on the tines mark 20%

20% and 60%

60% of the total tine length.

length .

3. Density scale Table 3. scale for species species found during rake sampling at each of the 109 sample sample sites estimated from the percent of the rake tines each species covered.

. covered.

D Dense >60% of rake tines C Moderate 20%-60% of rake tines B Minor Up to 20% of rake tines A Sparse 1-5 stems Sampling Methodology Video Sampling Methodology A video camera camera specifically specifically designed for underwater use was affixed to a 12-foot 12-foot long pole and carefully lowered into the water until it was just above the sediment layer. layer. It was then panned around to find vegetation. When vegetation vegetation was observed, observed, the camera was maneuvered maneuvered to a range where range where the plants could be identified and held stationary for several several seconds (Figure 8a).

Thirty-one videos where where taken at seventeen different random random sampling sampling locations locations (Figure 8b).

encountered adverse environmental ReMetrix encountered environmental conditions that yielded mixed results when attempting to use video sampling sampling as a reliable physical physical sampling method at some sample site site locations.

6

Figure tVigure 8a.

za. When When vegetation was touncl, found, the video Figure rigure 8b.

so. Thirty-one nirty-one video vioeo clips ctips were were made maae from from camera was maneuvered maneuvered to a range where plant seventeen random sampling locations (black identification was possible.

identification possible. videocamera symbols),

symbols), all located north of the the discharge canal. Site numbers can be found on the Monitoring Sites map in the Appendix.

Monitoring Appendix.

SCUBA DiverDiver Survey Methodology To verify the plant type and growing growing conditions, conditions, a SCUBA SCUBA diver survey was used. used. Prior to the diver entering entering the water, a hydroacoustic hydroacoustic pass was made over the site, site, a DGPS point was taken taken over the specific diver entry site and a water quality quality sample was taken. Divers then entered the the water to locate submerged plant beds, identify vegetative vegetative species present, measuremeasure plant heights, estimate estimate percent bottom cover, and characterize characterize overall bed density.

density. Ten diver sites were surveyed (Figure 9).

AP Figure 9. Ten randomly selected SCUBA diver survey points (blue symbols) were were sampled between 11/15/2007 11/1 5/2007 and and 11/16/2007.

1111612007 . Site Site numbers can numbers can be be found found on on the the Monitoring Sites Monitoring Sites map in the map in the Appendix.

Appendix.

7

Density Bed density was visually visually estimated as sparse, low, medium, or high density. density.

Cover Cover Percent bottom cover cover and species composition was measured using the quadrat-cellquadrat-cell methodology described by Estevez and Marshal Marshal (1995).

(1995). Once a plant bed was found, a 1-m2 l_m2 quadrat 2

subdivided into one hundredhundred 100-cm cells was positioned positioned two to three three meters inside the bed's bed's edge (Figure 10). 10). Species name and number of 100 cm cm 22 cells each species species occupied was recorded. A cell was considered considered populated by a species if at least one rooted stem was found within a cell. The num numberber of populated populated cells out of 100 is the percent percent bottom cover for the species. An example of a diver site cover table can be found in Table 4.

Table 4. Genus and number of populated 100 cm 2 cells data from a sample diver site.

I I Halodule Thalassia Caulerpa spp. total seagrass total rooted SAV Total count 1 ITotal 30 42 27 51 72 Figure 10.

rigure 1U. AA sub-divided suo-uivaueU 1 quadrat i-in quaarat assisted divers in estimating species cover.

F. Methodology Discussion Discussion The goal for each of these methods was to help determine determine species type and cover. Although each successfully accomplished successfully accomplished the goal of determining species presence/absence, determining presence/absence, they each had unique strengths and challenges.

The most time effective method to determine presence/absence was hydroacoustics.

determine vegetation presence/absence hydroacoustics.

The challenge to using hydroacoustics hydroacoustics is that it does not provide species information.

Diver sites were an excellent way to obtain accurate accurate cover and species species type without disturbing the vegetation.

vegetation. The drawback drawback to diver sites was time.time. Diver surveys were too time consuming to sample the entire study study area.

Video sample sample methods were an excellent way to determine determine if vegetation was growing on the bottom.

bottom. It had the advantage advantage of providing providing species identification and the exact exact latitude and longitude longitude on screen. It was not as time consuming consuming as a diver site, yet seagrass presence/absence presence/absence could still be confirmed. The primary challenge challenge with this method was determining the exact exact species due to cloudy cloudy or obscured water conditions. Furthermore, since the area the camera conditions. Furthermore, could view was small, there were times when the bottom was scanned for several minutes before any plants were detected.

8

The rake sample method could successfully successfully capture capture the species type, relative density, and estimate relative relative abundance.

abundance. Additionally, this method could be employed while collecting the hydroacoustics hydroacoustics making making this the least time consuming consuming of all the methods.

methods. Another advantage was photos could be taken to document document the species and abundance, abundance, which which could could be linked back to a precise spatial spatial location. The primary primary challenge challenge involved while while sampling sampling with the rake method was retrieving retrieving a plant sample from the sediment. The only way to verifY verify if the rake sample was missing vegetation was to check the hydroacoustics.

hydroacoustics. If the hydroacoustics hydroacoustics indicated plant while rake samples samples showed no plant, additional rake samples were attempted.attempted. Certain Certain seagrass species species were missed by rake sampling sampling simply due to plant physiology. Long narrow leaf blades, blades, dense root mats and un-branched structure allowed the rake to "comb" "comb" through populated through sparsely populated seagrass stands rather than hooking or snagging the vegetation. For sites where this was true, vegetation vegetation was typically pulled up by the anchor, which dug into the soil like a shovel (Figure 11). Anchor 11). Anchor samples were recorded as rake samples when these situations arose.

Figure 11.

II. The anchor would occasionally capture vegetation samples samples in seagrass beds when rake sampling did not.

G. Data Analysis In order to calculate the area of the project and define defme an extent for all the data, a study area polygon was created created by tracing the water-land interface.

interface. This interface was based on digital ortho-rectified quarter-quadrangle (DOQQ) ortho-rectified quarter-quadrangle (DOQQ) imagery dated 2004 and obtained obtained from the USGS seamless seamless data website (http://seamless.usgs.gov).

(http://seamless.usgs.gov). Islands Islands and obstructions were also isolated isolated from the analysis area in a similar manor. The hydroacoustic hydroacoustic data were were processed processed though software software that analyzes the return signature signature to determine the percent biocover.

Continuousand Continuous and Dot-Density Dot-DensityRepresentations Representations After processing the hydroacoustic data, spatial data models were made to estimate estimate biocover by interpolating between interpolating between measured hydroacoustic hydroacoustic samples and unsampled unsampled areas (Figures (Figures 12a 12a and 12b). Both figures communicate communicate slightly different informational informational contexts about estimated biocover, so both figures are included for discussion. Figure 12a shows the biocover biocover model as a continuous continuous surface, with color gradations gradations indicating indicating the percent percent biocover at each given location.

A continuous biocover surface is the typical map output because because the model estimates biocover biocover 9

values for all geographic geographic space between data transects. However, the seagrass and macroalgae beds within within this study study area typically typically occur as patchy patchy cover, not large contiguous contiguous beds. For that reason, Figure 12b was created created to more intuitively intuitively communicate communicate the patchy nature nature of the beds.

Figure 12b shows the exactexact same biocover model as seen in Figure 12a, but shows it as a gradational dot-density gradational dot-density surface surface instead. Areas of high percentage percentage biocover biocover (reds and oranges onon the map) map) have dots (a.k.a., "beds") spaced (a.k.a., "beds") spaced very closely closely together, as one might expect expecttoto naturally observe in a high biocover area. Areas oflower Areas of percentage biocover (yellows and greens) have lower percentage have dots (beds) spaced spaced further apart, as one might expect to naturally observe in a low biocover biocover area.

It is important to note that the coverage coverage statistics for both types of maps are the same; only the display techniques techniques are different. Other figures using the dot-density dot-density technique technique are included inin the Appendix.

After the model was completed, assessments assessments for model accuracy accuracy were conducted conducted by checking checking the model against rake samples, diver surveys, and video samples to calculate calculate errors of omission and commission (see Section Section H).

<continuedon the next page

<continued page...

10

Figure 12a. BioCover BioCover model derived from hydroacoustic hydroacoustic measures measures of vegetative vegetative cover, displayed as a gradational continuous continuous surface (the legend beside the figure indicates percent biocover biocover at a given given location).

00-5 M 5.01 - 10 010.01 -20 020.01 -30 030.01 -40 040.01- 50 050.01 -60

60.01 - 70 70.01 -80 0 80.01 -90 U 90.01 - 100 Figure l2b.

12b. BioCover BioCover model derived from hydroacoustic hydroacoustic measures of vegetative vegetative cover, displayed as a gradational gradational dot-density surface surface (the legend beside the figure indicates indicates percent percent biocover biocover at aa given location).

location) .

00-5

5.01 - 10 0 10.01 -20 020.01 -30 030.01 -40 0r40.01 - so 0 50.01 - 60 M 60.01 - 70 M 70.01 - 80 M 80.01 - 90

90.01 - 100 II 11

Endpoints of Endpoints o/Noise Noise Threshold ThresholdSettings Settings A patented patented software algorithm algorithm is used to interpret the amount of submerged submerged vegetation along each hydroacoustic transect. Examples of this process each hydroacoustic process can be seen in the figures labeled labeled "Transect "Transect Line 2007x" 2007x" found in Appendix (these show the raw transect data with corresponding corresponding interpretations).

interpretations). Noise threshold settings influence influence how conservatively conservatively the algorithm algorithm filters noise within the hydroacoustic hydroacoustic signal responses. The noise thresholdthreshold settings are based based on on established established ranges and can be adjusted by the data analyst during data processing. As processing processing proceeds, the data analyst compares the amount of submerged submerged vegetation interpreted interpreted by the algorithm algorithm with visual inspection of raw transect data and other field data types. Noise threshold settings settings are considered considered acceptable acceptable when the data types are in agreement.

agreement.

For any project, noise threshold settings can fall within an acceptable acceptable range based on a variety of of environmental environmental and physical physical factors related to the data collection collection (e.g.,

(e.g., surface noise during data collection, water depth, physical structure structure and density of the target vegetation, etc.). The acceptable acceptable noise threshold settings in this project fell within within a small range primarily primarily due to the short, spindly spindly nature of the seagrass seagrass blades. The endpoints endpoints of the acceptable range are termed

'conservative' settings

'conservative' settings and 'less conservative' and 'less conservative' settings.

settings. The The data models obtained obtained using results within the acceptable range acceptable range are considered considered by ReMetrix to be realistic models of the actual submerged submerged vegetation cover cover in the project area. For that reason, cover models produced produced from each each endpoint of the acceptable acceptable range are provided for comparison in Figures 13a ('conservative'

('conservative' thresholds) and 13b ('less conservative' conservative' thresholds).

The total biocover for the conservative conservative noise threshold threshold settings is 7.6%. The total biocover biocover for the less conservative conservative noise threshold settings settings is 10.4%. Table 7 in Section I provides greater provides greater detail of specific biocover types for the threshold endpoints.

The total biocover biocover results obtained obtained by the conservative conservative noise threshold settings are used in the statistical statistical calculations discussed in Section Section H and elsewhere elsewhere in this report, unless noted otherwise.

<conlinued011

<contimied on the next page...

page... >

12 12

Figure 13a. Map showing the 'conservative'

' conservative' interpretation of total Figure 13b. Map showing the 'less

' less conservative' of conservative' interpretation of biocover biocover (7.6%) within the project area. (See above section for total biocover (10.4%)

(10.4%) within the project area. (See above section explanation.)

explanation. ) for explanation.)

explanation.)

H. Accuracy Assessment of the Model Typical measures measures for error in models are omission omission and commission commission error. These measures estimate how well a model correlates estimate correlates with actual sample data at the same location. For this analysis, ReMetrix compared compared all three types of physical sampling results (both as a whole and individually) individually) to the biocover model derived from hydroacoustic transect data as a means for determining model correlation.

We used two 'classes'

'classes' to develop develop the error estimate: 'plant', for where a rake sample or biocover estimate: 'plant', biocover model indicated indicated plant was present, or 'no plant', plant', where a rake sample or biocover biocover model indicated no plants were present. As a means for explaining a particularly concept we particularly difficult concept will follow just one comparison comparison through the description, however error was calculated calculated for both

'classes' and

'classes' and both both types types of error. In of error. In the the following following example, example, we we will will use 'plant'

'plant' rake samples samples and

'no plant' areas

'no plant' areas in in the model.

Calculating Calculating omission error: Of all the physical sampling points indicating indicating plant was found, what proportion of these points lie within a 'no proportion 'no plant' area in the model? In this scenario, a high omission omission error suggests that the model could be underestimating underestimating the amount amount of plant that is truly present at that location.

Calculating commission Calculating commission error:error: Of all physical physical sampling sampling points ('plant'

('plant' or 'no

'no plant')

plant') that lie within a 'no

'no plant' plant' area area in the model, what proportion proportion are 'plant'

'plant' physical sample points? In this

scenario, scenario, a high commission error suggests that the model could be overestimating overestimating the amount of of

'no plant'

'no that is plant' that is truly present at that location.

truly present Table 5 shows omission and commissioncommission errors of the model compared compared to all physical physical sampling methods combined. The higher 'no 'no plant' plant' omission error would suggest the model may not not account for all the non-plant non-plant areas that were actually present, however however some factors should be taken into consideration. Rake samples samples were taken from the bow of the boat while the hydroacoustic equipment hydroacoustic equipment and GPS antenna were located located near the stem of the boat (approximately 18-feet of separation).

(approximately 18-feet separation). The typical rake sample sample was made approximately approximately 20-feet 20-feet away from the boat. Combining Combining these two distances results in a margin margin of error up to 38-feet between the nearest hydroacoustic hydroacoustic point and the site of rake collection (depending upon the collection (depending orientation of the boat and the actual rake sample distance at each site).

orientation site). Additionally, the boat may have drifted with currents while video of the bottom was taken so the actual position of the GPS antenna may have not coincided precisely with the location coincided precisely location of the video samplesample or the hydroacoustic sample. Similarly, hydroacoustic Similarly, divers did not necessarily necessarily remain remain directly under the boat (or (or GPS antenna) while counting plants and therefore therefore diver reference reference points may not directlydirectly relate to hydroacoustic hydroacoustic estimates. These positionalpositional errors can account account for a majority of the error when when evaluating evaluating the omission and commission statistics (Table 6).

(Table 6).

14

5. Study area-wide Table 5. area-wide BioCover model accuracy accuracy estimate without consideration consideration of positional error 38-feet) due to GPS antenna (38-feet) antenna location location on the boat relative relative to the physical sampling location.

Classification Raster Classification omission error ~*

omission plant no plant plant 17% 62 13 All physical samples I plant plant no plant I 17%

62% 36 22 commission error->

commission error - 37% 37%

area-wide BioCover model accuracy estimate after consideration Table 6. Study area-wide consideration of positional positional error error (38 38 feet) due to GPS antenna location on the boat relative to the physical sampling location.

Raster Classification Raster Classification omission omission error ~I plant no plant plant 0% 75 0 samples All physical samples I plant plant no plant I 0%

62% 36 22 commission error->

commission error - 32% 0%

The patchiness randomness of aquatic vegetation patchiness or randomness vegetation beds, and the characteristics characteristics of very low-density low-density vegetation might explain the remaining remaining error. A majority of the areas where indicated there was "plant" the model indicated "plant" but physical sampling indicated "no plant" occurred occurred in areas of very low-density vegetation vegetation (69%(69% in < 5% 5% cover, 86% 86% in < 10% 10%

probability of a physical sampling cover), where the probability sampling method contacting vegetation was low. No adjustments adjustments werewere made to the model for these areas since the number of of hydroacoustic samples (1,116,900) hydroacoustic (1,116,900) vastly out-numbers the number number of physical samples (139 (l39 total). After reviewing the hydroacoustic hydroacoustic data for many of these areas, ReMetrix ReMetrix confirmed conftrmed that these zones have low-density low-density plant populations populations where a limited number of of physical samples may have easily missed missed patchy patchy or sparsely sparsely populated populated plant beds.

Results of additional error estimates comparing comparing each each physical physical sampling method method individually individually can be found in the Appendix.

I. Vegetation Area Determination Determination The overarching goal of this project was to determine the number number of acres of seagrass.

seagrass.

Using the physical samples as a guide, ReMetrix separated vegetated vegetated areas in the study area into four classes: seagrass, other, mixed and no plant. Sample Sample sites where where Halodule Halodule spp., Syringodium Syringodiumfiliforme, Thalassia testudinum, or Halophila filiforme, Thalassia testudinum, Halophila engelmannii engelmannii were found exclusively exclusively were placed in the 'seagrass'

'seagrass' class. Sample Sample sites where vegetation other than seagrass, Caulerpaor Udotea, seagrass, e.g. Caulerpa Udotea, was found exclusively exclusively were 'other'. Sites were classed as 'other'.

where both seagrass and other species were were found together were classified as 'mixed',

were classifted 'mixed',

and sites where where no plants were collected during the rake sample, diver survey, or video video sample, were placed into the 'no 'no plant' class.

The second step in this process process was to divide the study area area into zones which could be labeled labeled one of the four predefined predefmed classes. Zone boundaries boundaries were made using a method called called Thiessen polygons. Thiessen Thiessen polygons are mathematically mathematically defined deftned by the intersections of perpendicular intersections perpendicular bisectors of the lines between between all the sampling sampling sites (Figure 14).

14). Each zone zone was assigned the class of its corresponding sample site's classification, corresponding sample classiftcation, and the area of vegetation vegetation within that zone was calculated.

15 15

Figure 14. The study area was divided Thiessen-polygon-defined zones into Thiessen-polygon-defined 7.

based upon the spatial location of the the sampling sites.

.

I..

I

~

10(0 ~

S

S The percent cover cover within each zone was calculated calculated from the biocover map derived derived from the hydroacoustic hydroacoustic sampling method. The product of the zone area and the mean percent cover within that zone zone returns the number number of acres of vegetation in that zone. Figure 15 15 shows an example of one zone with tabulated results.

Acres in Zone 19.77 Class Mixed Mean % % Cover 16.6%

Acres in in Class Class 3.28 Figure 15.

15. Acres of vegetation in a class were calculated calculated from the area of the zone and the mean percent percent biocover from the hydroacoustic hydroacoustic model.

Acres of each each vegetation class by zone were summed to determine the number of acres of of seagrass, other, mixed, and no plant classes (Table 7) 7)..

16

Table 7. Vegetation Vegetation class areas were summed from the the acres in class calculated calculated in each zone and percent percent of the total project acreage was calculated.

Conservative Conservative Noise Threshold Category Acres Percent Total Area seagrass seagrass 16 0.56%

0.56%

mixed 81 2.85%

2.85%

seagrass seagrass 46 1.62%

other other 35 35 1.23%

other 65 2.29%

2.29%

unclassified unclassified 58 2.04%

No plant 2622 92.26%

92.26%

Total Area 2842 Less Conservative Conservative Noise Threshold Threshold Category Acres Percent Total Area seagrass 27 0.95%

mixed 101 3.55%

seagrass seagrass 58 58 2.04%

other other 43 43 1.51%

1.51%

other 85 2.99%

2.99%

unclassified unclassified 80 2.81%

2.81%

no plant 2549 89.70%

Total Area Total Area 2842 2842 Total Area 2842 It was possible possible to subdivide 'mixed' class acres into percent 'seagrass' subdivide the 'mixed' 'seagrass' and 'other'

'other' since since relative abundance abundance of individual individual species was recorded. The product of the area of a mixed zone and the corresponding corresponding relative abundance abundance for each species yielded the acres acres of each class class (seagrass and other).

other). The model indicated plants were present in inaa number number of 'no

'no plant' plant' zones. Acres of vegetation found within a no plant zone zone were assigned to a new class named 'unclassified'.

'unclassified'. The unclassified unclassified acreage represented represented 29%

29% of the total vegetated vegetated area so it is important to understand where these unclassifiedunclassified zones occurred.

Fifty percent of the unclassified vegetation vegetation occurred occurred in just 10%

10% of the no plant classified classified zones. This means the bulk of the unclassified unclassified data occurred occurred in a relatively small number number of zones. All six of these zones were surrounded surrounded by zones of a defined vegetation vegetation type.

Based on the classification of adjoining adjoining zones, many were likely mixed mixed stands of seagrass seagrass (Figure 16). Most likely, the rake sampling was not representative representative of the whole zone.

17

Figure I irUlL 16.

IV. The I -lI. six OIA ' no plant' zones IHV ]IlhhlL U showing lwI; highi vegetative g illl tn Vv;LatIvI cover LUVviI were W ICK;most llluOt likely mixed' mixed ' zones zones where a physical sampling method was unable unable to locate vegetation.

vegetation.

Comparison to Previous Work J. Comparison Broad comparisons were made between between 2007 data and the transect transect data reported in Marshall (2001). The data from 2001 was loaded into a GIS and transects were drawn drawn between between the sampling points. Average biocover was calculated from the current current model along the 2001 transects in an attempt to compare compare the same areas.areas. Average cover cover was tabulated tabulated for both 2001 and 2007 (Table 8). There (Table 8). There could be several reasons several reasons the 2007 results were were lower than the 20012001 results. First, 2007 data were not sampled sampled along the exact same transects, transects, rather they were were based on a segment segment laid over a model of of hydroacoustic hydroacoustic data. Both transects transects 2a and 3w each each had two data points that were more than 50 meters meters from any 2007 sampling locations. locations.

Table 8. Comparisons Comparisons were made for for average average cover between 2001 and 2007 2007 along similar similar transect lines.

Name 2001 Mean 2007 Mean 1N 32.09 6.01 1W 46 1.70 2a 20.25 0.15 0.15 2W 39.19 4.90 3W 34.52 4.83 4W 5.28 3.04 5W 0.25 1.66 1.66 18

Another concern Another concern when comparing comparing these two sample methods is simply the difference difference inin the sampling methodology methodology used to calculate calculate cover. Comparing quadrats sampled along a transect transect to a model derived from hydroacoustic hydroacoustic transect transect sampling should be done with careful consideration consideration of how each method calculatescalculates percent cover. The 2001 quadrat 2

estimated plant cover as 11%

method estimated method % per 100 cm even if it was very sparsely distributed cm2 , even distributed and repeated repeated every 100 meters meters along the transect. A transect's transect's average average biocover was then calculated calculated by averaging averaging over all cover estimates estimates for that transect. Hydroacoustic sampling samp ling records 10 10 pings per second of plant or no plant and computes an average average across across 10 pings to make one sample estimate of sample estimate biocover. This equals one sample per ofbiocover.

second or roughly one sample per 2.5 meters. These samples are then used to create create a model, thereby interpolating interpolating a 5-meter 5-meter grid between samples in all directions. As a

example, example, we investigated video point 9992 located less than 300 ft from a 2001 reported reported sampling sampling location location along transect transect 4w (Figure (Figure 17). The 2001 Halodule at 2001 sample listed Halodule 86% cover, while the 2007 model estimated 86% estimated it at 11%

11 % cover.

Figure 17.

17. Screen Screen capture of digital underwater video sample (left) showing showing sparse vegetative vegetative cover, with corresponding corresponding sample sample location (right).

< conrinued

/~ ~1~ on the /lext page ....

19

The following illustration illustration (Figure 18) may describe why the average cover comparison comparison from 2001 to 2007 differs so greatly.

greatly. In the following diagram, a green cell represents a

'plant' cell

'plant' cell..

2I 31 A4 51 6A- "7 7 28 09 in 10 1

2 3

4 5 Quadrat Quadrat Sample:

6 86 of 100 cells == 86%

86% cover.

7 8

9 10 10 12/

7 .9; /n 2.5 5

Hydroacoustic pings on 2.5m scale Hydroacoustic (plant versus no plant):

plant) :

2 of 55 pings show plant == 40% cover 7.5 7.5 Hydroacoustic Sample == 40%

Hydroacoustic 10 o 12.5 5 Final percentage percentage calculation is done at a 5m scale.

Average Average over area == 11 11%%

10 15 20 25 o o o o o Figure 18 (whole page). Comparison of scales of scales for different data collection collection methods.

20

Furthermore, transects 11W, W, IN, 3W, and 4W don't appear to be sampled on 100-meter 100-meter intervals. This indicates there there may have been some post-directed post-directed sampling sampling used for the 2001 data, which may have greatly influenced the average cover cover for the transect.

21

REFERENCES CITED 1995. 1995 Summary Report Estevez, E.D., and Marshal, M. J., 1995. for: Crystal Reportfor: CrystalRiver 3 Year NPDES MonitoringProject, NPDES Monitoring Project,Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL, 131 p.

Marshall, M.J., 2001. Seagrass M.J., 2001. SeagrassSurvey: November 2001 Resurvey at the Florida Florida Power CrystalRiver Generating Crystal Generating Facility, Facility, Coastal Seas Consortium, Inc.,

Inc., Bradenton, FL, 19 p.

22 22

Ap pe nd ix Appendix

~\ 9

~

~;

\ '~\~\

~ ~ ~

Estimated BioCover=7.6% L22b Total Area =2,842 Acres SAV Area == 218 Acres Acres Seagrass Seagrass Area = = 62 Acres Non-Seagrass Area == 100 Acres Non-Seagrass Acres Unclassified SAV =:::: 58 Acres Acres Projection: State Plane Florida West Datum: NAD 83 Inaccessible Area Units: Feet Er

Hydroacoustic Transects 0% - 100%

100% Cover Transects 1 inch equals 0.42 miles

_-==-.:=_____

miles 11 Miles

- Miles werldw w ý BioCover Estimates Estimates 0o 0.21 0.42 0.84

I 4i * !'

/ ; * *,i ***i

.2 ~

Estimated BioCover=10.4%

Total =2,842 Acres lotal Area =,t542 Acres SAV Area == 295 Acres Acres Seagrass Area = = 85 Acres Acres Non-Seagrass Non-Seagrass Area = =128 AcresAcres Unclassified Unclassified SAV = = 80 Acres Acres Projection: State Plane Florida West Datum: NAD 83 Inaccessible Area Units: Feet irI

- - Hydroacoustic Hydroacoustic Transects 0% -- 100% Cover 0%

Transects 1 inch equals 0.42 miles miles

_-==-..:==_____ Miles ii Miles L BloCover Estimates BioCover Estimates o0 0.21 0.42 0.84 0 *MIMN I I

I.

Transect 20071206115224_par LInsct2071204121833 Transect 20071202_145701

-'.7

00, 100 300 1100 1300 1500 1700 1 00 27100 2300 2500 2700 29,00 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900 4100 0 200 400 1000 1 200 14-00 to 130 1800 2000 2200 2400 "S00 2800 3000 3200 3400 3400 3800 ,4000 All1 oil -* I 41

~ji

00% Cover BEoCover Estinat nse c t*' " " ,

.1 , . 1 , ' 1, .1

%^WWO*

.,i I. '

I fl1HAS ?S~MI M~iI~I flAJIU flNH~I flflIHI $ItNI "' ~ ~~ 1

,I II

.11 1.0'0 I .00

,:" '. "'m:m g-

.~

O-*

a.fJ1I~*

..: .!~. . . ... .

~ I , ,'

~

' ).. '

f!li1 "

rZ7 #ies 64 22 21

~

~ I ,

.~.~ ne 1E

I" ides 14 1 13 1 13 I 1

rnents 7 7

r nfl" ta Ita ag 0

w .~

al0 ee OfU.a 6~

Leaend I Video Sites Projection: State Plane Florida West Datum:

Datum: NAD 83 NAD 83 Units: Feet V

V Diver Site location Location Feet O

Rake Toss Toss 1 inch equa Is 0.42 miles equals miles 0% - 100% Cover _1I::::::JI_c::=-_____ Miles Miles w BioCover Estimates Estimates 0o 0.21 0A2 0.42 0,84 0.84

mffimb mom -..~ HW§

.0 0*0 0 o00 00

( . 000 . . 0 000

0

*ot00 0

0 o0 0 0

0

f 0

0 g 0*0 ogo 0

0 00 00 00 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 00 *O 0

- 0 00 00 *00 00 00 00

00 0

0 00 0

00 00 0 00 00 0

0 0 *00 00

~

00

0 00 000 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0

00 00 0

0 0

0 0 o%0000 0000 COoo. ooo

~0 Water Quality Inoatn MAME 050001 A'ater Tamp (dog C) 229 s'ample Date 11115/200.7 Sample lime 12:25PM rtubidity (ntu) 5.09 Saliniy (W)25.9 Secchi Depth (It) _ ___5 V

V Diver Site Location Phyical Depth (it) 5 ** Rake Toss Toss Tide Level L2:25PM 0% - 100%

100% Cover Cover Nator Depth (in) 1.5-2m a m*a &Hvdroacousitc Hydroacousitc Points Bed Bed Characterstics Characteristics SNot Not defined; scattered scattered lent MHeht 1'6 Inche 6 inches Projection: State Plane Florida West

'iorCove 23% Datum: NAD 83

d D t I S ars Sparsel Units: Feet .,

ecies hartart Sample Sam Diver DiverSam Diver Ie Melhod Method SampleIe SampleIe DiverSam

-I ----

cover Cover 3 cells 20 I Species calrGaý McellslCauler 20 S ecies Present Present fd 6kvhlae Graci/aria cells Caule a pe hae r"a rollfera 1 inch equals 59 feet

-===--==__iIIiIIIFeet II Rake Rake Toss >OD%

>60% rake tIneslCaulae of rake tines Caulerpa prlfetra prollfera Hydroacoustc Model Hydroacoustic Model 5%1 5%

o 29.5 59 118 a

0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 o 0 0

0o

00 o

0 o0 o0 o0 00 0

0o0 o0 0

0 000 0

0o 0o

o o0 0 0

..

0o 0

o0 0o

~Ogg @ý 0o o0 0 o 0 0

o0 00 0

00 0 0 0 0

00 0

0 0

00 00 0 0 0 0o 0o 0o o0 0o Water Quality Information o0 0o NAME DSMO00 0 Nater Temp (deg C) 22*1 22.9 0

0 Semple Date Sample Time 11/15I'O07 11/15/2007 1:40PIV 1:40PM Legend Legend turbidity (ntu) 3.94 3.94 salinity (ppt) 29.1 29.1 V V Diver Site Location Becchi Depth (ft) 3.A 3.6 ** Rake Toss Toss

'hysicl Depth (ft) 3.9 M___

ride Level L2:25PIV L2 :25PM 0%

0% - 100% Cover Cover Nater Depth (m) 1-1.5r 1-1.5m 9* Hydroacousitc Points Hydroacousitc Points Bed Characteristics Characteristlcs size Size Not Not defined; scafteredl defined; scattered Projection: State Plane Florida West He"ht Neant Height Plant 11Iwto foo Datum: NAD 83 NAD83

¶l

-tl oftom Covera Bottom Coveree 22%

22% Units: Feet L

3ed DensU Bed Densi SI S ars!rse S ecles Chart Sample Method Sample Meod I Cover specds Present Species Present 1 inch equa Is 59 feet equals KqM OiverSamSamp sIverIe Is 22 ceowcoautes cells Caule erteulsres sertu/aroides "a- Feet Rake Tos 5eToss O%[No 0% Plant NoP/ant 0 29.5 59 118 118 Hydroacoustic Model I

-lydroawoustle Model 0%1 0% I I

4b

e

0o

0

~

0 0

0 00 0 000

0

0 0 0

0

0 ** ** ** * ** 0 0

- 0 0 0 00 e

0 o

0 0 0 , "

0 0 0.**

*

I

*0

000 0 0 0

- 0 0

0 0

Legend Lar I VV Diver Site Location Location 1 foo 0* Rake Rake Toss Toss f Coverage 100% 0%

0% - 100% Cover D*esI H h H' Is x .a*

e Hydroacousitc Points ap~ehart C har species Present Sample Method Projection: State Plane Florida West Sape 68 clls Sngodlum Diver Sape Toss rfrllbme 51 ceLls Grachda fi*kahlao

>60% of rake fines Grac#iada tfikvhle Datum:

Units:

NAD NAD83 Feet 83 11 on us M

Rake Toss Toss Rake Toss ke Toss rToss

>60% of rake Ines Caulerpa serfularoides

>60% of rake tlines Udotea c 20%-60%

>60%

of rake tinesl Sy of ktnes Cn of rake ties tines S*essum Sa

,/ulaina filormn ssdularold natans 1 inch equals 59 feet 0o 29.5 29,5 59 11 II

-=::::=--==::i_ _ _iIIiiIIII i-eet 118 118 Feet 0 19 Hydroacousuic Model Hydroacoustic 37%

.1

00

0 1Iq,o000 cb o* L

0 4 0

S S

0 *

, 0

0

196

0 ** o

@ so* **

o0 *a 0o 00 00 00 *

0 '

S

~

0

0 0 0 . ' . '. .. ** 0 o0*

0o 0

., 0o

o0 *0 qAME INater Temp (deg C) 3ample Date 080004 23.2 11115/2007 11/15/2007 3ample Time 4:38PM 4:38PM rurbidity (ntu) 9.37 Becchi Depth (ft) 29.9 1.5 1.5 Legend Legend SF;;ical Depth (ift 1.8 1.8 ride Level L2:25PM V V Diver Site Location Naer Depth (m 0.5-1m 0.5-1m

- Rake Toss 0% - 100% Cover Lar 6 *4!0I Hydroacousitc Hydroacousitc Points nt Heght Ifool 1foo tmCoverae 100%

100%

Denst H* h Hih Projection: State Plane Florida West S ecies Chart Spde' Chart _______ Datum: NAD 83 NAD83

~

Cover S cies Present Units:

Units: Feet 86 cells S fin odium filiforme ivrSampl 24 24 celit Cau/e a mexlcnan cells Gauerp mexicana wSample 10 T.

10 cabslGracftift SpcesPes cells Graci/aria tlvahise tikvahiae 1 inch equals 59 feet on M ilvff Sampl IvrSam Fe4 7 cellsjH8Jhida 7

4 celt ingcuSta cells Halimeda incrassata Swa assum Ruit.,,

cells SwiMessum f1uitans

_1I:::::JI_==_____ Feet roacouslic Model 2N 23% ______ 0o 29.5 59 118 118

~w-- 3310 0 0 0

r]

0 0

O0 a

S 0 0

S S 0 S

N NAME E DSOO0 DSOOOS Waterater Temp (deg C)

Temp (dell 16.

16.2

=pIeDate Sample Date 11/16/2007 Sample leTime Time 12:05PM 12:0SPM Legend Legend urbl urbidity (ntu) 3.62 3.62 elinit (ppt)

Salinity Secchi chiDDepth epth (ft) ft) 27.6 0.9 0.9 V

V Diver Site Location location PPhysical ift) 1 ical Depth (ft) 0.9 *0 Rake Toss Toss ide Level L3:20P L3:20PM 0% - 100% Cover Waterater Depth D m (m) 0.5- im 0.S-1m £ e 0I Hydroacousitc Hydroacousitc Points WBed Bed Charcteistics Characteristics

/ 'Not defined; scattered4 S* . ...

Size Not defined; scattered Projection: State Plane Florida Florida West Plant nt Heght Height II fo 1 foo BottomScoer Coverage I 95l 9S%

Datum:

Datum: NAD 83 Bed Dens' Density , Medium Medium Units: Feet cies hart sampeMethod Sample Method I RCoe Cover I Species Presot Species Present 1 inch equals 59 feet Diveriersan Sam e 61 cells 61 calbsSrnodium fforme S rin odium filiforme _-==--=::::J_____ Feet Feet 0* 7072-Q708 ir Diver H'd0ro Sam Ie Woust Model Hydroacoustic Mod6e 5.00%2 5.00%

Gracilatfatikvahiae 34 cells Graci/aria Ncvhisae 0o 29.5 59 59 118 118

110I'll 030 0 0 #

0 0

00

0

0

0 0 0 w0 0 0 0

0 0

00 0 ** **

0

** 00

~

0

'AME DSOO0 OS0006 Nater Temp (deg C) 16.9 3ampte Date 11/16/2007 Sample Time 1:22PM ru *bkdty (ntu) 2.55 3alini~ty (ppt) 30.9 5ecchi Depth (ft) 3.6 2hysical Depth (ft) Legend Legend ride Level L3:20PM Nater Depth Lm) 1-1.5m V

V Diver Site Location Location Bed CharaIcteistics Characteristics itze Not defined ' scattered Not defined: ** Rake Toss Rake Toss

'lent Height too 1I foo 0% - 100% Cover 3ottom Coverage 100%

100% 0, ,a Hydroacousitc Poin Hydroacousitc Points 3ed Density ,,Medium Medium ecies hart art Projection: State Plane Florida West Sample Sam Ie Method Method Cover Cover species S Bcies Present Present iver Sample DiverSam Ie 2cells Dkcpoota ap.

2 cells Dlct s .

Datum: NAD 83 NAD83

~

ver Sam Ie DiverSam 7 cats Helimeda Incrassata cells Halimeda incrassata Units:

Units: Feet

'ii Diver Sample Sample 6 cells cals Udotea coutineta Udotaa conglutinata Sam Ie DiverSam 45 cells Sa assumasum natans natans iver sampe DiverSam Ie a8 caUs cells Le t 0 ia lAP ayWrulata vi ulata 11 inch equals 59 feet VTm

\!lb!d#l"i~

MMIMMM iver Sample DlverSam Same DiverSam Ie Ie 47 cel Cal 47 cells 77 cells cels Ca Caula mexicani maxicana sertularoides Caule a sertularoides

_-==--=:::::::._____mFeet Feet am H roacoustic c Moda Model 8%

8% o0 29.5 59 118 118

~~~

MMrObNAM Lr- fl- 03D

~_\YADO~"_

00 0 ** 00 0 0

0 0

00 0

00 0

0 0 00 0

I

0 0 * .*000 0

0 0 0

o.

'SAME DS0007 Nater Temp (deg C) 19.3 rample Date 11116/2007 11/16/2007 Sample Time 22:55PM

55PM rufbidt (ntu)

Saliity(pptQ 4.09 Legend 29.8 SmechlDepth (ft) 3hysical DPth (ft)_

IS 3.9 5.5 5.5 V Diver Site Location V

ride Level L3:20PM ** Toss Rake Toss Nater Depth jm) 1.5-2m 1.5-2m 0% - 100%

100% Cover Bed Chia Characteristics ALý Hydroacousitc Points Hydroacousitc Point IBed ctedstics I

~ize No defined; scattered i*nt Height Inch 6 inches Projection: State Plane Florida West Goe= covew 65S~ Projection:

65%

DeMedim Datum:

Datum: NAD 83

~

Units:

Units: Feet Sam Sam Ie Method Method ~ C Chor Present 6wr Sample Diver Sam Ie 62 cells Cea mexicana 1 inch equals 59 feet Diver Sample 2ls Sam Ie D;iver 9,mpie Diver Sample

, 2 cefls Leaogora wdM 2 cels Setassurmnatanw _-==--=:::JI_____IFeet Feet Rake Toss 0% No Plant w OOMMUM MUM m Rake

-,ydroacoustlc Model I8 Hydroacoustlc 0o 29.5 59 118 118

LI e

00 000

e, ' ..* 0

.* 0 0 0

.. 0 00 00 0

..~

0 0 0

~ ,

'.* * *** e 0 '

0 0

e 0 0 00o e

0 e

Legend V

V Diver Site Location

Rake Toss Toss 0% - 100% Cover Cover 41 a#** Hydroacousitc Poi Pointh

--'--'--I Projection: State Plane Florida West

-,-Raw M

ýatHeight - Datum: NAD 83

~

Rnfn*tml t.nVArnnA ]

3ed Density, Units: Feet maw Sample Methc>d Rake Toss 1)ra sie model

,ha" 0% No Plant 16%-

gRan-42 cells Malod4ft ýýýpmý 1 inch equals 59 feet 0o 1 inch equals 59 feet

_-==--=::::11 29.5 59

_____ I-eet 1i 118 118 Feet

~-

~~ . @~ ~

~.~O~;gtlDO~

~_O~;g_

0

00Oft *

o0 o~o~9r*,1,9 *0 0

II' 0

0

0 0

0

0 S

0 DS0009 26.9 11116/2007 4:19PM 7.62 31.8 Legend 1.8 L3:20PM 2 VV Diver Site Location Location 0.5-1m ** Rake Toss Toss 0% - 100% Cover Bed Chaieti

÷a N* Hydroacousitc Hydroacousitc Points I6ami I1000%1 Projection: State Plane Florida West Datum: NAD 83

~

W~Es Cho"I tw sit Units: Feet I

I nil 5 ......

WWINO1Ufll sernms- 20%I 1n~du ffihibme 2M- 4fl%lRvtnanIu fj~ffn-m 1 - 5 stemsi Caubpaseuiar/ddes 19%1 o0 1 inch equals 59 feet

_-==-II::::JI_____, Feet 29.5 59 II118 118 ieetL I_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I -_ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _

~~~ ozq-

~_)%O~~~

0 0

e0, . 0 0

o0

0O .

0o 000 0 0 0 0 0 *O. 0 ý-ý 00 0 o

o 0

o0

** *0 o0

oc, 0 40 ~o o0

0 00 0 0

O*

o0

o0 00 0 0o 0

0o

0o o0 o0 26.5 o 0

11/16/2007 5:00PM 13.6 Legend Legend 31.9 1.7 1.7 V Diver Site Location V

L3:20PM 0.5-Im e

0 Rake Toss 0% - 100% Cover

. qg

. a 00 Hydroacousitc Points

< Points

.1 L am Projection: State Plane Florida West Datum: NAD 83

~

mSwis S ecies Chart Units: Feet Mar Sam Ie Method I Method Cover s ecies S " Present Present Sam Ie DiverSam 98 cel w . htii

.falodule wrght#i cells Ha/odule I~vrsample DiverSam Ie 2 2 cbISresmfu'~~ 1 inch equals equals 32 feet

R~

RakeTOss Rake Toss ,

y Tosa Toss 5 stems*

cells Sa essum fluitens ratms 20%WHaodue stems - 20%

5 atems g

20% Halodule wrightii asaum natans 7I Sar assum

_11::::=--=:::::11_____ Feet L MONEW OMMIN Hydroacoustic .2 droacousti Model 7%

7 o0 16 32 64

APPENDIX - Calculations Calculations of Biocover Biocover Model Accuracy Accuracy BioCover model error estimates estimates for combined combined physical physical sampling comparisons of the three different sampling points and comparisons different physical sampling methods individually.

individually.

The total physical sample sample point count does not match the sum of the individual individual sampling methods methods points since there there were a number of cases where two or more methods were used for sampling a single location and the results did not match, (one indicated 'plant'

'plant' the other indicated 'no

'no plant'). In these instances only the sample where 'plant' was found was used in the 'all' where 'plant' 'all' analysis since 'plant'

' plant' was indeed indeed found at the location. See Section H ofthe reportfor report for a discussion discussion of of interpretingthese tables.

interpreting tables.

All All types Rake only without 38 foot without 38 foot margin of error Raster margin margin of error Raster no no no no omission error l* plant plant plant omission error l$ plant plant all all plant plant no plant plantI I 17.3%

17.3%

62.1%

62 13 Rake plant plant I 14.8%

14.8% 46 8 62.1% 36 22 22 no plant 61.0%

61 .0% 36 23 23 commission error --+ 36.7%

36.7% 37.1%

37.1% commission commission error -- -+ 43.9%

43.9% 25.8%

25.8%

All All types Rake only with 38 foot with 38 foot margin of error margin Raster margin margin of error Raster no no no omission error lý Dlant plant Dlant plant omission error ~$ plant plant plant plant all all plant plant I[ 0.0%

0.0% 75 o 0 Rake Rake plant plant I 0.0%

0.0% 54 o0 no plant 62.1%

62.1 % 36 36 22 no plant 61.0% 36 23 23 commission error -,

-+ 32.4%

32.4% 0.0%

0.0% commission error -- -+ 40.0%

40.0% 0.0%

0.0%

APPENDIX Calculations of APPENDIX - Calculations Biocover Model Accuracy ofBiocover Accuracy (continued)

(continued)

Diver Diver only Video only without 38 foot without 38 foot margin margin of error Raster Raster margin of error error Raster no no no no omission omission error error $~ plant plant plant omission error omission error I~ olant plant olant plant I I

I I plant plant 0.0% 9 0 Video plant plant 41.7%

41.7% 7 5 Diver Video no plant 0o 0 no plant plant 80.0% 4 1 commission error commission error ->

-- 0.0%

0.0% commission commission error --

-> 36.4%

36.4% 83.3%

83.3%

Diver Diver only Video only with 38 foot with 38 foot margin of error margin Raster margin of error error Raster no no no no omission error ,~ plant plant plant omission error It omission olant I

olant plant l

Diver Diver plant I plant 0.0%

0.0% 9 0 Video Video plant plant I 0.0%

0.0% 12 o 0

no plant plant o 0 0 no plant plant 80.0% 4 1 commission error ->, 0.0% commission error --> 25.0%

25.0% 0.0%

0.0%

APPENDIX - Calculations Calculations of B Biocover iocover Model Model Accuracy (continued) without 38 foot margin of error error Raster no omission error ~t plant plant lant off-transect only off-transect only I plant no plant 16.7%

60.0%

10 6 4 2

commission commission error -+

- 37.5%

37.5% 33.3%

33.3%

off-transect onIY-1 with 38 foot margin margin of error Raster no no omission error I~ plant plant plant off-transect only off-transect only I plant I 0.0%

0.0% 12 0o no plant 60.0% 6 4 commission error -+

- 33.3%

33.3% 0.0%

Site Name Name LAT LAT LON WaterTemp (C) Sample Date Oate Sample Time Time Turbidity (ntu) Salinity ppn Secchi Oepth Depth (It)

(tt) Physical Depth Oepth (ft) Depth (tt) Tide Level Water Oepth DS0001 050001 +28.9754524 -82.7532661

-82.7532661 22.9 11152007 12:25PM 12:25PM 5.09 25.9 5 5 L2:25PM 1.5-2m 1.S-2m DS0002 050002 +28.9661273 -82.7455230

-82.7455230 22.9 11152007 1:40PM 1:40PM 3.94 29.1 3.6 3.9 3.9 L2:25PM 1-1.5m 1-1.5m DS0003 050003 +28.9569691 -82.7355315 22.4 11152007 3:43PM 9.44 29.9 2.7 3.8 3.8 L2:25PM 1-1.5m 1-1.5m DS0004 050004 +28.9584628

+28.9584628 -82.7283993

-82.7283993 23.2 11152007 4:38PM 4:38PM 9.37 29.9 1.5 1.5 1.8 L2:25PM 0.5-1m 0.5-1m DS0005 050005 +28.9453151 -82.7293885

-82.7293885 16.2 16.2 11162007 12:05PM 12:05PM 3.62 27.6 0.9 0.9 L3:20PM 0.5-1m O.S-lm DS0006 050006 +28.9445241 -82.7487268

-82.7487268 16.9 16.9 11162007 1:22PM 1:22PM 2.55 30.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 L3:20PM 1-1.5m 1-1.5m DS0007 050007 +28.9500012

+28.9500012 -82.7514686

-82.7514686 19.3 19.3 11162007 2:55PM 2:55PM 4.09 29.8 3.9 5.5 5.5 L3:20PM 1.5-2m 1.S-2m DS0008 050008 +28.9597790

+28.9597790 -82.7380978 18.3 18.3 11162007 3:38PM 5.42 27.6 3.9 11.7 11.7 L3:20PM 3-4m 34m DS0009 050009 +28.9619191 -82.7292325

-82.7292325 26.9 11162007 4:19PM 4:19PM 7.62 31.8 1.8 1.8 2 L3:20PM 0.5-1m O.S-lm DS0010 050010 +28.9658914

+28.9658914 -82.7278804 26.5 11162007 5:00PM 13.6 31.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 L3:20PM 0.5-1m O.S-lm DS0002 050002 +28.9661273

+28.9661273 -82.7455230

-82.7455230 22.1 11282007 3:47PM 2.40 31.6 3.2 4.9 L1:46PM Ll:46PM 1-1.5m 1-1.5m DS0008 050008 +28.9597790

+28.9597790 -82.7380978

-82.7380978 23.9 11282007 4:55PM 4:55PM 3.11 33.8 4.1 10.4 10.4 L1:46PM Ll:46PM 3-4m 34m DS0002 050002 +28.9661273

+28.9661273 -82.7455230

-82.7455230 23.8 11302007 5:18PM 3.03 31.4 3.2 5 L3:27PM 1-1.5m 1-1.5m DS0008 050008 +28.9597790

+28.9597790 -82.7380978

-82.7380978 25.3 11302007 11302007 5:11PM 2.34 31.4 3.6 5.5 5.5 L3:27PM 3-4m 34m DS0002 050002 +28.9661273

+28.9661273 -82.7455230

-82.7455230 23.8 12022007 12022007 4:48PM 4:48PM 2.65 32.4 3.8 4.5 L5:12PM 1-1.5m 1-1.5m DS0008 050008 +28.9597790

+28.9597790 -82.7380978

-82.7380978 25.7 12022007 4:40PM 4:40PM 2.22 32.4 3.5 6.5 L5:12PM 3-4m 34m DS0002 050002 +28.9661273

+28.9661273 -82.7455230

-82.7455230 19.0 19.0 12042007 12042007 4:38PM 4:38PM 2.10 27.9 3.4 4.1 L6:53PM 1-1.5m 1-1.5m DS0008 050008 +28.9597790

+28.9597790 -82.7380978

-82.7380978 21.7 21.7 12042007 12042007 5:03PM 2.89 34.1 3.2 3.6 L6:53PM 3-4m 34in DS0002 050002 +28.9661273

+28.9661273 -82.7455230

-82.7455230 21.9 21.9 12062007 12062007 4:53PM 4:53PM 2.22 33.8 4.0 4.2 L8:04PM 1-1.5m 1-1.5m DS0008 050008 +28.9597790

+28.9597790 -82.7380978

-82.7380978 23.2 12062007 12062007 3:14pm 3.58 33.9 3.2 5.1 L8:04PM 3-4m 34m

Site I Scientific Scientific Name II Common Name II Date Date II Abundanc~1 Abundanc Injury Injury II Density III Notes Notes II Latitude Latitude Longitude I IIULngitude]

2 no plant no no plant plant 12/4/2007 28.975850 28.975850 -82.738910

-82.738910 12 no plant no plant plant 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 na 28.944482 28.944482 -82.72463

-82.72463 13 no plant no plant plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.944981 -82.72223 28.944981 -82.72223 14 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 2 1 2 na 28.945496 -82.71984 28.945496 -82.71984~

14 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga alga 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 2 1 2 na 28.945496 28.945496 -82.71984

-82.71984 14 Halophila engelmannii Halophila engelmannii stargrass stargrass 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 5 1 3 na 28.945496 -82.71984 28.945496 -82.71984~

15 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 1 1 4 na 28.945980 28.945980 -82.71743

-82.71743 16 no plant no plant plant 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 na 28.946479 -82.71503 28.946479 -82.71503E 17 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 5 1 1 na 28.946978 28.946978 -82.712638

-82.71263E 25 no plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.944540 -82.742460 28.944540 -82.742460 26 no plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 1 28.945060 -82.740040 28.945060 -82.740040 27 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa sertularoides feather feather caulerpa caul erpa 12/2/2007 12/212007 3 22 -82.737650 28.945530 -82.737650 27 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 2 2 -82.737650 28.945530 -82.737650 27 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 4 2 28.945530 -82.737650 28.945530 -82.737650 27 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass caulerpa grass caulerpa 12/2/2007 5 0 28.945530 -82.737650

-82.737650 27 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium manatee grass 12/2/2007 121212007 1 44 28.945530 -82.737650 28 Gracilanatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/2/2007 121212007 4 1 28.945910 -82.735130 28.945910 -82.735130 28 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium manatee grass 12/2/2007 121212007 1 1 -82.735130 28.945910 -82.735130 28 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium manatee grass 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 3 0 28.945910 -82.735130

-82.735130 28 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 5 1 28.945910 -82.735130 28.945910 -82.735130 29 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/2/2007 121212007 2 2 28.946510 28.946510 -82.732750

-82.732750 29 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium manatee grass 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 3 3 28.946510 -82.732750 30 30 Caulerpa mexicana Caulerpa mexicana feather feather calulerpa calulerpa 12/2/2007 1 2 28.946970 -82.730450 31 31 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium filiforme manatee grass 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 1 1 3 28.947490 -82.727970

-82.727970 32 32 Gracilariatikvahiae Gracilaria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 1 1 1 na 28.947986 28.947986 -82.725581

-82.72558 32 32 Thalassia testudinum Thalassia testudinum turtle turtle grass grass 12/5/2007 4 1 5 na 28.947986 28.947986 -82.725584

-82.72558 33 33 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga alga 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 2 1 2 na 28.948486 28.948486 -82.72318

-82.72318 33 33 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 2 1 2 na 28.948486 28.948486 -82.72318

-82.72318 33 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga alga 12/5/2007 1215/2007 2 1 2 na 28.948486 28.948486 -82.72318

-82.72318 34 34 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 1 1 4 na 28.948985 28.948985 -82.72078

-82.72078 35 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium manatee grass 12/5/2007 2 1 4 na 28.949484 28.949484 -82.71838

-82.71838E 35 35 Thalassia testudinum Tha/assia testudinum turtle turtle grass grass 12/5/2007 2 1 4 na 28.949484 28.949484 -82.71838

-82.71838E 36 36 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass grass caulerpa 12/5/2007 na 28.949984 28.949984 -82.715988

-82.71598E 36 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 na 28.949984 28.949984 -82.715988

-82.71598E 62 no plant no plant plant 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 28.950140 -82.751500 28.950140 -82.751500 63 no plant no plant plant 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 28.950530 -82.749110 28.950530 -82.749110 64 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa sertularoides feather feather caulerpa caulerpa 11/28/2007 3 22 28.951030 -82.746770 28.951030 64 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 3 2 28.951030 -82.746770 28.951030 -82.746770 64 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 3 0 28.951030 -82.746770 28.951030 -82.746770 65 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed gulfweed drift 11/28/2007 drift alga 11/28/2007 2 2 28.951540 -82.744190 28.951540 -82.744190 66 66 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa sertularoides feather feather caulerpa caulerpa 11/28/2007 3 2 28.952040 -82.741770 66 Penicillus Penicillus sp. fragments shaving shaving brush plan plant 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 3 4 28.952040 -82.741770 28.952040 -82.741770 67 67 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 3 2 28.952530 -82.739410 28.952530 -82.739410 67 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 2 1 28.952530 -82.739410 28.952530 -82.739410 67 67 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 4 1 28.952530 -82.739410

-82.739410 67 67 Caulerpa mexicana Caulerpa mexicana feather feather calulerpa calulerpa 11/28/2007 28.952530 28.952530 -82.739410

-82.739410 69 Penicillus Penicillus sp. fragments shaving shaving brush plan plant 12/4/2007 1214/2007 1 2 1 28.953540 28.953540 -82.734740

-82.734740 70 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa sertularoides feather feather caulerpa caulerpa 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 3 1 28.953930 -82.732290 70 Penicillus sp. fragments shaving Penicillus shaving brush plan plant 12/4/2007 1214/2007 22 2 28.953930 28.953930 -82.732290

-82.732290 71 no plant no no plant plant 12/4/2007 128.954500 28.954500 -82.729920 72 no plant no plant plant 12/4/2007 28.954960 -82.727570 28.954960 -82.727570

Site Site II Scientific Scientific Name IIICommon Common Name Name III Date Date II Abundanc~1 Abundancl Injury Injury III Density II Notes Notes IIFI Latitude Longitude I Latitude II Longitude 72 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa serlularoides feather caulerpa caulerpa 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 3 22 28.954960 -82.727570 73 73 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/4/2007 44 11 28.955580 -82.725150

-82.725150 73 filiforme Syringodium filiforme manatee grass 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 5 1 28.955580 -82.725150 73 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 2 1 28.955580 -82.725150 73 Gracilaniatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/4/2007 44 1 28.955580 -82.725150

-82.725150 82 no plant plant no plant plant 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 28.953610 -82.752540

-82.752540 83 no plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.953950 -82.749940

-82.749940 84 no plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.954440 -82.747680

-82.747680 85 no plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.954940 -82.745200

-82.745200 86 no plant no plant plant 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 28.955560 -82.742890

-82.742890 87 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa serlularoides feather caulerpa caulerpa 11/29/2007 2 22 28.955990 28.955990 -82.740440 87 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga 11/29/2007 5 2 -82.740440 28.955990 -82.740440 87 Caulerpa mexicana Caulerpa mexicana feather calulerpa calulerpa 11/29/2007 4 2 28.955990 -82.740440 89 Gracilariatikvahiae Gracilaria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/4/2007 2 1 28.956960 28.956960 -82.735630 89 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa serlularoides feather feather caulerpa caulerpa 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 2 1 28.956960 -82.735630 89 Udotea conglutinata Udotea conglutinata Udotea spp 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 5 1 28.956960 28.956960 -82.735630 89 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium filiforme manatee grass 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 5 22 28.956960 -82.735630 89 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa serlularoides feather caulerpa caulerpa 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 5 1 28.956960 -82.735630 89 Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 5 1 28.956960 -82.735630 90 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium filiforme manatee grass 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 3 22 28.957460 -82.733210

-82.733210 90 Caulerpa sertularoides serlularoides feather caulerpa caulerpa 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 3 33 -82.733210 28.957460 -82.733210 91 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium filiforme manatee grass 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 5 1 28.957920 -82.730880 91 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/4/2007 3 2 28.957920 -82.730880 91 Caulerpa mexicana Caulerpa mexicana feather calulerpa calu Ie rpa 12/4/2007 3 22 28.957920 -82.730880 93 93 no plant no plant plant 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 28.958770 28.958770 -82.726200 103 no plant no no plant plant 11/29/2007 11129/2007 28.957480 28.957480 -82.750690

-82.750690 103 no plant no plant plant 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 28.957430 -82.750990 104 no plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 -82.748600 28.957950 -82.748600 105 no plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.958460 -82.746260

-82.746260 106 Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga 11/29/2007 4 -82.743640 28.959010 -82.743640 107 Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 11/29/2007 1 4 -82.741270 28.958970 -82.741270 108 no plant plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.960000 -82.738950 but II couldn't couldn't really really see see bottom bottom to 108 108 no plant plant no plant plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 verify 28.960083 -82.73900C

-82.739004 109 109 no plant plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11129/2007 28.960600 -82.736490 28.960600 -82.736490

'v<" "V,,,

lot here, but enough to see on on 109 prolifera Caulerpa profifera grass grass caulerpa 12/6/2007 1 1 4 video 28.960583 -82.736583

-82.73658 110 110 Halodule Hafodufe wrightii wrightii shoal shoal grass 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11 33 28.960990 -82.734290 110 110 Sargassurn natans Sargassum gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 4 4 28.960990 28.960990 -82.734290

-82.734290 110 Halodule Hafodufe wrightii wrightii shoal shoal grass 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 1 1 1 28.961000 -82.734400 111 111 Halodule Hafodufe wrightii wrightii shoal shoal grass 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 1 44 28.961460 -82.731800 111 111 Halodule Halodufe wrightii wrightii shoal shoal grass 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 2 33 28.961478 -82.731900 111 Sargassum natans Sargassum gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 44 8 3 28.961478 28.961478 -82.731900 111 111 Gracilarnatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible edible drift alga 12/6/2007 4 1 4 28.961478 28.961478 -82.731900

-82.731900 112 Syringodium fififorme Syringodium filiforme manatee manatee grass 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 1 1 33 28.962060 28.962060 -82.729410

-82.729410

Site II Scientific Name II1I Common Common Name Name II Date Date II Abundancj Abundanc~1 Injury Injury IIIDensity Density II Notes II Notes Latitude Longitude I IIILongitude mosily T1U>;UY manatee or or 112 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium manatee grass manatee 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 22 2 shoal grass grass 28.962000 -82.729483

-82.72948 112 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa sertularoides feather caulerpa caulerpa 12/6/2007 5 4 28.962000 -82.729483

-82.729483 113 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium manatee grass manatee 12/2/2007 121212007 1 4 28.962520 -82.727030 28.962520 -82.727030 114 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium manatee grass manatee 12/3/2007 1 4 28.962980 -82.724600 28.962980 -82.724600 123 plant no plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.960860 -82.751770

-82.751770 123 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa sertularoides feather feather caulerpa caulerpa 12/4/2007 2 2 28.961010 -82.751990

-82.751990 123 Sargassurnnatans Sargassum natans gulfweed drift alga gulfweed 12/4/2007 5 2 28.961010 -82.751990

-82.751990 124 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed drift alga gulfweed 11/29/2007 2 2 -82.749540 28.961512 -82.749540 124 Cladophora spp Cladophora spp filamentous algae 11/29/2007 4 1 -82.749540 28.961512 -82.749540 124 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass caulerpa 11/29/2007 4 1 28.961512 -82.749540

-82.749540 125 plant no plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.961950 -82.747110

-82.747110 126 plant no plant no plant 11/28/2007 11128/2007 28.962490 -82.744790

-82.744790 127 no plant no plant 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 28.963030 -82.742460

-82.742460 128 plant no plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.963560 -82.739900

-82.739900 128 no plant no plant plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 1 28.963550 -82.739967

-82.739967 129 Udotea conglutinata Udotea conglutinata Udotea spp 11/29/2007 2 1 28.964040 -82.737530

-82.737530 129 Udotea conglutinata Udotea conglutinata Udotea spp 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 2 0 0 28.963950 28.963950 -82.737500

-82.737500 129 Halodule wrightii Halodule wrightii shoal grass 12/6/2007 2 0 0 28.963950 -82.737500

-82.737500 129 Sargassurn fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 12/6/2007 2 0 0 28.963950 -82.737500

-82.737500 131 Halodule Halodule wrightii wrightii shoal shoal grass 11/29/2007 2 1 28.965040 -82.732800

-82.732800 131 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed gulfweed drift drift alga 11/29/2007 2 4 28.965040 -82.732800

-82.732800 site looked to be mostly mostly dominated by shoal shoal grass grass on 131 Halodule Halodule wright/i wrightii shoal shoal grass 12/6/2007 1 1 1 video 28.965100 28.965100 -82.732817

-82.73281 blades of blades what looked like turtle like turtle grass on 131 Thalassia testudinum Tha/assia testudinumr turtle grass 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 4 11 3 video 28.965100 -82.732817

-82.73281 132 Syringodium filiforme Syringodium filiforme manatee manatee grass 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 1 33 1 28.965330 -82.730380 133 Halodule Halodule wrightii wrightii shoal shoal grass 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 3 33 28.966040 -82.727930 133 133 Sargassurn natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 3 4 28.966040 28.966040 -82.727930 143 143 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa sertularoides feather caulerpa 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 4 1 28.964550 -82.752890 143 143 Udotea conglutinata Udotea conglutinata Udotea spp 11/29/2007 4 1 28.964550 28.964550 -82.752890 143 143 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass grass caulerpa 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 4 00 28.964550 -82.752890 143 143 Sargassurn natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gu Ifweed drift d rift alga 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 33 1 28.964550 -82.752890 28.964550 -82.752890 143 143 Gracilariatikvahiae Graci/aria tikvahiae edible drift alga 11/29/2007 33 1 28.964550 -82.752890 143 143 Caulerpa mexicana Caulerpa mexicana feather calulerpa 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 3 1 28.964550 -82.752890 143 143 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass grass caulerpa 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 4 11 28.964550 -82.752890 144 144 no plant plant no plant 11/29/2007 28.964960 -82.750460 28.964960 -82.750460 145 145 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed gulfweed drift alga 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 1 0 28.965050 -82.747990 28.965050 -82.747990 146 146 no plant no plant 11/28/2007 28.966180 -82.745590 28.966180 -82.745590 147 147 no plant no plant 11/29/2007 28.966410 -82.743210 28.966410 -82.743210 148 148 no plant no plant 11/29/2007 28.967030 -82.740820 28.967030 -82.740820 149 149 no plant no plant 11/29/2007 28.967490 -82.738530 28.967490 -82.738530 150 150 Syringodium filiforme filiforme manatee manatee grass grass 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 1 3 28.968020 -82.736100

-82.7361001

FSite Site I!

I Scientific Name II Name]

Common Name II Date Date II Abundan~1 IIAbundanl Injury Injury II Density II Notea Notes llO'u'y d;'y II LatitudeI Latitude II Longitude Longitude I "Q'U'Y Q"Y plant only only one small sprig. VidecVideo 152 Caulerpa spp Caulerpa caulerpa 12/6/2007 1 4 point 28.969000 28.969000 -82.731367

-82.731361 152 no plant no plant plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 28.969000 28.969000 -82.731367 164 Caulerpa sertularoides Caulerpa sertularoides feather feather caulerpa caulerpa 11/29/2007 2 1 28.968560 -82.751350 164 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed drift alga 11/29/2007 3 11 28.968560 -82.751350

-82.751350 164 Gracilariatikvahiae Gracilaria tikvahiae edible drift alga 11/29/2007 3 1 28.968560 -82.751350 164 Gracilariatikvahiae Gracilaria tikvahiae edible drift alga edible 11/29/2007 4 1 28.968560 -82.751350 165 plant no plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 -82.749020 28.968880 -82.749020 166 plant no plant no plant 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 28.969780 -82.746740

-82.746740 166 plant no plant no plant plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 1 28.969570 -82.746370

-82.746370 167 plant no plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 -82.744210 28.970010 -82.744210 170 plant no plant no plant 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 28.971320 -82.736980 28.971320 -82.736980 plant no pan 172 no plant plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 rake toss 28.972518 28.972518 -82.73224C

-82.73224C IV foOl<" "

video video sample sample no plant plant no plant 12/6/2007 28.972483 172 no no plant 12/6/2007 . point 28.972483 -82.73220(

-82.73220C 184 Halophila enge/mannii Ha/ophila engelmannii stargrass 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 2 3 -82.752440 28.972010 -82.752440 184 Caulerpa prO/itera Caulerpa prolifera grass caulerpa 11/30/2007 11 3 28.972010 -82.752440

-82.752440 stargrass Slargrass maybe from from 184 Halophila engelmannii Ha/ophila engelmannii stargrass 11/20/2007 11120/2007 4 4 video video 28.971950 28.971950 -82.752483

-82.75248 184 Cladophora spp Cladophora spp filamentous algae 11/20/2007 4 4 hairy plant 28.971950 28.971950 -82.752483

-82.75248 184 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed drift alga 11/20/2007 4 4 28.971950 -82.752483

-82.752483 184 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass caulerpa grass 11/20/2007 4 4 28.971950 -82.752483 185 no plant plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.972280 -82.749930

-82.749930

'UvV Sample Point 185 Hardly any 185 Udotea conglutinata Udotea conglutinata Udotea spp Udotea 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 11 11 4 veg at all 28.972250 28.972250 -82.749967

-82.74996 186 Penicillussp. fragments Penicillus fragments shaving brush plantplan 11/28/2007 1 4 28.973050 -82.747590

-82.747590 189 plant no plant no plant 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 28.974560 28.974560 -82.740450

-82.740450 191 no plant plant no plant 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 28.975510 -82.735520 28.975510 -82.735520 204 Caulerpa pro/ifera Caulerpa prO/ifera grass caulerpa 11/30/2007 11 11 -82.753330 28.975420 -82.753330 205 no plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 -82.750970 28.975820 -82.750970 207 no plant no plant 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 28.977040 28.977040 -82.746160

-82.746160 210 Cladophora spp Cladophora filamentous algae algae 12/2/2007 00 28.978460 -82.738910

-82.738910 211 211 Cladophora spp Cladophora spp filamentous algae 12/2/2007 28.979040 28.979040 -82.736500

-82.736500 212 212 plant no plant no plant 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 28.979530 28.979530 -82.734150

-82.734150 225 225 plant no plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.979400 -82.751850

-82.751850 226 226 plant no plant no plant 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 28.979930 -82.749520

-82.749520 227 no plant plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.980510 -82.747100

-82.747100 228 228 plant no plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.981030 -82.744730

-82.744730 229 229 plant no plant no plant 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 28.981480 -82.742320

-82.742320 9910 9910 plant no plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.951983 -82.749051 9911 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed drift alga gulfweed 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.966620 -82.734857

-82.73485 9912 9912 Halodule wrightii Halodule wrightii shoal grass 12/6/2007 1 1 Ina na 28.966114 28.966114 -82.731204

-82.73120~

very sparse very sparse 9912 9912 Halodule wrightii Halodule wnght// shoal grass shoal grass 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 11 11 33 vegetation vegetation 28.966133 28.966133 -82.731217

-82.73121 9913 9913 no plant plant no plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 1 1 Ina 28.961489 28.961489 -82.729164

-82.72916E

Site II I Scientific Name Scientific Name IIUCommon Name IIDate Common Name II Date IIAbundanc~1 IAbundancI Injury Injury IIII Density Density IINotes II Notes IIIILatitude II Longitude I Latitude IILongitude]

9914 9914 Sargassum fluitans Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed drift alga 12/6/2007 1216/2007 na 28.961709 -82.73274 28.961709 -82.73274E 9915 9915 Penicillussp. fragments Penicillus fragments shaving brush plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.961050 -82.74093 28.961050 -82.74093 9915 9915 plant no plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 28.961050 -82.7409331 28.961050 -82.740933 9916 9916 Cladophora Cladophora spp filamentous algae algae 12/6/2007 na -82.74715~

28.971991 -82.74715 9917 9917 no plant plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.976953 -82.75124~

28.976953 -82.75124 9918 9918 plant no plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.979026 -82.75010~

28.979026 -82.75010ý 9919 plant no plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.981367 -82.74951~

28.981367 -82.74951E piant no plant 9992 9992 no plant plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 video site video 28.972970 -82.73848 28.972970 plant toss toss 9992 9992 plant no plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 0 no plant plant 28.972970 -82.73848 28.972970 9993 9993 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass caulerpa 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 . 28.975756 -82.742440 28.975756 -82.742440 "u<:v sample no no plant on 9993 9993 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass caulerpa 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 rake 28.956170 -82.742717 28.956170 -82.74271 9994 9994 Penicillus sp. fragments Penicillus fragments shaving brush brush plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.966532 -82.74989E 28.966532 -82.749896 9994 9994 Penicillussp. fragments Penicillus fragments shaving brush brush plant plan 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 1 44 28.966567 -82.749850 28.966567 -82.749850 9995 9995 plant no plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 noplant 28.961437 -82.74540~

28.961437 -82.745404 9996 9996 plant no plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.959769 -82.73806~

28.959769 -82.738068 9997 9997 Sargassum natans Sargassum natans gulfweed drift alga 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.957730 -82.73977 28.957730 -82.739777 9997 Udotea conglutinata Udotea conglutinata Udotea spp 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.957730 -82.73977 28.957730 -82.739777 9997 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass caulerpa caulerpa 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.957730 -82.73977 28.957730 -82.739777 9998 plant no plant no plant 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na 28.951697 -82.738041 28.951697 9999 Caulerpa prolifera Caulerpa prolifera grass caulerpa 12/6/2007 12/6/2007 na Ina 28.951717 -82.74034C 28.951717 -82.740340 dsOO01 Caulerpa prolifera dsOO01 Caulerpa prO/ifera grass caulerpa 11/15/2007 20% 28.975452 -82.75326E 28.975452 -82.75326 dsOO01 Gracilariatikvahiae dsOO01 Graci/aria tikvahiae edible drift drift alga 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 3% 28.975452 -82.75326 28.975452 -82.75326E dsOO02 Caulerpa sertularoides dsOO02 Caulerpa sertularoides feather caulerpa caulerpa 11/15/2007 22% 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 dsOO03 Syringodium Syringodium fliforme fiiliforme manatee grass manatee 11/15/2007 68% 28.956969 -82.73553 28.956969 dsOO03 Gracilariatikvahiae dsOO03 Gracilaria tikvahiae edible drift alga 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 51%

51% 28.956969 -82.73553 28.956969 dsOO04 Syringodium filiforme fiiliforme manatee grass 11/15/2007 186%

86% 28.958463 -82.72839~

28.958463 -82.72839 dsOO04 Caulerpa mexicana dsOO04 Caulerpa mexicana feather caulerpa caulerpa 11/15/2007 24% 28.958463 -82.72839~

28.958463 -82.72839 dsOO04 Graci/aria Gracilariatikvahiae tikvahiae edible drift drift alga 11/1512007 11/15/2007 10%

10% 28.958463 -82.72839~

28.958463 -82.72839 dsOO04 Halimeda incrassata dsOO04 Halimeda incrassata Halimeda spp 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 7% 28.958463 -82.72839~

28.958463 -82.72839 dsOO04 Sargassum Sargassum fluitans f/uitans gulfweed drift drift alga 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 4%

4% 28.958463 -82.72839~

28.958463 -82.72839 dsOO05 Syringodium fliforme fiiliforme manatee grass manatee 11/16/2007 34% 28.945315 -82.72938~

28.945315 -82.72938 dsOO07 Caulerpa Caulerpa mexicana mexicana feather calulerpa cal ule rpa 11/16/2007 165%

65% -82.75146 28.950001 -82.75146~

dsOO07 Leptogorgia Leptogorgia virgulata virgulata sea whip 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 2 -82.75146 28.950001 -82.75146~

dsOO07 Sargassum Sargassum natans natans gulfweed drift drift alga 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 2 28.950001 -82.75146~

-82.75146 dsO008 Halodule wrightii dsOO08 Halodule wnighti/ shoal grass 11/16/2007 11/1612007 42%

42% 28.959779 -82.73809~

28.959779 -82.73809 dsOO09 wnight/i dsOO09 Halodule wrightii shoal grass 11/16/2007 100%

100% 28.961919 -82.72923 28.961919 dsOO10 Halodule wrightii ds0010 Halodule wright/i shoal grass 11/16/2007 100%

100% 28.965891 -82.72788

-82.72788C dsOO10 Sargassum fluitans ds0010 Sargassum f/uitans gulfweed drift drift alga 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 12%

2% 28.965891 28.965891 -82.72788

-82.72788C dsOO05 Gracilariatikvahiae dsOO05 Graci/aria tikvahiae edible drift drift alga 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 61%

61% 28.945315 28.945315 -82.729389

-82.72938~

dsOO06 Dictyota sp.

dsOO06 Dictyota sp. 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 2cells 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 dsOO06 Halimeda Halimeda incrassata incrassata Halimeda Halimeda spp 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 7 cells 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 dsOO06 conglutinata dsOO06 Udotea conglutinata Udotea Udotea spp spp 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 6 cells 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 dsOO06 Sargassum Sargassum natans natans gulfweed drift drift alga 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 45 cells 45 cells 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 dsOO06 Caulerpa mexicana dsOO06 Caulerpa mexicana feather caulerpa caulerpa 11/16/2007 1 147 47 cells cells 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 dsOO06 dsOO06 Caulerpa sertularoides feather caulerpa Caulerpa sertularoides 11/16/2007 1 7 cells 17 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 dsOO06 Leptogorgia virgulata dsOO06 Leptogorgia virgulata sea whip 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 1 8 cells 18 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

3F1209-10, Renewal of the Crystal River Units 1, 2 and 3 - Industrial Wastewater Permit FL0000159, Seagrass Quantification Report for the Area Adjacent to the Crystal River Power Generation Facility, Florida

Text

Navigation menu

3F1209-10, Renewal of the Crystal River Units 1, 2 and 3 - Industrial Wastewater Permit FL0000159, Seagrass Quantification Report for the Area Adjacent to the Crystal River Power Generation Facility, Florida

Text

Navigation menu

Search