ML18088A507

Ecological Monitoring at the Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Plant Annual Report 1976 Volume 1

ML18088A507
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	12/31/1976
From:	Applied Biology
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
AB-44
Download: ML18088A507 (538)

Text

AB-44 ECOLOGICAL MON ITORI NG AT TIHIE FLORIDA POWER R LIGHT CO.ST.LUCIE Pk.ANT APPLIED BIOLOCY, INC.8--Ecological Consultants 5891 NEW PEACHTREE ROAD ATLANTA, GEORG IA 30340 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 PAGE A.INTRODUCTION

............................................

A-1 Study Purpose...................

~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A-1 Site Description

................

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B.FISH AND SHELLFISH......................................

B-1 Introduction

................

The Ichthyofaunal Assemblage

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..B-1~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Impingement

.................

Materials and Methods.;...Results and Discussion

....Inshore (Canal)Gill Nets...~~~~~~~B 4~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B-4 B-6 B-10 Materials and Methods.Results-and Discussion Offshore Gill Nets......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~0~~~~~~~~~1~~~B-10 B-12~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B 1 1 Materials and Methods......~~~~e~~~~~~~~Results and Discussion

............

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T rawl s~~~e~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Materials and Methods.........B-17 Results and Discussion

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B 18 Beach Seines............

Materials and Methods.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~I B-19~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o B 1 9 Results and Dlscusslon

................................

B-19 Ichthyoplankton

.........Materials and Methods.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B 20......B-20 Results and Discussion

........................-....

B-22 ummary.................................................

S B-28 I I I I I I I PAGE Literature Cited........................................

8-32 F 1gures.................................................

36 T ables...............

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B 52 C.MACROINVERTEBRATES

......................................

C-1 Introduction Materials and Metho~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C 1 S~~~~~~o~d~~~~~~~~~~~o'~~~~~~~~~~C 2 Results and Discuss Sediments'.......

ion o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o C 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C 5 Benthic Grabs...Benthic Trawls..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C 7~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~o~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C 14 S o ummary..:.....................

..............r 1a Literature Cited............

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'C 20 F 1gures................................

~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~C 23 ables.........................

T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C 37 D.PHYTOPLANKTON

...........................................

D-1 IntrOduCt1Ono o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o D 1 Materials and Methods...................................

D-4 Phytoplankton Analysis................................

D-4 Pigment Analysis....................

Results and Discussion

..;.............

Phytoplankton Composition

...........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o D 8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D 10~~~~~~~o'~~~~~~~o~D 10 Entrainment and Temperature Relations Pigment Analysis and Primary Producti hips.............

D-15 Vlty~~~~~~~~~~~~o D 17 ummary.................................................

D-24 S Literature C'ited..~...................................

D-27 igur es.....'............................................

D-29 F'bles.......................................

T...D-45 1 11 I I I I I PAGE ZOOPLANKTON

.............................................

E-1 E.Introduction

.........Materials and Methods~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E 2 Results and Discussion

..................................

E-5 ummary.................................................

E-ll S Literature Cited.....F igures..............

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E 1 3~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E 18 ables..'......................................;.........

E-28 T f.AQUATIC MACROPHYTES Introduction

..........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F 1 Materials and Methods............................

~~~~~~~F 2 Results and Discussion

...........................

~~~~~~~F 2 L'terature Cited........................................

F-5 igures.................................................

F-6 F'bles..................................................

F-7 T G.WATER QUALITY..........

Introduction

...........

Physical.Parameters

....Materials and Methods~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..G-1..G-1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Results and Discussion

................................

G-5 Chemical Parameters

.....................................

G-9 Materials and Methods Results and Discussion

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G 10 Literature Cited.......F igures................

Tables.................

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G 13~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G 15~~*~~~~~~G 20~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 2 , PAGES FISH AND SHELLFISH.............................

H-1 NCROINVERTEBRATES

...........................

H-252 PHYTOPLANKTON

................................

H-293 ZOOPLANKTON

..................................

H-337 WATER QUALITY................................

H-363 through H-251 through H-292 through H-336 through H-362 through H-384 I I A.INTRODUCTION STUDY PURPOSE In 1975, Applied Biology, Inc., was asked by Florida Power&Light Company to conduct the Operational Ecological Monitoring Program at their St.Lucie Plant.This.program began with preliminary studies on the populations of fishes in the intake and discharge canals in De-cember 1975.The complete sampling program was initiated in March 1976.The study was designed to provide information on the effects of operation of the St.Lucie Plant on the indigenous populations of major biotic communities.

Seventeen sampling stations (Figure A-1)were established.

on the plant site and adjacent coastal waters (Table A-1)to study potential plant effects on this marine habitat.TABLE A-1 OCEANIC SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS ST.AUGIE PLANT 1976 Oceanic verage station de th m Latitude Lon itude 0 1 2'3 4 5 8.2 7.6 11.3 7.6 11.3 11.3 27'19.1'27'21.2'27'21.4'27'21.7'27'20.6'27'22.9'80'13.2'80'14.1'80'13.3'.80'12.4'80'12.8'-W 80'14.0'The 1976 sampling program is responsive to portions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Technical Specifications for St.A-1 I t I gi I'INDIAN RIVER ATL ANTIC OCE AN ll ST LUCIE II COUNTY, FLORIDA 9 PLANT 0 A 8 SiTE" 27 20 FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE PLANT 3000 6000 9000 12000 SCALE N fKET INDIAN R IVER HU INSON I L ND 8O lO LOCATION OF ST.LUCIf PLANT AND SAMPLING STATIONS MARCH l977 APPLIEO BIOLOGY, INC.FIGURE A-1

Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit 1, as detailed in the Applied Biology, Inc., research proposal of January 1976.The sampling regime is outlined in Table A-2., SITE DESCRIPTION The St.Lucie Plant is located on a 1132-acre site on Hutchinson Island in St.Lucie County, Florida (Figure A-1).The island lies between the towns of Fort Pierce and Stuart on the east coast of Florida and is part of a chain of barrier islands which separate the shallow Indian=River lagoon from.the Atlantic Ocean.Hutchinson Island is a bar and swale is'land approximately 22 miles long and up to one mile wide.Sand dunes about 5 meters (15 feet)high line the eastern shore.The dune vegetation is a palmetto and sea grape community which serves-to stabilize the shoreline.

The western part of the island consists of a mangrove swamp and other tidal littoral vegetation.

The interior salt marshes and mangrove communities have been extensively altered over past decades by county mosquito control practices.

Large stands of black mangroves, in-A eluding some on:the plant site, have been killed by controlled flooding.The Atlantic Ocean along Hutchinson Island has an average tidal range of three feet.Gulf Stream currents flow north a few miles offshore, and a weak counter-current usually f'lows south near shore.The sea floor consists of shifting sand and shell rubble with limited I I I I I I I I rock or reef outcroppings.

The unstable substrate limits the establishment of rooted macrophytes and attached benthic communities.

The Indian River, west of Hutchinson Island, is a shallow)lagoon that receives tidal flushing through the Fort Pierce and St.Lucie Inlets and freshwater runoff from the mainland to the west.The river is a productive region that supports large beds of sea grasses and associated algae and other marine forms.The St.Lucie Plant presently generates electricity with one 850-megawatt net electric pressurized water reactor.The condenser cooling water is provided by a once-through circulating water system which consists'of intake and discharge pipes in the ocean with canals to the plant{Figure A-2).Cooling water is drawn from the Atlantic Ocean through a vertical intake structure located 365 m (1200 ft)offshore.The intake structure is covered with a concrete velocity cap, the top of which is approximately 2.4 m (8 ft)below the water surface.From the intake point, water is drawn into the intake canal through a pipe buried under the dunes.The 90-m (300-ft)wide canal carries the cooling water about 1500 m{5000 ft)to the plant intake structure where pumps provide 33,400 liters/sec (530,000 gal/min)of flow.The water moves through the intake screens, passes through the plant condensers, and is released into the discharge canal.A-4 I I I I I I I J'NDIAN RIVER 4~Q~" PLANT WASHING SCREENS j 9 (j 1 p jgf)5j 4 DISCHARGE CANAL AlA L~i P W j-@.'.-'~kg=-DISCHARGE STRUCTURE (SUBMERGED)

ATLANTIC OCEAN FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT INTAKE CANAL.Jf 0 INTAKE STRUCTURE (SUBMERGED)

PLANT AREA PHOTOGRAPH MARCH I977 APPLIEO BIOLOGY>INC.FIGURE A-2 I A-5 M W W W W 8%

The design temperature rise of the water passing through the condensers is approximately 24'F (13.4'C).After leaving the plant, the heated water passes through.a 60-m (200-ft)wide discharge canal before entering a'pipe buried under a dune and the ocean floor.The water is carried about 365 m (1200 ft)offshore and discharged through a Y-shaped pipe 5 m (18 ft)below the water surface.The discharge pipe is located 730 m (2400 ft)north of the intake.A-6 I I I I TABLE A-2 BIOLOGICAL SAHPLING SCHEDULE (NUHBER SAHPLES/STATION)

ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976-1977 Section Offshore Intake Discha e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ll 13 4 15 2 6 Sam lin fre uenc Adult fish-beach seine Adult fish-gill net Adult fish-otter trawl Aquatic macrophytes Benthos-trawl Benthos-grab Ichthyoplankton (fish eggs&larvae)Impingement Phytoplankton and chlorophyll Thermograph monitoring Water quality&nutrients Zooplankton 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 28 28 28 28 28 28 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2H 2H 2H 2H 2H 2H 28 28 28 28 28 28 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 28 28 28 28 28 28 3 3 3 2S 28 Cont.2S 28 1S 1S 1S 18 18 18 2S 28 Cont.2S 28 monthly 1S monthly 18 monthly monthly quarterly monthly (with adult fish)quarterly twice monthly twice weekly (with pumps on)monthly monthly monthly monthly monthly monthly monthly monthly S=surface sample H=mid-depth sample 8=bottom sample 5=oblique tow Note: Stations 9 and 10 are part of another study.

I I I ig~

B.FISH AND SHELLFISH INTRODUCTION Fishes distribute themselves within the aquatic ecosystem K according to their physiological limitations and biological needs.A consequence of this distribution has been the development of communities or assemblages of fishes whi ch are dependent on the physical conditions and resources of an area.Subsequently, changes in the habitat can lead to a change in the composition of the community.

Changes in'ommunity composition and species abuhdance can be good indicators of environmental alteration (Calhoun, 1966;Warren, 1971).Generally, the harsher the environment, the fewer the number of species but the greater the numbers of individuals of tolerant forms (Warren, 1971).The purpose of this study was to determine the composition and abundance of fishes in the vicinity of the St.Lucie Plant.The effects of plant operation on habitat, population, distribution and life history were evaluated to determine whether changes in species composition or abundance had occurred.The evaluation of plant operation required studies of both inshore and oceanic areas.Inshore samples were taken in the

'I~I 4~

immediate vicinity of the plant.This sampling included collecting impinged specimens-at the intake traveling screens and gill netting in the intake and.discharge canals.Oceanic samples were taken by gill netting, trawling and beach seining.In analyzing oceanic samples, emphasis was placed on the possible effects of the offshore K thermal discharge upon migratory fishes of sport and commercial importance.

Ichthyoplankton sampling was conducted both inshore and offshore to evaluate entrainment and thermal discharge effects, respecti vely.THE ICHTHYOFAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE Three r elatively distinct oceanic habitats are available to fishes in the v'icinity of the St.Lucie Plant: the surf zone, open bottom, an'd neritic zone.The surf zone was characterized by water turbulence and a r shifting sand substrate.

Vegetation and rocky outcroppings or pilings that could provide cover were lacking.One small worm-reef protrusion occurred in the vicinity of the plant, but the amount of cover'-it provided for fish in the surf zone was minimal.Some'pecies of croaker, Florida pompano and sea catfishes are adapted to these turbulent conditions.

Others, such as the herrings, anchovies and jacks (particularly juveniles) seek refuge from predation in the surf zone but move farther offshore at night.Although the herrings and anchovies are considered transients in the surf zone, they were B-2 I i~ig~i often the numerically dominant fishes found in this area during the day.The open bottom beyond the surf zone consisted of a relatively homogeneous shell-hash and, like the surf zone, was lacking vegetation or other cover that could provide shelter for fishes.Dominant fishes were the flatfishes (flounder, sole, and tonguefish), searobins, sand-perch, and cusk-eels.

These forms have adapted to living in or on the ocean bottom.Protective coloration and the burying behavior of the flatfish, the hard and spiny exterior of the searobin, and the burrowing nature of the cusk-eel provide some protection against predation on these generally small bottom-dwellers.

The neritic zone consists of the coastal area of open water beyond the surf zone and above the bottom.The vast majority of the fishes found during this study in the vicinity of the St.Lucie Plant were either residents of or transients through the neritic zone.These included the anchovies and herring, Atlantic bumper and other jacks, mojarras, grunts, bluefish, and mackerels.

For the most part, the food chain is relatively simple in this type of open oceanic habitat.Phytoplankton and zooplankton serve as a food base for the plank-tivorous fishes such as anchovies and herring.These, in turn, feed the small piscivorous fishes which support the larger predators such as the jacks, bluefish and mackerels.

B-3 I I The vicinity of the St.Lucie Plant is part of the broad (ca.27-29'N Latitude)Indian River region.Gilmore (1974)estimates that at least 637 species of, fishes could occur in this f area of overlap" between warm-temperate and tropical Caribbean fish faunas.Extensive collections by the Harbor Branch Foundation (Gilmore, 1974,;Jones et al., 1975)indicate that probably less than 40/of these species are characteristic of the surf zone, open bottom, and/or'neritic zone.The majority of the species are from the rich grass flats within the Indian River lagoon, from around inlets and surf zone reefs which provide cover, and from the offshore\reefs.These inlet and reef zones are most likely beyond the influence of normal operations of the St: Lucie Plant.IMPINGEMENT Materials and Methods The intake structure consists of four bays, each with a bar grill, a traveling screen, a circulating water pump, and auxiliary equipment.

Pumps at the intake structure provide a total maximum flow of 2 x 10 liters/min (5.3 x 10 gal/min).The approach velocity ,to each bay is approximately 30 cm/sec (1 ft/sec).The traveling screens have a mesh size of 9.5 mm (0.38 in)square.Organisms impinged on these screens are washed into a collecting basin and do not survive.FP8L data, 1971.B-4

Twenty-four hour impingement sampling was initiated on a twice-weekly basis in April 1976.Plant operation was intermittent 1 during July through September, and impingement samples were only taken when the circulating pumps were running.Each 24-hour sampling period was divided into three consecutive 8-hour segments to determine possible diel variations.

The time segments were from 0100 to 0900, 0900 to 1700, and, 1700 to 0100 hr.Specimens washed off the traveling screens were collected in a 2.9 ms'3.8 yds)basket of 9.5-mm (0.4-in)square mesh.Specimens were identified to species, counted, measured to the nearest millimeter, and weighed to the near est gram.Standard length (SL), the distance from the tip of the snout to the base of the tail, was measured for most fishes.Total length (TL)was measured for fishes and shellfishes with indiscernible tail fins.'arapace (shell)length was measured for, shrimp and lobster;carapace width was recorded for-crabs.

The taxonomic nomenclature for fishes was in accordance with Bailey et al.(1970).Up to 25 individuals of each species were measured and weighed individually.

The total number of individuals, the range of lengths, and the total weight were recorded for the remainder of the specimens of each species.An aliquot was generally taken if the remainder of the specimens totaled 200 or more individua'Is.

Ten to 25K of the B-5 l

specimens were counted and weighed, and the range of lengths was recorded.When an aliquot was'used, the total number of individuals was calculated by: N=-x Ni W W)where: total number of individuals Wy total weight number of individuals in the aliquot aliquot weight Results and Oiscussion Of the 182 species of fishes collected in the vicinity of the St.Lucie Plant (Table B-l), 125 species (69Ã)were found during impingement sampling.Individual sampling period data are included in the Appendix (Tables H-1 through H-46)and summarized in Table B-2.Anchovies (family Engraulidae) occurred in the ma jority of the samples and comprised 54.5Ãof the total number of fishes and 22.95 of the biomass.Anchovies accounted for peaks of fish abundance in May (Figure B-l).=Anchovies and jacks (Atlantic bumper)represented most of the fishes collected on 21-22 October, when the largest sample was obtained.Anchovies are abundant along the Florida east coast and serve as important forage species for piscivorus fishes.These fishes seldom attain a length of over 76 mm (3 in)and are not sport or commercially harvested.

B-6 1 I}j f 11 Jacks (family Carangidae) occurred in over half of the samples and accounted for 30.8%of all fishes collected and 12.2%.of the biomass.The'redominant jack collected was Juveniles of this species comprised 61.5%of'fishes collected in the 21-22 October sample the Atlantic bumper.the total number of (Figure B-1).The Atlantic bumper.'is also a forage species and is not of sport or commercial importance.

N Families'of fishes other than anchovies and jacks occurred in relatively low numbers (Table B-2).No other family comprised oyer 2.8%of the total number of fishes collected.

Few sport or commer-cial fishes were found.Twenty-six black drum and 19 red drum juveniles were collected during all sampling periods combined.Seven juvenile seatrout, one adult seatrout, and four spot were found.Fishes of sport and/or commercial importance besides the sciaenids (drums and seatrout)included five great barracuda'nd one individual each of gray sn'apper,, striped mullet, Florida pompano, black grouper and cero.No snook, cobia, bluefish, king or Spanish mackerels were collected during impingement surveys, although these species were found to occur offshore and/or in the surf zone..Fish impingement ranged from 15 to 5,881 individuals per 24-hour sampling period;Mean number of.fishes impinged-per sam'pie Gas 351.Biomass of fishes impinged per.sample ranged from 26, to 7,933 g B-7 I

(0.06 to 17.51 lb)with a mean of 1,169 g (2.58 lb).Rates of impingement, expressed as fishes and biomass per hour, are shown in Figures B-1 and B-2, respectively.

Exclusive of anchovies.and jacks, mean impingement per sample was 46 individuals and 749 g,(1.65 lb).Shellfish of commercial importance collected during impingement sampling included shrimp (penaeus, Trachgpenaeus, and sicgonia spp.), blue crab, stone crab, and spiny lobster.Shrimp comprised 78.1%of the total number of these shellfishes and 23.9%of the total shellfish biomass.Shrimp were collected during every sample and numbered from 5 to 531 (Table B-2), with a mean of 55 individuals, per 24-hour sampling period.The largest numbers of shrimp'w6re found during October and December (Figure B-3).Blue crabs also occurred in every impingement sample and made up 21.4%of the total number of commerc>ally important shellfishes collected and 75.3%of the shellfish biomass.Blue, crab impingement ranged from 1 to 65 individuals, with a mean of 15 individuals per sample.The largest numbers"were collected from October to December (Figure B-3).Stone crab and spiny lobster impingement was low.Thirteen and four individuals, respectively, were collected during all sampling periods combined.B-8

r No commercial landings of shrimp were reported for Martin or St.Lucie Counties in 1974 (Snell, 1976).However, the wide-ranging shrimp boats operate off this area and land their catches elsewhere.

A total of about 16,000 kg (35,000 lb)of blue crabs with a dock-side value of over$4,000 were reported.Stone crab and spiny lobster landings totaled only 605 and 1,694 kg (1,333 and 3,734 lb), respectively, for Martin and St.Lucie counties in 1974 (Snell, 1976).The diel studies, conducted to determine differences between daytime and nighttime impingement rates, indicated that there were no significant differences (P(.05)when all sampling pdriods were analyzed on the basis of the percentage composition of fishes in the three 8-hour time segments.However, based on absolute numbers, the majority (70Ã)of the fishes were collected during the 0900-1700 hr segment.This was attributed to"runs" of 545 to 5059'fishes, primarily anchovies, collected during this time segment in five of the 46 sampling periods.Oaly (1970)concluded that anchovies feed in the water currents at night and form large schools in protected areas during the day.The tendency for anchovies to congregate during the day could account for the higher impingement rates on the above five occasions.

B-9

INSHORE CANAL G ILL NETS Materials and Methods Twice-monthly gill net collections were begun in December 1975 at one intake'canal station and one discharge canal station (Stations 15 and 16, respectively).

Two additional stations, 13 and 14, were added in the intake canal in January 1976 (Figure B-4).This more inten-sive effort was incorporated to determine if fishes were accumulating in the intake canal due to entrapment at the intake velocity, cap.Sampling was reduced to once per month after April 1976, when results indicated that monthly sampling adequately represented the fish populations.

The nets measured 30.5 m in length by 3 m in depth (100 x 10 ft)and consisted of two 15-m (50-ft)panels of 38-and 51-mm (1.5-and 2-in)stretch mesh sewn end-to-end.

One net was fished at the surface and one n'et at the bottom at each station.The nets at each station were fished at mid-canal and approximately 6 m (20 ft)apart to prevent entanglement (Figure B-5).Sampling duration was two consecutive 24-hour periods.Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity were recorded at each station during the sampling periods.Inshore gill net specimens collected were analyzed by the same methods described under Impingement:

Materials and Methods.

I I Results and Discussion Inshore gill-net data are summarized in Table B-3.All sampling period data are included in the Appendix (Tables H-47 through H-79).A total of 494 fishes and 64 shellfishes were collected in the intake and discharge canals.The most common fishes collected were croakers, representing 25.3Ãof the total fishes found.Mullet accounted for 19.65 of the fishes collected, followed by grunt (16.2X), snapper (12.65), jack (7;7Ã), porgy (3.2%), and mojarra (2.05).The remainder of the fishes consisted of families which comprised fewer than 2.05 of the total.Blue crabs accounted for 76.6X of the shellfishes collected.

The rate of capture, calculated as the number of fishes collected per net per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> fished, ranged from zero to five (Figure 8-6).\No build-up or entrapment of fishes was identified in either the intake or discharge canals.The offshore inlet of the intake pipe was equipped with a velocity cap to ensure a horizontal direction of approach and an intake water velocity of about 61 cm/sec (2 ft/sec).Fishes are likely to detect and avoid a horizontal flow, whereas they may become entrapped by a downward flow.The intake water flow was of sufficient velocity to allow detection and avoidance by'ishes.The velocity cap apparently limited the number of fish entering the intake canal.FP8L data, 1971

The progr'essive decrease.in the number of fishes collected in the discharge=

canal (Figure B-6)was attributed to movement with the outward flowing current.Additionally, this current will probably limit re-entry by fishes into the discharge canal.OFFSHORE GILL NETS Materials and Methods Monthly gill net collections were initiated in March 1976 at six offshore stations.Stations 1 through 5 were in the vicinity of the plant and Station 0 (control)was located to the south (Figure B-7).The offshore gill net measured 183 m in length by 3.7 m in depth (600 x 12 ft)and was made up of five 36.6-m (120-ft)panels sewn,end-to-end.

The mesh size of the panels varied, measuring 64, 74, 84, 97 and 117 mm (2.5, 2.9, 3.3, 3.8 and 4.6 in., respectively) stretch length (Figure B-8).The net was fished on the bottom, perpendicular to shore, for 30 minutes at each station.Water depth, temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and transmitted light were recorded at each station during the sampling periods.'ffshore gill net specimens were analyzed by the same methods described under Impingement:

Materials and Methods.B-12

Results and Discussion The Atlantic bumper, crevalle jack, and blue runner (family Carangidae) comprised 66.7X of the 1,734 total fishes collected (Table B-4).Spanish mackerel accounted for 10.3Ãof the total..The remainder of the fishes consisted of species in which fewer, than 100 individuals of each were found.Lengths and weights of these fishes are included in the Appendix (Tables H-80 through K-89).Forty-seven percent of all fishes collected were from near the.point of plant discharge (Station 1).A large number (318)of crevalle jack collected in November and December (Table B-4)par-tially accounted for the largest percentage of fishes being collected at this station.Whether individuals of this species were attracted to the discharge area or whether these collections were chance occurrences is unresolved at this time.Exclusive of the above-mentioned crevalle jack, the total number of fishes collected near the point of discharg'e at,.Station 1 was comparable to the number collected at the, control,(496 vs 532 individuals).

There was considerable variation both within and between stations over the 10 months sampled, although fewer numbers of fishes were collected overall at Stations 2 through 5 than at 0 and 1 (Figure B-9).The fishes collected were primarily pelagic species whose movements probably accounted for many of these B-13

b.

variations.

The larger number of fishes collected at Stations 0 and 1 (over Stations 2-5)was attributed to these stations'.

nearshore f location.Forage species would be more abundant nearshore and would, in turn, attract the larger predators.

ll The Spanish mackerel was common in March, October and December (Table B-4).This is an important sport and commercial species.Commercial landings in 1974 in Martin and St.Lucie Counties totaled about 590,000 kg (1.3 million lb)with a dockside value to the fish-ermen of approximately

$228,000 (Snell, 1976).The Spanish mackerel is a migratory species which moves north in the spring, spawns during the summer months in the northern part of its range (north of Cape Canaveral on the Atlantic coast), and migrates south in the fall (Wollam, 1970).The largest number of individuals was collected in the control area south of the plant (Station 0);.the second largest number was collected near the point of plant discharge at Station 1 (Table B-4).Movements of these fishes are generally nearshore, as evidenced by operations of the commercial fishermen.

The majority of the Spanish mackerel being collected at these two stations was to be expected.No influence by the plant discharge on the migratory pattern and/or nearshore move-ment of these fishes was observed.B-14

The rel'ationship between'lengths and weights are of value in delineating differences in the general physical condition of indi-viduals within or between different areas or at different times of I the year.Length/weight relationships for the months of March, October and December, when Spanish mackerel were common in our samples, are plotted in Figure B-10 through B-12.Individuals collected in October and December were generally smaller in both length and weight than those collected in March.Nevertheless, the length/weight'elationships (or the slope of the line drawn between the points on each of the figures)are comparable between months.Additionally, no differences in the length/weight relation-ships between'stations were apparent.Fishes of major sport and/or commercial importance in the St.Lucie area,,other than Spanish mackerel, include bluefish and king mackerel., A total of 312,600 and 536,500 kg (686,500 and 1,182,700 lb), respectively, were landed in Martin and St.Lucie Counties in 1974 (Snell,-1-976).Ninety-one bluefish and three king mackerel were collected during gill net operations.

The bluefish were collected from October to December, primarily in the nearshore areas (Stations 0 and 1, Appendix Tables H-87 through H-89).Twenty-eight bluefish were found at the control (Station 0)and 59 near the point of discharge Comprising over,272,000 kg (600,000 lb)commercially landed in Martin and St.Lucie Counties in 1974.B-15

(Station 1), which would indicate no avoidance of the discharge area.Bluefish are winter visitors to the St.Lucie area.Northerly move-ment occurs during spring and summer (Beaumariage, 1969)and spawn-ing occurs in-.offshore waters, north of Florida in early summer (Deuel et al.,'1966).Northward movement along the Florida coast is probably part'f a spawning'migration by that part of the pop-ulation that extends its winter range into south Florida waters (Moe, 1972).Three king mackerel were collected by gill net operations during the entire, study.These were collected in March at Station 1 (near shore around the point of plant discharge) and farther offshore from the plant at Stations 2 and 4 (Appendix Table H-80).The king mackerel is very similar to the Spanish mackerel in its migratory habits;it moves north in the spring, spawns in the summer months north of Cape Canaveral, on the Atlantic coast, and moves south in the fall (Wollam, 1970).*In addition to its commercial importance, this species is considered the most prominent marine fish in the sport'fishery in Florida (Beaumariage, 1973).This species generally occurs farther offshore than the.bluefish and Spanish mackerel, as evidenced by only a few individuals in-our gill net collections.

It is doubtful that plant operations would influence the movements of, this species.B-16 l

Fishes of.lesser sport and/or commercial importance included 82 menhaden collected mainly in December at Stations 0 and 1, and 14 greater amberjack collected at Station 3 (the farthest offshore station)in November.Fewer numbers of fishes were collected for cobia (8 individuals), weakfish (3), gray snapper and sheepshead (2 each), and mutton snapper, African pompano, and Florida pompano (1 each).TRAWLS Materials and Methods Monthly trawls at six offshore stations (Figure B-7)were begun in April 1976.One 15-minute tow was made at each station using a 5-m (16.5-ft)semi-balloon bottom trawl of 12.7-mm (0.5-in)stretch mesh in the bag and 6.4-mm (0.3-in)stretch mesh in the cod end (Figure B-13).A digital flowmeter (General Oceanics Model 2030)was used during each tow to enable calculation of the distance trawled.All trawling was conducted at night to limit,net avoidance by the fishes.'ater depth, temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tur-I bidity were recorded at each station during the sampling periods.Trawl specimens collected were analyzed by the same methods described under Impingement:

Materials and Methods.t Menhaden are of major commercial importance in northern Florida, but not in the St.Lucie area.B-17 I

Results and Discussion Data collected during monthly trawling surveys are summarized in Table B-5.Appendix Tables H-90 through H-99 contain results of the individual trawls and include length and weight data.Flatfishes such as flounder, sole, and tonguefish were the li'ost common group, comprising 19.6%of the 656 total fishes collected.

Other frequently occurring fishes included searobin (17.1'A of the total fishes), sand perch (13.1%), cusk-eel (11.0Ã), grunt (9.3%), snapper (4.1%)and mojarra (4.0%).The remainder of the fishes consisted of species in which fewer than 15 individuals were collected during all sampling periods combined.Grunt, snapper and mojarra I enter the commercial landings in Martin and St.Lucie Counties (Snell, 1976), although they are of minor importance compared to other species.The numbers of fishes collected within'nd between stations differed considerably (Figure.B-14).

The largest mean number (15.0)of fishes was collected at Station 5 north of the plant area.Station 0 (control south of the'lant area)had a mean of 14.3 fishes and Station 1 in the area of the discharge has a mean of 12.4.The lowest mean number (7.0)of fishes was collected over Pierce Shoals (Station 3), and the mean was only slightly higher at Stations 4 and 2 (7.9 and 9.0, respectively).

No plant-related effects can presently be inferred from the above distribution of fishes.

I BEACH SEINES e Materials and Methods Beach seining was initiated in March 1976 at stations located north of the discharge, between the discharge and of the intake (Stations 6 through 8;Figure B-7).intake, and south Three, replicate seine hauls were made at each station during each sample period.The seine was, 30.5 m in length by 1.8 m in depth (100 x 6 ft), 4 with a mesh size of 12.7 mm (0.5 in)square.It was heavily weighted along the bottom and had extra flotation along the top to maintain a hanging position under surf conditions.

The rolled net was carried'\out to a depth of approximately 1.2 m (4 ft), deployed parallel to shore, and pulled in perpendi'cular to shore,and onto the beach.Water temperature and salinity were recorded at each station.Seine specimens were analyzed by the same methods des'cribed under Impingement:

Materials and Methods.Results and-Discussion Herring and anchovy accounted for over half the 1211 fishes collected during beach seine surveys (Table B-6).Spot, sand drum C and kingfish each accounted for 8 to 9/of the fishes encountered.

Other fish species each comprised 6X or less of the total.The r I I I speckled crab was the predominant shellfish collected.

Length and weight data on these fishes and shellfishes are included in Appendix Tables H-100 through H-109.Fifty-six percent of all fishes collected were found north of the discharge (Station 6;Figure B-7), 14%%d were found between the discharge and intake (Station 7), and 30%south of the intake (Station 8).The extreme variations between stations and between replicates at the same station (Figure B-15)are attributed to the chance occurrences of schooling species.For example, the herring collected in June at Station 8 and the anchovies found in July at Station 6 (Table B-6)accounted for 52.6X of all the fishes collected during beach seining operations.

Exclusive of these two occurrences, the composition of fishes collected at the three stations varied from 29.5 to 36.8X.It is doubtful that plant operations are influencing the occurrence of fishes along the beach.ICHTHYOPLANKTON Materials and Methods A number of.areas along the Atlantic coast are known to be used by fishes for reproduction and/or as nursery grounds.Many I fishes spawn seasonally, in the same areas year after year.These B-20 reproductive areas are either situated in a nursery area that has an adequate larval food, source, or are geographically positioned so that the larvae will drift into a suitable nursery'area (Gushing, 1975;Marshall, 1966).The developmental stages of many of these fishes are planktonic and are limited in their ability to avoid unfavorable environmental conditions.

In addition, the eggs and larvae of fishes have specific environmental requirements, with little tolerance for abrupt physical or chemical changes." To determine whether the St.Lucie plant area is used by fishes for reproduction and/or as a nursery, and whether there were plant-related effects, an ichthyoplankton survey was made in the plant area.Ichthyoplankton in the intake (Station ll)and discharge canals (Station 12)and at oceanic Stations 0 through 5 (Figure 8-7)were collected twice a month by towing a"one-meter I diameter, 505-micron mesh net near the surface.The net was towed for 10 to 15 minutes at 3.5 to 4.0 knots.A General Oceanics Model 2030 flowmeter mounted in the mouth of the net enabled calculation of the volume of water filtered.Water volume through the net was calculated by: Cubic meters=AVT where: A=area of the mouth of the net (m~)V=velocity.,of current (m/sec)T-=time (sec)Various physical parameters were recorded at the time and location of each sample.Except for occasional night samples at Stations 0 8-21 I I I I through 5, all ichthyoplankton samples were taken during the day.Fish eggs and larvae were preserved in the field in a 5$formalin solution and returned to the laboratory for analysis Larval fishes and eggs.were identified to the lowest practical taxon.Although some fish larvae were identified to the generic or species level, these data are presented and analyzed at the ordinal and familial levels to facilitate discussion.

After the specimens I were identified, the size range and total number of e'ggs and larvae in each collection were determined and the number per unit volume was cal cul ated.'I Results and Discussion Data from the ichthyoplankton survey are presented in Appendix Tables H-110 to H-127.Spawning was highest in spring and gradually decreased throughout the remaipder of the year (Figure B-16).The higher numbers of eggs per cubic meter were recorded in March (25.5/m3)and tune (19.6/m3).Fahay (1975)indicated that along the east coast of the United States peak spawning occur red in the spring and summer.In temperate and high latitudes,'pawning P usually occurs in the spring and fall.In tropical and subtropical waters, however, spawning may occur throughout the year.The area of the St.Lucie'plant borders temperate subtropical waters.Thus, in this area spawning could occur for some fishes seasonally and B-22 I

and for others year-round.

Both types of spawning apparently occurred in the plant area.Two peaks of larval abundance occurred in the vicinity of the St.Lucie Plant, once in the spring and again in the fall (Figure B-16).During these periods the, mean number of larvae per cubic meter, based on data from Stations 0 through 5, was highest in April (0.641/m)and September (3.074/m).During the summer, low numbers of larvae and high numbers of eggs were collected (Figure B-16).Since the plant was usually not in operation during the summer, this result was not considered plant-related.

I The timing of spawning may be adapted to the cyclical production of plankton in order to ensure an abundant larval food supply (Jones, 1973;Cushing, 1975, 1973, 1972).Studies on the diet of larval fishes have indicated that small zooplankters, especially copepod larvae, are the first food source many larval fishes use shortly before or after yolk-sac absorption (Bainbridge and McKay, 1968;Gushing, 1959;Lebour, 1921, 1919, 1918).This period is critical, to larval survival because once the larvae absorb their yolk-sacs, they die within hours if a food source is not available.

The concentration of food organisms also affects larval feeding I success and survival.Blaxter (1963)reviewed a number of field studies and concluded that larvae were most abundant when food items B-23 I I I I I were present-at a concentration of about 30 organisms per liter.Lisinvnenko (1961)found that the abundance of herring larvae increased five-fold with an increase in food items from about 5 to 20 organisms/1 iter.At oceanic stations larval abundance was concomitant with I zooplankton production periods (Figure B-16).'edian zooplankton density ranged from 2.14 to 0.37 organisms/liter in March and April, and from 4.45 to 1.44 organisms/liter in September and October.It is evident that environmental changes that reduce plankton production or disrupt the link between recruitment and production of larval food in reproductive areas may affect the ecology of coastal fisheries.

The results of this study indicate that plant operation apparently has not altered relationships between recruitment and the production of potential larval food.The presence of eggs and larvae along with an apparently adequate food source in the plant area suggests that this area is used both for reproduction and as a nursery area.However, based on the findings of this study,and those of Fahay (1975)and Burrell (1975), this area is not considered either unusually productive or I depauperate in, comparison to other areas along the southeast coast of the United, States.B-24 I I I Night ichthyoplankton.

collections, which had up to 83 times as many larvae'as the day collections (Table B-7), suggested that either larvae were more able to avoid the net during the day (Clutter and Anraku, 1968)or a vertical migration of larvae to the surface was occurring at night.The numbers of eggs per cubic meter, however, were consistently higher during the day (Table B-7);.the cause of this'phenomenon is not known.Of the major categories of fish larvae collected at the oceanic Stations (0 through 5), blenniids (blennies), tetraodontiforms (puffers, triggerfishes and filefishes), clupeiforms (herrings and anchovies), and carangids (jacks)were most abundant in the spring.Tetraodonti-forms, clupeiforms and gerreids (mojarras) were most abundant in the I summer;gerreids, carangids and sciaenids (drums)were most abundant in the fall (Table B-8).At Station ll (intake canal), clupeiforms were the major category of larval fishes collected, making up more than 65K of all the fish larvae found at this station during any season (Table B-8).All other larval categories were occasionally collected in low numbers (Appendix Tables H-110 to H-127).At Station 12 (discharge canal), clupeiforms, blenniids and gobiids were the dominant larval categories (Table B-8);however, B-25 they were only occasionally collected in;very low numbers (Appendix Tables H-110 to'-127).Except for the carangids, the adults of these taxa are primarily inshore spawners (Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968;Breder and Rosen, 1966).According to Berry (1959), the occurrence of carangid larvae inshore can be attributed to the tendency.of some species in this group (e.g., crevalle jack and horse-eye jack)to migrate inshore at relatively small sizes (21-50 mm standard length).The percentage composition of clupeiforms (herrings) was usually much higher at Station ll in the intake canal than at the nearest oceanic station, Station 1 (Table B-8).In addition, larval densities were usually lower in the intake canal than at Station 1 (Appendix Tables H-110 to H-127).The entrainment of clupeiforms into the intake cana'1 is not considered to be highly detrimental to the clupeid popu'lations in the plant area in light of their high fecundity and abundance.

The clupeiforms occurring in the area are important forage fishes, but they are not economically important.

No single oceanic station or group of stations consistently had significantly higher or lower ichthyoplankton densities than the other stations (Tables B-9 to B-ll).This finding indicates that differences between the oceanic stations were random and probably reflect a patchy ichthyoplankton distribution.

B-26 I l l Although not all differences in egg densities between Stations ll and 12 were significantly different, Station 11,(intake canal)usually had higher densities of eggs than Station 12 (discharge canal)(Table B-11).Larval densities at these, stations=were usually not significantly different from each other, and no trend was apparent in the differences that occurred (Table B-ll).Analysi's of variance techniques (Sokal and Rohlf, 1969;Steel and Torrie, 1960)indicated that significant differences in larval or egg densities that occurred between stations were independent of plant operation mode (Table B-ll)..In effect, differences between, stations could not be attributed to plant operation.

Of the physical parameters correlated with ichthyoplankton density, only the correlations with water temperature and dissolved oxygen proved significant (Table.8-12).In general, single or multiple variable correlations with ichthyoplankton abundance or , location have not been very successful (Parsons and Takahashi, 1973).In a review of the effects of'abiotic factors on marine ichthyo-plankton, Lillelund (1965)concluded that abiotic factors had only an indirect effect and that overall effects were complex and probably associated with biotic factors.Egg abundance and water temperature had a negative correlation.

According to Jones (1964), an indirect negative effect of temperature B-27 on egg distribution and survival could result from the addition of heated effluents which may lower the density of ambient water.This would affect the buoyancy of pelagic eggs and cause them to sink (deSylva, 1969).As expected, egg abundance and salinity also had a negative correlation, although this correlation was not statistically significant (Table B-12).Since differences in the abundance of eggs at the oceanic stations were usually not significant when the plant was in operation, these indirect relationships were not attributed to plant operation.

Larval abundance, however, was found to increase with increased water temperature (Table B-12), probably because plankton production increases with warmer water temperature.

Hermann (1953)related year-class strength directly to water temperature; warm temperatures resulted in good growth of herring, apparently because of an increased food supply.Although larval abundance and water temperature in the plant area wer'e related to each other, this relationship was not attributed to plant operation because statistical differences in larval densities at Stations 0 through 5 were not consistent with respect to any one station or group of stations (Table B-9).

SUMMARY

The purposeof this study was to determine the composition and abundance of fishes in the vicinity.of the St.Lucie Plant.The B-28 I

effects of plant operation on habitat, population, distribution and life history were evaluated to determine if changes in species'omposition or.abundance occurred.The evaluation of plant operation required studies of both inshore and oceanic areas.Inshore samples were taken in the iranediate vicinity of the plant.This sampling included collecting impinged specimens at the intake traveling screens and gill netting in the intake and discharge canals.Oceanic samples were taken by gill netting, trawling and beach seining.In analyzing oceanic samples, emphasis was placed on the possible effects of the offshore thermal discharge upon migratory fishes of sport and commercial importance.

Ichthyoplankton sampling was conducted both inshore and offshore to evaluate entrainment and thermal discharge effects, respectively.

One hundred eighty-two species of fishes were collected in the vicinity of the St.Lucie Plant.Habitats within the area of potential plant influence include the surf zone, open sand bottom and,neritic zone.Anchovies and jacks (primarily Atlantic bumper)comprised 85.2%of the total fishes impinged and 35.1X of the total biomass.Exclusive of an'chovies and jacks, mean impingement was 46 individuals and 749 g (1.65 lb)per 24-hr sample period.Few sport or commercial i 1 I fishes were found.Shrimp and blue crab were the predominant shell-fishes of commercial importance found.Mean impingement rates were 55 and 15 individuals, respectively, per 24-hr sample period.No significant di,fference (P.05)occurred between day and night impingement rates, based on the percentage composition of fishes collected.

A total of 494 fishes and 64 shellfishes were collected by gill netting in the intake and discharge canals.The rate of capture, calculated as the number of fishes collected.per net per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> fished, ranged from zero to five.No build-up or entrapment of I fi s hes was i dent i f i ed in ei ther canal.=Jacks comprised the majority of the fishes collected by offshore gill netting.Exclusive of a large number of crevalle jack collected'on two occasions, the discharge station'was comparable to the control station in the number, of fishes found.The majority of the fishes were collected at these two stations and this was attributed to their nearshore location.Fishes of major sport and commercial importance included Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, and bluefish.No influence by the plant discharge on the'migratory pattern and/or nearshore movement of these fishes was observed.Flatfishes, sear obin, sand perch and cusk-eel comprised the majority of the 656 total fishes collected during offshore trawling B-30 I l operations.

The numbers of fishes collected within and between stations differed considerably.

No plant-related effects could be inferred from the distribution of fishes found.Herring and anchovy accounted for over half the 1211 fishes collected during beach seine surveys.The extreme variations between stations and between replicates at the same station are attributed to the chance occurrences of schooling species.It is doubtful that plant operations'.

are influencing the occurrence of fishes along the beach.The presence of eggs and larvae in the plant vicinity suggested that this area was used both fo'r reproduction and as a nursery area.Egg densities were highest in March (25.5/ms)and gradually decreased throughout the remainder of the year.Larval densities were high in April (0.641/oP)and September (3.074/ms).Clupeiforms comprised the majority (65/)of.the larval fishes collected in the intake t canal.Larval densities were usually lower in the intake canal than at the nearest offshore station.Differences between stations could not be attributed to plant operation.

Differences between the oceanic stations were random and probably reflected a patchy ichthyoplankton distribution.

B-31 LITERATURE CITED Bailey, R.M.,'J.E.Fitch, E.S.Herald, E.A.Lachner, C.C.Lindsey, C.R.Robins, and W.B.Scott.1970.A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada, 3rd ed.'Amer.Fish.Soc., Spec.Publ.No.6.149 pp.Bainbridge, V., and B.J.McKay.1968.The feeding of, cod and redfish larvae.Int.Commn.North West Atl.Fish.Spec.Publ.7(l):187-217.

Beaumariage, D.S.1969.Returns from the 1965 Schlitz tagging program including a cumulative analysis of previous results.Fla.Dept.Nat.Resources Mar.Lab., Tech.Ser.59.38 pp.(from Moe, 1972)...1973.Age, growth, and reproduction of king mackerel, scomberomorus cavalla, in Florida.Fla.Dept.Nat.Resources Mar.Res.Lab., Publ.No.l.45 pp.Berry, F.H.1959.Young jack crevalles (caranx species)off the southeastern Atlantic coast of the United States.U.S.Fish Wildl.Serv , Fish.Bull.59:417-535.

Blaxter, J.H."S.1963.The feeding of herring larvae and their ecology in relation to feeding.Calif.Coop.Oceanic Fish Investig.Rep.10.pp.79-88.Bohlke, J.E., and C.C.G.Chaplin.1968.Fishes of the Bahamas and adjacent tropical'aters.

Livingston Publ.Co., Wyneewood, Pa.771 pp.Breder, C.M., and D.E.Rosen.1966.Modes of reproduction in fishes'.Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y.941 pp.Burrell, V.G., Jr.1975.The relationship of proposed offshore nuclear power plants to marine fisheries of the south Atlantic region of the United States.IEEE Ocean 75:491-495.

Calhoun, A.1966.Inland fisheries management.

Calif.Dept.Fish and Game, Sacramento.

546 pp.Clutter, R.I., and M.Anraku.1968.Avoidance of samplers.Pages 57-76 in Zooplankton sampling.Monographs on oceanographic methodology.

Unesco Press, Paris.174 pp.Colton, J.B., Jr., and R.R.Marak.'969.

Guide for identifying the common planktonic fish eggs and larvae of continental shelf waters, Cape Sable to Block Island.Bur.Comm.Fish.Lab.Rep.69-9.43 pp.B-32 l l LITERATURE CITED cont inued Cushing, D.H.1959.On the nature of production in the sea.Fish.Invest.Land.Ser.2.Vol.22, No.6.40 pp.!.;.-1972.The production cycle and numbers of marine fish.Symp.Zool.Soc.Lond.29.pp.213-32.1973.The natural regulation of fish populations.

Sea Fisheries Research.pp.399-411...1975.Marine ecology and fisheries.

Cambridge University Press, London.278 pp.Daly, R.J.1970..Systematics of southern Florida anchovies (Pisces: Engraulidae).

Bull.Mar.Sci.20(1):70-104.

de Sylva, D.P: ,1969.Theoretical considerations of the effects of heated effluents on marine fishes.Pages 229-293 xn Peter A.Krenkel and Frank L.Parker, eds.Biological aspects of thermal pollution.

Vanderbilt Univ.Press.Deuel, D.G., J.R.Clark, and A.J.Mansueti.1966.Description of embryonic and early larval stages of bluefish, somatomus saltatrix.

Tr ans.Amer.Fish.Soc.95(3):264-271.

Fahay, M.P.,1975.An annotated list of larval and juvenile fishes captured with surface-towed meter net in the South Atlantic Bight during four RV Dolphin cruises between May 1967 and February 1968.NOAA Technical Report, NMFS SSRF-685.39 pp.Florida Power 5 Light Co.1971.Hutchinson Island Plant Unit No.1: environment report.Docket No.50-335, FPSL Co., Miami.Gi lmore, R.G., Jr.1974.A regional description and checklist of fishes of the Indian River.Pages 119-183 zn H.A.Fehlmann, principal investigator.

Indian River study: first annual report.Harbor Branch Consortium, Fort Pierce, Fla.183 pp.(unpublished manuscript).

Hermann, Fr ede.1953.Influence of temperature on strength of cod year-classes.

Annls.Biol.Copenh.9:31-32.Hildebrand, S.,F., and L.E.Cable.1938.Further notes on the development and life history of some teleosts at Beaufort, N.C.Bull.Bureau of Fisheries 48(24):505-642.

B-33 I g LITERATURE CITED continued Hildebrand, S.F., and L.E.Cable.1930.Development and life history, of fourteen teleostean fishes at Beaufort, N.C.Bull.Bureau of Fisheries 46(7):383-488.

Jones, J.R.E.1964.Thermal pollution:

the effect of heated effluents.

Chapter 13 in Fish and river pollution.

Butterworths, London.Jones, R.1973.The stock and recruitment relation as applied to the North'ea Haddock.Rapp.Proces-Verb.

Cons'.Int.Explor.Mer.164.pp.156-73.Jones, R.S., R..G.Gilmore, Jr., G.R.Kulczycki, W.C.Magley, and B.Graunke.1975.Studies of the fishes of the Indian River coastal zone.Pages 57-88 in D.K.Young, ed., Indian River coastal zone study: second annual report.Harbor Branch Consortium, Fort Pierce, Fla.180 pp.(unpublished manuscript).

Lebour, M.V.1918.The food of post larval fish.Part I.J.Mar.Biol.Ass.U.K.11:433-69.

1919.J.Mar.Biol.f 1919.J.Mar.-Biol.The food of post larval fish.Part II.Ass.U.K.12:22-47.The food of post larval fish.Part III.Ass.U.K.12:261-324.

1921.,The food of young clupeoids.

J.Mar.Biol.Ass.U.K., 12:458-67.

Lillelund, K.1965.Effect of abiotic factors in young stages of marine fish.ICNAF.Spec.

Publ.6.pp.674-686.Lippson, A.J., and R.L.Moran.1974.Manual for identification'f early developmental stages of fishes of the Potomac Estuary.Martin-Marietta Corp.282 pp.-Lisivnenko, L.N.1961.Plankton and the food of larval Baltic herring in the Gulf of Riga.Trudy N.-I.Instituta Rybnogo Khoziaistva Soveta Narodnogo Khoziaistva Latviiskoi SSR 3.pp.105-138.(Fish.Res.Bd.Canada, Trans.No.444.36 pp.B-34 LITERATURE CITED continued Man'sueti, A.J,', and J.D.Hardy.1967.Development of fishes of the Chesapeake Bay region.Natural Resource Institute, Univ., of Maryland, College Park.199 pp.Marshall, N.B.1966.The life of fishes.The World Publishing Co., Cleveland, Ohio.402 pp.Moe, M.A., Jr.1972.Movement and migration of south Florida fishes.Fla.Dept.Nat.Resources Mar.Res.Lab., Tech.Ser.No.69.25 pp.Parsons, T., and M.Takahashi.

1973.Biological oceanographic processes.

Pergamon Press, New York.186 pp.Scotton, L.N.;R.E.Smith, N.S.Smith, K.S.Price, and D.P.de Sylva.1973.Pictorial guide to fish larvae of Delaware Bay, with information and bibliographies useful for the study of fish larvae.Delaware Bay Rep.Series, Vol.7.College Marine, Studies, Univ.of Delaware.206 pp.I Snell, E.J.1976.Florida landings, annual summary 1974.Natl.Mar.Fish.Serv., NOAA, Current Fish.Stat.No.6719.11 pp.Sokal, R.R., and F;J.Rohlf..1969.Biometry.W.H.Freeman and Co., San-Francisco.

776 pp.Steel, R.G.D., and J.H.Torrie.1960.Principles and procedures of statistics.

McGraw-Hill, New York.481 pp.Warren, C.E.1971.Biology and water pollution control.W.B.Saunders Co., Philadelphia.

434 pp.Wollam, M.B.1970.Description.and distribution of larvae and early juveniles of king mackerel, scomberomorus cavalla Cuvier), and Spanish mackerel, scomberomozus macuIatus Mitchill);(Pisces: Scombridae);

in the western North Atlantic.'la.Dept.Na't.Resources Mar.R'es.Lab., Tech.Series No.61.35 pp.B-35

66 245 50 800 700 40 D O X K<SO c 20 2: IO 600 500 ci 400 Z 300 200 IOO APR MAY JUN JUL MONTH AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Figure B-1.Rates of impingement:

number of fishes collected per hour compared to total flow through the plant in millions of gallons per day, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

330 pl 66 l00 800 700 0 8 80 z K LU Q.60 O E qO C9 600 500 o 400 300 200 IOO 0 20 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG MONTH SEP OCT NOV DEC Figure B-2.Rates of impingement:

biomass (grams)of fishes collected per hour compared to total flow through the plant in millions of gallons per day, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

I LEGEND SHRIMP BLUE CRAB-x-x-STONE CRAB 0 SPINY LOBSTER 294 I48 53I l4I IOO 800 700 80 CO D O 60 CI z 0 40 D z 20 600 500 o 400 Z 300 200 IOO APR MAY AUG JUN JUL MONTH SEP OCT~X x NOV DEC Figure B-3.Rates of impingement:

number of commercially important shellfishes collected per day compared to total flow through the plant in millions of gallons per day, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

L h~

)Q ci Q D I FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT INSHORE (CANAL)GILL NET STATIONS 1976 MARCH I977 APPLIEO BIOLOGY, IHC.FIGURE B 4 50 y/8 2 STRETCH MESH SURFACE NET LINES TO SHORE FLOAT WEIGHT Figure B-5.Diagrammatic view of.the inshore (canal)gill nets, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

I LEGEND INTAKE CANAL.DISCHARGE CANAL Pr 4 O x 3 I-hl p z M)DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH Figure B-6.Inshore (canal)gill net collections:

fishes collected per net'per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, St.Lucie Plant, December 1975-December 1976.

I l ATL ANTIC OCE AN INDI AN RIVER ST.LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 04 ZV02d OOOO d000 SOOO ISOOO INDIAN R IVER HUTCHINSON ISLAND 0o BO IO FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT OFFSHORE (0-5)AND BEACH (6-8)FISH SAMPLING STATIONS 1976 APPLIED BIOLOGY'NC.

FIGURE B/B-42 LARGE FLOAT ON SURFACE 40YDS.200 YDS.LINE TO NET-, FLOAT LINE 4 YDS.4.6 STRETC MESH 3.8 3.3" 2.8 NET LEAD LINE LARGE WEIGHT ON BOTTOM Figure B-8.Diagrammatic view of the offshore gi11 net, St.Lucie P1ant;1976.

I 76 IIO 66 60 57 42 I 215 I76 38 40 30 III X Eh U O 5 20 X IO OI2345 OI 2345 OI2345 OI2345 OI 2345 OI 2345 0 I 2345 0 I2345 0 I 2345 OI2345 OI 2345 MAR APR JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAN STATION NUM8ERI MONTN Figure B-9.Offshore gill nets: number of fishes collected per 30 minutes fished at control (0)and experimental stations (1-5), St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

I600 l400'1200.~1000 x C9 LU 800 600 4 0~d kg 4 4 gd J 4 d 0 h L EGEND STATION O=ih'TATION.I~X..'TATION 2'=0 STATION 3*a STATION 4R 0 STATION 5=8 400 dg 4 200 300 400 LENGTH (mm)500 600 700 Figure B-10.Length/weight relationship of Spanish mackerel collected by gill net at six offshore stations on 28 March 1976, St.Lucie Plant.

I 800 I600 l400 LEGEND 1200 IOOO I-z CO 800 STATION 0=',6" STATION'=i STATION 2=0 STATION 3=~STATION 4=0 STATION 5=~600 400 200&a 6 0 300 400 LENGTH (mm)500 600 700 Figure B-ll.Length/weight relationship of Spanish mackerel collected by gill net at six offshore stations on 25 October 1976, St.Lucie Plant.

I I 1OVV I600 1400 LEGEND 1200~l000 I-z C9 L7J 800 STATION 0=o STATION I=, j STATION 2=o STATION 3=O STATION 4=D STATION 5=0 600 400 200 300 400 500 600 700 LENGTH (mm}Figure B-12.Length/weight relationship of Spanish mackerel collected by gill net at six offshore stations on 15 December 1976, St.Lucie Plant.

I I I I I I20-200'F I/4" CABLE TO BOAT OTTER BOARD (DOOR)SPREADS MOUTH OF NET (I6.1/2'ETWEEN BOARDS)CHAIN GROUNDLINE PULLED OVER BOTTOM MOUTH (12 WIDE)BRIDLE COD END (MESH SIZE I/BNSQJ TIED OPENING BAG (MESH SIZE I/4" SO.)Figure B-13.Diagrammatic view of the bottom trawl, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

I I I M W W W W W W W 85 M 40 30 Eh 4J Eh 4 O w 20 0)X IO o b 0 I 2345 0 I 2345 OI 2345 OI 2345 012345 0 I 2345 5 APR 22APR IB MAY 3 JUN I JUL IB AUG 0 I 2345 OI 2345 OI 2345 OI 2345 0 I 2345 8 SEP 5 OCT II NOV I2 DEC MEAN STATION NUMBER/DATE Figure B-14.Trawls: number of fishes collected per 15-minute trawl at o f f shore control (0)and experimental s tati ons (1-5), St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

I t i I I I I I I 40 434 102 9I 0 4L5 30 CO IJJ LJ O~20 IO 6 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 29 MAR I2 APR IO MAY 6 7 8 6 7 8 I I JUN 7 JUL-7 8 25 AUG 6 7 8 8 SEP 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 OCT{I NOV)I6 NOV 20 DEC 6 7 8 MEAN STATION NUMBER/DATE Figure B-15.Beach seines: number of fishes collected during each of three replicates at Stations 6, 7, and 8, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

50.0 IO.O 50 I,O 1\\\\r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g I g I I I I I I P I I I I I I\,\l~I I r\g I I I I I I I I\\rE r Median zooplankton density (individuals/10 1)-Mean larval density (individuals/m3)

Mean egg density (individuals/m

)I I I I'L I 1 I I'I I'L I lg l3 23 APR , MAY 4 22 JUII I6 4 20 9 23 20 27 5 l9 JUI.AUG SEP OCT IIOV Figure B-16.Number per unit volume of fish eggs, larvae and zooplankton collected at Stations 0 through 5 combined, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

I I I I I I TABLE B-1 SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 , ORDER SQUALIFORMES Orectolobidae-carpet sharks Ginglymostom'a cirratum nurse shark Carcharhinidae-requiem sharks Carcharhinus maculipinnis spinner shark Rhi zopri onodon, terraenovae Atlantic sharpnose shark Sphyrnidae-hammerhead Sphyrna lewd ni S.mokarran S.ti buro sharks scalloped hammerhead great hammerhead bonnethead ORDER RAJIFORMES Torpedinidae-electric rays Narcine brasi liensi s lesser electric ray Gymnura mi crura Dasyatidae-stingrays smooth butterfly ray Myliobatidae-eagle rays Rhinoptera bonasus cownose ray Manta birostri s Mobulidae-mantas Atlantic manta ORDER ELOP IFORMES Elops saurus Megalops atlantica Elopidae-tarpons 1 adyfish tarpon B-52 I

TABLE B-1 (continued)

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Ari osoma i mpressa ORDER ANGUILLIFORMES Congridae-conger eels bandtooth conger Ophichthidae-snake eels Bascani chthys terres sooty eel Myrophi s punctatus speckled worm eel Mystri ophis interti nctus spotted spoon-nose eel Ophi chthus ocellatus palespotted eel ORDER CLUPEIFORMES Brevoortia smithi B.tyrannus, B.smithi x tyrannus Harengul a pensacolae Opi sthonema ogli num Sardinella anchovi a Clupeidae-herrings yellowfin menhaden Atlantic menhaden menhaden (hybrid)scaled sardine Atlantic thread herring Spanish sardine Anchoa cubana A.hepsetus A.lamprotaenia A.mitchilli A.nasuta Anchovi ella perfasci ata Engraulis eurystole Engraul idae-anchovies Cuban anchovy striped anchovy bigeye anchovy bay anchovy longnose anchovy flat anchovy silver anchovy ORDER MYCTOPHIFORMES Synodus foetens Trachi nocephal us myops Synodontidae-lizardfishes inshore lizardfish snakefish B-.53 I I I I 5 TABLE B-1 (con'tinued)

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 prius ferris Bagre mari nus ORDER SILURIFORMES Ariidae-sea catfishes sea catfish gafftopsail catfish ORDER BATRACHOI DI FORMES Batrachoididae-toadfishes Pori chthys porosissimus Atlantic midshipman Histrio histrio Ogcocephalus Sp.ORDER LOPHIIFORMES Antennarii dae-frog f i shes sargassumfish Ogcocephalidae-batfishes batfish ORDER GADIFORMES Ophidiidae-cusk-eels Lepophi dion sp.cusk-eel Ophi di on holbrooki bank cusk-eel Oophi di um omosti gmum pol ka-dot cusk-eel ORDER GASTEROSTEIFORMES Fistulariidae-cornetfishes Pistularia tabacaria bluespotted cornetfish

, B-54

TABLE 8-1 (continued)

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT.~1976 ORDER GASTEROSTEIFORMES (continued)

Syngnathidae-pipefishes and Hippocampus erectus Oostethus li neatus Signa thus l oui si anae S.pelagicus S.springeri seahorses lined, seahorse opossum pipefish chain pipefish sargassum pipefish bull pipefish ORDER PERCIFORMES Centropomidae-snooks Cen tropomus undeci mali s snook Serranidae-sea Centropri stis phi ladelphica t C.striata Diplectrum bivi ttatum D.formosum Epi nephelus itaj ara E.morio Hgpoplectrus Sp.Hgcteroperca bonaci Serrani culus pumilio Serranus baldwi ni basses rock sea bass.black sea bass dwarf sand perch sand perch jewfish red grouper hamlet black grouper pygmy sea bass lantern bass Grammistidae-soapfishes Roti cus saponaceus greater soapfish R.subbi frenatus spotted soapfish Pristigenys alta Priacanthidae-bigeyes short bigeye B-55

'1 l TABLE 8-1 (continued)

'SCI.ENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECT'EO IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 ORDER PERCIFORMES (continued)

Apogoni dae-cardinal f i s hes Apogon bi not'atbs barred cardinalfish A.pseudomaculatus twospot cardinalfish Astrapogon,alutus bronze cardinalfish A.puncti culat us blackfin cardinal fish Phaeoptyx pi gmentari a dusky cardinalfish I'omatomidae-bluefishes Pomatomus sal tatri x bluefish Rachycentr idae-cobias

.Rachycentron canadum cobia Echeneidae-remoras sharksucker Zcheneis naucrates".,'Carangidae-jacks and Alecti s crinitus Caranx bartholomaei C.crysos C.hippos C.latus Chloroscombrus.chrysurus Selar crumenophtha2mus Selene vomer"Seriola dumeri li S.zona ta Trachi notus caroli nus T o goodei Vomer setapinni s pompanos African pompano yellow jack.'-blue runner,'revalle jack horse-eye jack Atlantic bumper bigeye scad., lookdown greater amberjack banded rudderfish Florida pompano palometa Atlantic moonfish Lutjanidae-snappers Lut janus analis mutton snapper L.griseus gray snapper synagris lane snapper Rhombopli 5 es'ui orubens vermilion snapper Lobotidae-tripletails Lobotes suri namensi s tripletail B-56

TABLE 8-1 (continued)

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED" IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 ORDER PERCIFORMES (continued)

Gerreidae-mojar as Diapterus olisthostomus Irish pompano D.plumieri striped mojarra Euci nostomus.azgenteus spotfin mojarra E.gula silver jenny Gerres cinereus yellowfin mojarra~'Pomadasyidae-grunts Ani sotzemus surinamensi s black margate A.virginicus-'-

porkfish Haemulon aurolirieatum tomtate H.chrysargyzeuin smallmouth grunt H.flavolineatum

• French grunt H.parzai sailors choice H.plumieri white grunt H.sciurus bluestriped grunt arthopri stis:.chrysoptera pigfish Sparidae-porgi es Archosargus, probatocephal us sheepshead, A.rhomboidali s sea bream Calamus baj onado jolthead porgy.Diplodus argenteus silver porgy Lagodon rhomboi des pinfish Sciaenidae-drums Bairdi ella chry'sura B.sanctae1uciae Cynosci on nothus C.regalis Equetus acuminatus Lazimus fasci atus Iei ostomus xanthurus Menti ci zrhus ameri canus M.li ttoralis'.

Mi cropogon undulatus Odontosci on;den tex Pogonias cromis Sciaenops ocellata Umbri na coroi des silver perch striped croaker silver seatrout weakfish high-hat banded drum spot southern kingfish Gulf kingfish Atlantic croaker reef croaker.black drum red drum sand drum B-57

~~l~~1 TABLE B-1 (continued)

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLL'ECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT , 1976 ORDER PERCIFORMES (continued)

Ephippidae-spadefishes Chaetodi pterus faber Atlantic spadefish Cryptotomus roseus Sparisoma SP;Scaridae-parrotfi shes bluelip parrotfish parrotfish Mugi l cephalus M.curema Mugilidae-mullets j striped mullet white mullet Sphyraenidae-barracudas Sphyraena barracuda great barracuda S.borealis northern senn'et S.guachancho guaguanche Polynemidae-threadfins Pol@dactyl us-vi rgi ni cus barbu Opistognathidae-jawfi shes Opi stognathus Sp.jawfish Dactyloscopidae-sand stargazers Dactgloscopus crossotus bigeye stargazer Clinidae-clinids Labri somus nuchi pi nni s hairy blenny Blenniidae-blennies seaweed blenny oyster blenny barred blenny Blennius marmoreus Hypleurochi lus aequi pinnis H.bermudensis Uranoscopidae-stargazers Astroscopus g-graecum southern stargazer B-58

($4~~~~~~

TABLE 8-1 (continued)

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 ORDER PERCIFORMES (continued)

'obiidae-gobies goby seaboard goby crested goby goby Acanthuridae-surgeonfishes Acanthurus chi rurgus doctorfish Bathygobi us sp.Gobi osoma gi nsburgi Lophogobi us cypri noi des Microgobius Sp.Scombridae-mackerels and tunas frigate mackerel little tunny king mackerel Spanish mackerel cero Auxi s'thazard Euthynnus alletteratus Scomberomorus cavalla S.maculatus S.regalis Trichiuridae-cutlassfishes Tri chi urus lepturus At 1 anti c cutl assf i sh Pepri lus paru P.tri acanthus S tromatei dae-butterf i shes harvestfish butterfish Scorpaenidae-scorpionfishes Scorpaena brasi li ensi s barbfish S.grandicornis plumed scorpionfish S.plumieri spotted scorpionfish Pri onotus carolinus P.evolans P.roseus P.scitulus.P.tri bul us Triglidae-searobins northern searobin striped searobin bluespotted searobin leopard sear obin bighead searobin'Dactylopteridae-flying gurnards Dactylopterus voli tans flying gurnard 8-59

'1~

TABLE B-1 (continued)

,.SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 ORDER PLEURONECTIFORMES Bothidae-lefteye Ancylopsetta

+adrocellata Bothus ocellatus B.robinsi, Ci thari chthgs macrops C.spi lopterus Parali chthys albi gutta P.lethostigma P.squamilentis Syacium gunteri S.micrurum S.papi llosum I flounders ocellated flounder eyed flounder fl ounder spotted whiff bay whiff Gulf flounder southern flounder broad flounder shoal flounder channel flounder dusky flounder Achi rus li neat us Ggmnachirus melas Soleidae-soles lined sole naked sole Cynoglossidae-tonguefishes Sgmphurus ci vi tatus offshore tonguefish S.diomedi anus spottedfin tonguefish S.pl agi usa'lackcheek tonguefish ORDER TETRAODONT I FORMES.Balistidae-triggerfishes Aluterus monoceros A.schoepfi Bali stes capri scus Cantherhi nes pull us Monacanthus hi spi dus and filefishes unicorn filefish orange filefish gray triggerfish orangespotted filefish planehead filefish Ostraciidae-boxfishes Lactophrgs quadri corni s scrawled cowf i s h L.tri gonus, trunkfish B-60

TABLE B-1 (continued)

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 ORDER TETRAODONTIFORMES (continued)

Tetraodontidae-puffers Sphoeroi des nephelus southern puffer S.spengleri bandtail puffer Di odonti dae-porcupinefi shes Di odon holocanthus balloonfish observational record B-61

]l l TABLE B-2 NUMBER AND BIOMASS OF SHELLFISHES AND FISHES COLLECTED DURING 24-HOUR IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS AT THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 APR APR APR MAY MAY MAY MAY Cate or-2-1 No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.shrimp blue crab 19 89 4 347 24 100 13 769 6 10 3'38 10 25 27 122 9 26 31 101 1 16 11 1161 6 500'4 351 stone crab spiny lobster 1 1 1 1 1 13 anchovy herring grunt mojarra croaker flounder, sole jack cutlassfish 21 20 207 4 3 30 1 2 5 2 1 831 9 283-361 3 50 19 387 1 1 12 4 1 997 1 1412 2 8 1 1 3 100 1 3 10 1 1 8 1 2 2 22 2 40 5 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 1 445 986 1167 125 151 13 19 33 45 other fish 2 79 4 75 8 602 2 28 4 38 1 2 5 23 Total shellfish Total fish 23 436 38 870 10 249 11 41 38 1283 16 539 26 935 260 1800 403 2562 994 1216 139 231 16 26 45 452 42 112 Number of individuals.

Total weight in grams.

l l TABLE B-2 (continued)

NUMBER AND BIOMASS OF SHELLFISHES AND FISHES COLLECTED DURING 24-HOUR IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS AT THE ST.LUCIE'PLANT 1976 Cate or shrimp blue crab stone crab spiny lobster 17 84 1 24 80 35 154 28 112 14 50 20 56 44 137 1 4 2 129 3 98 12-657 7 311'77 5 13 1 2 MAY MAY MAY JUN JUN JUN JUN 20-21 24-25 27-28 1-2--3-No.Wt.No.=Wt.No..Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No;Wt.anchovy herring grunt mojarra croaker flounder, sole jack cutlassfish 5 1 109 1 1 2 4 8 126 1 3 2 4 1 2 13 2 1 28 37 1582 2087 44 30 3 5 185 285 40 64 13 18 1 2 1 1 other fish 8 75 2 2" 7 46 8 382 3 37 3'17'19 Total shellfish Total fish 18 88 27 211 38 252 40 769 21 361 23 133 49 150 38 222 1591 2100 52 79 23 530 189 324 45 82 23 40 Number of individuals.

Total weight in grams.

II, TABLE B-2 (continued)

NUMBER AND BIOMASS OF SHELLFISHES AND FISHES COLLECTED DURING 24-HOUR IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS AT THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Cate or shrimp blue crab stone crab spiny lobster anchovy herring grunt mojarra croaker flounder, sole jack cutlassfish 15 26 10 17 14 20 92 129 117 175 68 112 23 35 4.4--3 3 1 2--1 2 2 3 1 4 6 44 6 9 3 14 2 1 11 63 1 1 31 1 21 2 6 21 119 4 71 1 1 2 14 JUN JUN JUN JUL JUL JUL AUGc 21 22 24 25 28 29 1 2 6 7-8 9'No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.36 122 56 184 89 334 79 316 21 60 24 29 70 266 9 81 4 29 7 165 12 215 3 164 3 99 8 301 other fish 16 536 5 58 6 43 16 615 3 159 4 536 6 132 Total shellfish Total fish 45 203 60 213 96 499 91 531 24 224 27 128 78 567 38 571 16 79 30 112'129 831 126 387 74 654 57 372 Number of individuals.

Total weight in grams.16-hour sample.

TABLE B-2 (continued)

NUMBER AND BIOMASS OF SHELLFISHES AND FISHES COLLECTED DURING 24-HOUR IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS AT THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Cate or SEP 4-5.11-12 14-15.No.Wt.No.Wt.: No.Wt.'o.Wt;No.Wt.No., Mt.No..Wt.h OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT 18-19 21-22-25-26 shrimp blue crab stone crab spiny lobster 27 57 27-86 103 427 294 961 104']92 23 682 7 243 13 741 55 2116 22 651 2 30-2 40--1 35 148 251 8 25 35 1061 31 1132 1 1 1 47 anchovy herring grunt mojarra croaker flounder,-

sole jack cutlassfish other fish 643 953 10 140 216 1066 10 36 1 1 7 88 472 724 1006 1316 2 1 4 8 65 5 27 1 2 2 1 1 10 1 8 3 2 ll ll 2 1 1 3 247 391 2 7 5 65 32 48 8 96 40 57 3 1 46 1257 233 290 6 5 2 18 4 18 16 21 4 89 210 263 7 3 35 386 1446 1914 25 116 44 549 199 1611 22 97 1 ll 3819 1898 269 130'56 1607 h 17 25 3 6 38 229 13 29 83 40 4 5 15 243-Total shellfish Total fish 50 739 36 359 118 1208 349 3077 127 878 184 1313 887 2284 479 744 1036 1432 383 1922 517 1093 5881 7933 40 1204 173 577 Number of individuals.

Total weight in grams.Includes fragments.

TABLE B-2 NUMBER ANO BIOMASS OF SHEVLVISH/S AND FISHES COLLECTED DURING 24-HOUR IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS AT THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 OCT NOV NOV NOV NOV NOV NOV Cate or No.Wt.No.Wt.'No.Wt.No.Wt.No.'t.No.Wt.'."'o.'Wt.shrimp blue crab stone crab spiny lobster 13 38 105 287 102 495 3 64 44 1568 62 2819 1 14 5 14 24 849 1 21 7 101 9 21 9 38 9 355 8 362'310 anchovy herring gr unt mojarra croaker flounder, sole jack cutlassfish other fish 3 32 1 4 4.13 1 10 4 10 5 289 44 44 2 4 3 9 2 4 42 237 ll 227 70 64 25 41 34 664'30 57 10 10 80 2 8 108 3 15 146 2 26 217 9 7 155 4 77 223 18 3 7'34 1614 ll 7 72 157 3.17 28 22 31 347 16 3-37 31 21 26 39 1 5 15 102 407 7 26 74 568 15 3641 261 136 31 55 39 1334 3 5 35 1274 230 200 23 72'4'897 21 19 4 27 1 2 9 21 1 25.36'5 68 561 8 74 Total shellfish Total fish 17 116 149 1855 164 3314 30 884 16 456 17 383 16 348 23 365 233 1294 210 2607 61.708 288 4722 646 3973 148 804 Number of individuals.

Total weight in grams.Includes fragments.

TABLE B-2 (continued)

NUMBER AND BIOMASS OF SHELLFISHES AND FISHES COLLECTED DURING 24-HOUR IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS AT THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 NOV NOV DEC DEC DEC DEC DEC Cate or shrimp blue crab-No.Wt.No.Wt.No.Wt.No;Wt.: No.'Wt.No;Wt'.*No.Wt.15 47 6-19 47 129 531 1138 141 995 40 249 66 277 22 1069 5 355 41 2061 65 1839 16 604 ll 453 27 741 stone crab spiny lobster 1 3 1 38--1 26 1 10 anchovy herring grunt mojarr a croaker flounder, sole jack cutlassfish other fish 41 1 2 2 2 1 7 ll 3 52 6 7 1 1 1 5 3 26 3 1 2 14 1 c 13 4 4 59-13 122 23 2 7'9 2., 1 1 6 9 5 128 542 23 10 23 9 3 57 4 6 27 1 8 71 119 18 291 21 30 278 43 45 1432 63 340 7 13 6 59 10 54 5 128 80 565 20 86 2 7 4'7 c 6 26 19 67 c 4 139 5 48 10 39 2 27 22 113 32 1097 8 77 16 351 Total shellfish Total fish Number of individuals.

Total weight in grams.Includes fragments.

38 1119 12 412 88 2190 597 3003 158 1609 51 702 93 1018 70 170 31 169 36 225 248 2721 203 2256 41 223 80 784 I E TABLE B-2 (continued)

'NUMBER AND BIOMASS OF SHELLFISHES AND FISHES COLLECTED DURING 24-HOUR IMPINGEMENT SURVEYS AT THE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976"...-Cate or shrimp blue crab stone crab spiny lobster D C DEC DEC.20-21.27-28.28-29.=.*'No.-Wt.No..Wt;No..Wt..No., Wt-.=.'o.Wt.No..Wt.'o.'t.11 62 10 55 14 78 9 307 11 303 9 411 anchovy herring grunt mojarra croaker flounder, sole jack cutlassfish

., other fish 6 ll 5 72 1 30 2 5 8 78 81 431 1-874 9 946 2 37-3 12 2 33 4 22 1'66'.69.3 7'15 1 10 2 101 2 5 6 269 Total shellfish Total fish Number of individuals.

Total weight in grams.c Includes fragments.

20 369 21 358 113 2447 16 639 23'89 15 407

TABLE 8-3 TOTAL NLPSER OF SHELLFISHES AND FISHES COLLLCTEO AT ILISNORE (CANAL)GILL NET STATIONS (CONBINATICN OF TNO NETS PER STATION PER SAYPLING PERIOO), ST.LUCIE OECENBER 1975-OECENBER 1976 OEC OEC JAN JA!I JAM FEB FEB FEB FEB NAR 5 c les , blue crab.oCher shel I f ish auf let snapper croaker,.9runt nojarra jack por97 other fish total fish taL on 15 16 t4't1 on 15 16'I.-':.3 I 8 6 7 I I I 4 I I I t4t oil'L4'Lion 15 16 13 14 15 16 3 I 3,,3 I I I I I 2 2 I 5 5 3 9 2 4 3'L4t On L4'Lion 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 I:3"'I ,I2--2 2 3 3 2 5 2 I.I 8 I 711 0 3 I 6 I ul I I 5 212 2 I 1.1 I I 1 I 2 0 11 0 I 2 14 3 I I I 2 I tauon tat on tat on tat on 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 13 14 IS 16 13 14 15 16 e I e\APR APR APR 29-APR NAY 20-21 52ecfes blue crab other shellfish~all let snapper croaker 9 run t nojarra jack other fish total fish tat On 13 14 15 16 5 I 6 2 0 0 5 I I 2 I I 3 8 3 6 4 2 3 I 2 I, 11 16 5 0 6 5 3 0 tat on tat on 13 14 15 16 13 14'5 16 L4L On t4t On 13 14.15 16 13 14 15 16 I 2 I 2 I 2 I I 3 5 3 I 0 0 0'tat on 13 14-15 16 I 1 3 4 2 3 I I I I 4 3 I I tatlon tat on Station 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 I 2 4 2 I I 2 9 3 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABLE 8-3 (continuel)

TOTAL NtftBER OF SHELLFISHES AND FISHES COLLECTED A'T INSHORE (CANAL)GILL NET STATIONS (CDHBINATION OF THO NETS PER STATION PER SANPLING PERIOD)t ST~LUCIE DEC(FIBER 1975-DECEHBER 1976 S cies blue crab'ther.

shel I fish 23-4 J Cat On 1314 I I 4-25 JUN Cat on 4 9 JUL taC on 0-JUL taC on 6-AUG tat cn I 6 AUG I.4 0-SEP 3~st)let snapper croaker 9runt nojarra jack por9$I I 2 I 2 3 I 4 4 4/3 5 5 4 2 I 3 I 2 2.2 I 2 I 3 4 I 5 2 2 4 I 2 I I Other f(Sh total fish I 0 0 0 I 0 0 2 9 2 I 0 7 9 3 2 1510 3 I 2 I 2 3 5 I 8 6 7 0 13 15 4 2~Sec les blue crab SEP CaCton 13 14 I I I OCT ta'ttotl 4 OCT tat Otl 17-'ID itOV tatton 18-19 NOV CaCtotl 15 16 DEC tatson 16-17 OEC Other Shellfish I Oui let snapper croaker I 2 2 2 I I 4 I 4 4 3 7 3 I I I 3 2 2 2 2 3 I 9 fun C eojarra jack other fish I 2 I I I I 3 3 I 2 3 3 3 I 2 I 2 I I I 2 2 3 2 I I I I total fish 9 6 6 I 7 5 9 0 2 617 0 6 411 2 4 6 0 810 6 0 8 0 0 0

TABLE 8-4 T0TAL NDHBER 0F FISHES COLLECTED AT OFFSHORE GILL NET STATIONS (30 HINUTES FISHED PER STATION PER HCNTH), Sl'.WCIE HARCH-DECEHBER 1976 5 les;-Atlantic bunper crevalle Jack,-blue runner~Spanish nackerel;other fishes tat on 0 I 2 3 4 5 63 82 18 5 7-9 I I 11 21'4 5 4 7 2 3 I 4 tat on 0 1 2 3 4 5 7'at on 0 I 2 3 4 5 15 2.5" 1*-6"=.I I 1 I 6 tat on 0 I 2 3 4 5 20'8" 11 2--I I I total fishes 78 110 28 8 13 18 8 I 0 0 0 1 22 3 6 0 7 I 21 9 8 0 1 12 5 ecies UL tat on 0 I 2 3 4 5 tat on 0-1 2 3 4 5 tat on 0 1 2 3 4 5 sation 0 1 2 3 4 Atlantic bunper crevalle Jack blue runner Spanish nackerel other fishes 12 2'I I 2 I 3 I I 34 2 3 12 I 2 4 4 2 I I I 29 12 2 3 I 4 I 12 I 2 121 8 26 17 8 16 3 1 4 3 I 3 2 8 23 4 9 13 6 12 13 5 I 2 6 17 total fishes I 1~15 0 4 3 I 66 4 2 8 15 15 6 0 4 2 14 160 21 39 35 20 57 5 ecies Atlantic bunper crevalle Jack-blue runner Spanish'nackerel other fishes Stat on 0 1 2 3 4 5 269 6 104 5 48 14 tat on 0 I 2 3 4 5 56 13 12 6 2 13 49'19 I 44 4 2 I 96 110 4 I 3 2 tat cn 0 I 2 3 4 5 247 140 68 30 22 50 321 I 5 77 120 23 6 7 40 84 32 16 13 15 19 124 201 9 20 18 26 ota by 5 ecies 557 327 273 179 398 Percent I ti on 32.1 18.9 15.7 10.3 23.0 total fishes 11421 0 14 0 I 215176 16 7 7 18 532814116 70 62140 1734 100.0 Prinarily bluefish, nenhaden and/or croaker.

I I I I'I I~MRTJi$~'I I I er I (~I

TABLE B-6 TOTAL NUMBER OF SHELLFISHES AND FISHES COLLECTED BY BEACH SEINE (COMBINATION OF THREE REPLICATES PER STATION PER MONTH), ST.LUCIE MARCH-DECEMBER 1976 5 ecies 9 R tat on 6 7., 8 2 R tat on 6 7 8 10 MAY Stat on 6-7 8 JUN Stat on 6 7 8 UL Station 6 7 8 UG Stat on 6 7 8 SE Stat on 6:7 8 T 1 NOV Station 6 7 8 16 V Stat on 6 7 8 20 DEC Stat on 6 7 8 speckled crab'ther crabs'erring anchovy Atlantic bumper Florida pompano other jacks I kingfish GJ sand drum spot 1 2 9 1 1 4 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 8 6 22 21 12 3 1 9 2 1 1 17 6 1 1 17 486 152 7 4 3 1 4 1 1 1 6 3 2 1 2 39 2 6 2 3 4 17 1 4 4 2 25 3 1 1 21 1 8 1 10 8 1 2 5 9 3 7 10 18 9 71 3 1-4 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 sea catfish 1 4 1 2 7 sennet other fishes total fishes 2 1 0 23 14 5 6 3 1 2 32 15 24 1 14 3 4 1 2 4 5 20 16 180 565 33 24 8 33 3 1 5 42 35 95 0 0 3 5 4 10 2 4 7 Delayed due to inclement weather.

TABLE B-7 COMPARISONS BETWEEN DAY AND NIGHT SURFACE COLLECTIONS OF'FISH LARVAE AND EGGS AT STATIONS 0 TO 5 ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Cate or-Date Mean number Da Ni ht Day-night ratio Eggs'.,'29 MAR 3-4 JUN.4 and 8 AUG 25.534 19.632 1.950 14.187 8.731 1.303 1.8:1 2.2:1 l.5:1 Larvae..29 MAR A3'-"4 JUN 4 and 8 AUG 0.294 0.027 0.142 24.539 0.604 1.358 1:83.5'1:22.3.1:9.5 Mean based on.samples collected on 4 August.Mean based on samples collected on 8 August.B-74 TABLE B-8 PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF THE MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FISH LARVAE BY STATION AND SEASON ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Season.=Cate'or 0...Station 1 2.--'3:.'.4.5.11'=12 Spring Gerreidae (MAR, APR, MAY)S'd 0.1-0.1 1.0 2.4'4 4 3.4 5.9 6;0 4.6 1.3.3.4 1.5 0.5 14.0 Blenniidae Tetraodontiformes 17.2 7.9 16.1 3.7 1.5 20.0 2.9 4.0 5.4 18.4 16.1 23.8 0.9 11.2 5.3 30.7 Clupeifofmes Carangidae Gobiidae 3.4 0.2 18;1 0.2=0.1 8:9 0.4 10.6 0.8 4.9 0.4 48.1 77.9 22.0--47.9 53.7 43.6 793" 50 0.2.2.2-Pl euronecti f ormes 0.2-0.1 0.1 0.1'.2 1.7 Gobiesocidae Dactyloscopidae Serranidae 0.5 0.1 0.2 11.7 3.5 2.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 4.6 1.9 2.9 0.2 4.5 Scorpaenidae Atherinidae All others.0.10.1 1.6'.1 8.6 5.5 14.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 9.0 0.2 0.1 3.9 15.4 1.4 11.1 5.0." 25.7

TABLE B-8 (continued)

PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF THE MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FISH LARVAE BY STATION AND SEASON ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Seas'on Cate or Station 0.l.2 3--4 5 ll-12:-Summer=Gerreidae.(JUN, JUL, AUG)Blenniidae Tetraodontiformes Clupeiformes Carangidae Gobiidae Pleuronectiformes Gobiesocidae 5.3 2.0 6.0 114-82 93 22.6 3.5 3.1 28.6 49.7"--18.1 0.7 1.5 0.3 1.2 1.9 2.0 1.1 2.4 2.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 34 11 41 10.1 5.2.6.0 4.2 3.2 9.1 12.7 2.1 7.9 14.5 2.1 37.6 39.2 29.6 66.8~27.3 2.3 0.5 3.1 2.2 2.5 3.3 0.9 0.5 2.7 0.3 9.5 1.0 25.4 10.6 5.7 27.4 18.1 24.5 14.7 Dactyloscopidae Serranidae 3.0 0.3 0.6 2.0 0'.9 0.9 0.5 1.9 0.6 1.0 5.4 Scorpaenidae Atherinida'e All others 2.3 0.5 2.8 8.2 1.7 0.2 1.0 3.9 5.7 9.1 16 8 12 2 27 7 15 9 16 3 16 4'2 14 5 I

TABLE B-8 (continued)

PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF THE MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FISH LARVAE BY STATION AND SEASON ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976'eason Cate or 0 1'Station 3-~4 5.-.11 12 Fall Gerreidae (SEP, OCT, NOV}Sciaenidae Blenniidae 44.3 19.9 56.1 67.9 22.4 11.3 0.4 1.6 6.3 0.4 1.8 1.6 19.1 47.7 9.2 3.7 22.8 29.61.4 1.4 0.7 11.2 Tetraodontiformes 0.2 0.5 0.6 1.2 0.4 1.4 0.4 Clupeiformes Carangidae Gobiidae 5.6 11.2 5.4 1.3 13.8 2.5 94.1 63.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.9 2.9 23.2 5.6 18.0 21:5 33.4 47.4 Pleuronectiformes 1.2 7.0 0.6 0.4 0.8 1.7 3.0 6.3 Gobiesocidae Dactyloscopidae Serranidae Scorpaenidae Atherinidae All others 01 02 01 01 0.3 1.1 0.7 0.6 2.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.1 32-38 18 26 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.4 2.8 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.1 2.8 1.4 8.7 1.4

TABLE 8-9 STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES IN MEAN DENSITY OF FISH LARVAE AT STATIONS 0 TO 5 HITH RESPECT TO PLANT OPERATION HODE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Date 10 MAR 29 MAR 13'APR 0.233,-0.034 0.055 0.694" 0.032" 0.002'.172 tat on 0.017 0.072 0.554 0.083 0.075 none gn cant di f ferenceb l>2 0.412none ant o eration mode Down, ambient-Down, ambient.Down, ambient 23 APR 0.294 0.908 0.805 0.928 0.782 0.126 1, 2.3 and 4>0 and 5 Down, ambient 4 HAY 26 HAY 4 JUN 22 JUN 2 JUL 0.039 0.062 0.123 0.078 0.029" 0.536 0.071 0.159 0.024 0.066 0.058 0.076 0.012 0.021 0.062 0.253 0.019 0.004 0.075 0.042 0.046 0.039 0.003 0.042 0.141 0.052 0.076 0.038 0.096 0.022 none 0 and 5>3 and 4 l>0, 2, 3 and 4 5>3 and 4 none none Up, ambient Up, heated Up, heated Up, heated Up, ambient 16 JUL 0.149 0.033 0.033 0.156 0.064 0.025 0 and 3>1, 2, 4 and 5 Down, ambient 4 AUG 20 AUG 9 SEP 23 SEP 0.068 0.018 0.169 3.986 0.028 0.158 0.950 0.058 0.131 0.030 3.427 0.402 0.251 0.044 4.657 0.120 0.112 3.812 0.039 0.058 0.231 1.613 none none none none Down, ambient Down, ambient Up.ambient Up, ambient 20 OCT 0.023 0.040 0.288 0.058 0.233 0.012 2 and 4>0, 1, 3 and 5 Up, ambient 27 OCT 5 NOY 19 NOV 0.009 0.008 0.013 0.004 0.002 0.007.0.045 0.044 0.055 0.035 0.015 0.004-0.013 0.022 0.010 0.034 1 and 2>0 and 3 none 3 and 4>0 and 1 5>0 Up, ambient Up, ambient Down, ambient Individuals/ms.

Refers to differences at the 95Y, level of significance.

l TABLE 8-10 STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES IN HEAN DENSITY OF FISH EGGS AT STATIONS 0 TO 5 MITH RESPECT TO PLANT OPERATION HOOE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Date 10 HAR 29 HAR 13 APR 10.131, 9.959 58.182 1.356 0.004.tat on 29.449 9.223 47.062 20.796 13.637 10.160 15.144 0.988 90 can'differenceb 1>2 none 3>4 3 and 4>0, I and 5 ant o eration node Down, anbient Down, anbient Down, anb lent 23 APR 6.889 5.721 17.354 5.308 12.918 6.966 2>4 2 and 4>0~1, 3 and 5 Oem, anbient 4 HAT Z6 HAY 4 JUN 1.196 0.276 17.538 5.368 6.322 8.797 9.Z48 38.512 6.408 12.898 l.948 1.142 0.510 4.564 38.064 0.636 9.046 5.414 none none none Up, anbl cot Up, heated Up.heated 22 JUN 2 JUL 16 JUL 5.830 2.342 0.804 2.661 17.228 8.758 1.540 2.759 3.812 5.823 1.010 2.918 13.714'.268-20.446 8.938 2.386 13.214 none 5>2, 3 and 4 0>l, 2, 3 and 4 1>3 Up.heated Up, anbient Dem, anbient 20 AUG 9 SEP 23 SEP 20 OCT 27 OCT 5 NOV 19 NOV 1.724 0.650 0.721 0.203 0.212 0.605'.254 0.382 0.248 0.271 0.066 0.541 3.668 0.688 6.717 0.916 2.497 0.778 3.684 0.812 0.060'1.102 1.961 5.226 1.780 0.976 0.010 1.302 0.536 1.947 0.984 0.061 0.056 1.378 1.529 l.235 4.365 1.649 0.358 0.458 0.094 1.344 0.784 none l>0, 2 and 4 3>0 and 4 5>0 none none l>>0, 3 and 4 2>0, 3, 4 and 5 5>3 and 4 none none 4>D, I and 3 Down, ambient Down, anb lent Up.anbient Up, anbient Up.anbient Up.+Ment Up, anbient Dem, anbient Individuals/ns.

b Refers to differences at the 95>>level of significance.

TABLE 8-11 STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES IN HEAN DENSITY OF FISH EGGS AND FISH LARVAE'AT STATIONS 11 AND 12 WITH RESPECT TO PLANT OPERATION HODE ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Date tat on E s tation erence tat on arvae tat on ant erence o eration mode 10 HAR 29 HAR 13 APR'3 APR 4 HAY 0.507 0.984 4.39l 11.563 2.284 4 JUN 22 JUN 2 JUL 16 JUL 4 AUG 20 AUG 9 SEP 0.308 1~192 0.002 3.491 0.914 3~876'7.051 23 SEP 3.792 20 OCT 27 OCT 5 NOV 19 NOV 0.094 0.052 ,0.224 0.007, 26 HAY 6.400 0.011 0.274 0.740 0.028 0.472 11>12 11>12 11>12 11>12 11>12 0.004 0.000 0.174 0.211 0.012 0.672 11>12 0.004 4.016 12>11 0.002~1.012 0.298 0.173 0.044 0.023 11>12 0.011 12>1 lb 0.000 1 1>12 0.001 11>'l2 0.007 11>12" 0.074 0.004 0.052 11>12 11>12 0.000 0.000 0.036 12>11 0.000 0.143~11>12~0.010 0.007 11>12 0.381 0.052 1'l>12 0.012 0.000'0.008 0.038 c 0.030 0.010 0.003 0.008 0.010 0.002 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.081 0.002 0.004 0.005 11>12 12>11 11>12 12>ll 12>11 12>11 11>12 12>11 12>l 1 , 11>12 11>12 11>12 11>12 12>11 12>11 12>11'2>11 Down, ambient Down, ambient Down, ambient Down, ambient Up, ambient Up, heated Up, heated Up, heated Up, ambient Down, ambient Down, ambient Down, ambient Up, ambient.Up, ambient Up, ambient Up, ambient Up, ambient Down, ambient Individuals/ms.

Significant at the 95%level of significance.

Insufficient data to calculate a mean.B-80 I I I I I I TABLE B-12 CORRELATION ANALYSIS OF DENSITY OF'ICHTHYOPLANKTON'ITH VARIOUS PHYSICAL'PARAMETERS ST.LU,CI E PLANT 1976 Correlation Larvae/ms water temperature salinity dissolved oxygen turbi di ty percent transmittance Error de rees of freedom 8$83 107 70 54 Correlation Coefficient 0.408 0.076 0.263-0.077 0.176 Eggs/ms water-temperature salinity dissolved oxygen turbidity percent transmittance

.83 83 82 70 73-0.335-0.113 0.363 0.073 0.043 Significant',at a=0.001.8-81 C.MACROINVERTEBRATES INTRODUCTION Marine macroinvertebrate assemblages live at least part of their life cycles within or upon substrates, including bottom sediments, pilings, pipes, and rocks.A community of macroinver-tebrates in an aquatic ecosystem is very sensitive to stress, and thus its characteristics serve as a useful tool for detecting environmental perturbations resulting from introduced contaminants.

Because of the limited mobility and relatively long life span of benthic organisms, their characteristics are a.function of environ-mental conditions in the recent past (EPA, 1973).For example, benthic communities have been shown to reflect the effects of temperature (Boesch, 1972), salinity (King and Kornicker, 1970), depth (Sanders;1968), current (O'Gower and Wacasey, 1967), and substrata (Abele, 1972;Bloom et al., 1972)as well as the effects of various pollutants (Holland et al., 1973;Wilhm, 1967;Wilhm and Davis, 1966)./The purpose of this study was to determine the composition and abundance of benthic and swimming macroinvertebrates in the vicinity of the St.Lucie nuclear power, plant.The possible effects of plant operation on habitat, population, and distribution of macroinverte-brates were also examined.Diverse sampling procedures were used to obtain a wide variety of macroinvertebrates and elimi'nate sampling bias.Emphasis was placed upon the possible influence of thermal discharge upon benthic organisms and commercially valuabIe swimming r organisms such as shrimp.MATERIALS AND METHODS Two sampling programs were designed,to study the macroinverte-brate assemblages in the oceanic environment near the St.Lucie plant.Samples were collected by bottom trawling and'bottom grabs.1 quarterly grab sampling for the smaller benthic infauna (organisms living within the substratum) and epifauna (organisms living on top l of the substratum) began in March 1976 at six offshore locations (Figure C-l, Table C-1).Five of these stations (1 through 5)were in the vicinity of the plant discharge and corresponded to locations sampled during preliminary studies conducted from 1971 to 1974 (Gallagher and Kollinger, in press).One additional station, 4.3 kilometers south of the plant discharge, served as a control (Station 0).The grab sampling effort was supplemented by monthly trawl sampling for the larger,.more motile invertebrates that are.1 sparsely distributed and are usually able to avoid a grab sampler.The same six offshore stations were sampled by the trawling beginning in March 1976.Physical data such as temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and turbidity were collected at surface mid-depth, and bottom of each station during both trawl and grab sampling.C-2 I I Grab sampl.ing was conducted with a Shipek bottom grab.This device was used in the perliminary benthic study performed in the St.Lucie plant area, and is recomnended for use in similar habitats by EPA (Watling, et al., 1974;Maurer, et al., 1976).The Shipek sampler (Figure C-2)is composed of two concentric half-cylinders, the inner half-cylinder (20 x 20 x 10 cm)rotating through 180's the sampling scoop.Powerful helical springs close the two half-cylinders so that the sample cannot escape.The sampler was lowered to the bottom with winch and line.When the sampler touched bottom with the scoop opening downward, inertia from a self-contained weight tripped the catch and rotated the scoop upward with the sample enclosed.The semi-circular top minimized washout when the sampler was hauled back aboard the sampling vessel.Because sample replication is necessary for valid statistical analysis (EPA, 1973), four replicate Shipek samples were taken at each offshore station during each sampling period.All samples were fixed on board=the-sampling vessel with 105 buffered formalin-seawater solution containing rose bengal stain.The stain colors animal tissue to enable more accurate sorting of the sample.Preserved samples were pl'aced in labeled, individual containers and trans-ported to the laboratory.

Three of the four replicates taken at each station were washed through a No.25 sieve to remove fine sediment and particulate matter.This screen size and procedure C-3

were used to conform with previous offshore monitoring (Gallagher and Hollinger', in press).All material retained on the sieve was hand-sorted in the laboratory, where the stained organisms were identified to the lowest practicable taxan.The fourth replicate taken at each station was similary sorted, but the organisms (exclusive of molluscan shells)were dried at 105'C for four hours, then weighed on an analytical balance to obtain an estimate of community biomass.per unit area.The substratum material of the sample was dried, disaggregated, and placed in a nest of seven sieves (U.S.Standard Mesh Numbers 5, 10, 18, 35, 60, 120 and 230).The nest was shaken for 15 minutes on a Tyler Ro-Tap sieve shaker.The substratum was then analyzed according to the method of Folk (1966)for particle size distribution.

The trawl sampling program for invertebrates was carried out in conjunction with the fish sampling program.Trawls were made at J night to reduce" net avoidance.

The program consisted of one 15-minute tow using a 4.9-m semi-balloon otter trawl at each offshore station.The resulting samples were preserved in lOX buffered formalin-seawater i solution, labeled, and transported to the laboratory for sorting and identification to the lowest practicable taxon.C-4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Sediments Many environmental parameters are known to affect the structure a and distribution of marine benthic commuqities.

Among the more im-I'ortant is substratum type.Sharp distinctions occur between fauna associated with hard and soft substrata.

Hard substrata are usually represented by rock outcroppings and coral.reefs;to a lesser extent'hey are also represented by large fragments of mollusc shell.These hard substrata'generally support a wide variety of cryptic.boring and epifaunal species.Soft substrata, such as the biogenically derived sediment reported by Hathaway (1971)to be widespread on the nearshore continental shel.f adjacent to Hutchinson Island, may be expected to support a somewhat lower infaunal biomass and species diversity (Abele, 1974).Many researchers have correlated various sediment parameters such as grain size and material comp'osition with the species distribution'nd diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates (Sanders,.1968;Lie, 1968;Lie and Kelley, 1970)., Most of this work has focused on benthic communi-ties associated with sand and mud substrata, and little effort has been expended studying the benthic macroinvertebrate community of a shell-hash habitat.Substratum analysis was needed to, provide data for describing this little-studied benthic community.

Substratum samples were analyzed for mean particle size, percent gravel composition, and sorting, coefficient.

The sorting coefficient, C-5 or standard deviation of the mean particle size, was used to describe the degree of sorting or homogeneity of sample particle size as follows: Sorting Coefficient

• .over 0.78 mm'.78-0.70 mm ,'0.70-0.63 mm 0.63-0.50 mm 0.50-0.25 mm.0.25-0.125 mm (0.125 mm very well-sorted or homo-geneously sized particles well-sorted'oderately well-sorted moderately sorted poorly sorted very poorly sorted extremely poorly sorted or heterogeneously sized particles Mean particle sizes and sorting coefficients (standard deviations) of sediment samples collected at the six St.Lucie benthic stations are given in.Table C-2.Particle size distribution appears in Table C-3.Three highly different sediment types found at the six benthic stations divided the study area into three zones: 1)the beach terrace (Station 1);(2)the offshore trough (Stations 0, 2, 4, and 5);and 3)the offshore bar-Pierce shoal (Station 3).Beach terrace sediment was a fine to very fine, moderately well-sorted, gray, non-biogenic sand.It was found exclusively at Station 1 in the seaward edge of the terrace.Offshore trough sediments consist of a somewhat variable, very coarse, very poorly sorted, sandy shell-hash.

C-6 I I A significant quantity of gravel-size shell particles ()2.0 mm)was characteristic of trough sediments.

The mean composition of gravel in the sediment ranged from 33K at Station 0 to 135 at Station 5 (Table C-2).'arge shell particles impart heterogeneity, with resultant good porosity, to trough sediments.

The offshore-bar sediment is a medium, well-sorted, calcareous sand that was found exclusively at Station 3 atop Pierce Shoal.The absence of gravel-size shell and the general homogeneity of the sedi-ment probably results from hydrological processes that selectively transport medium.and fine sand to the shoal crest while removing the larger particles (Duane, et al"., 1972).This selective process results in a homogeneous substratum that, because of representative particles, probably retains good porosity.Benthic Grabs Grab sampling'during 1976 at six offshore stations produced 21,834 individuals of 431 taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates (excluding t non-quantitatively sampled meiofaunal species and bryozoa;Appendix Table H-128).The major portion of the taxa collected were annelid worms (504), while crustaceans and molluscs comprised, almost equally, the bulk of the remaining taxa (25 and 20Ã, respectively).

Echino-derms and minor'hyla comprised the remaining portion of taxa (5A).C-7 Both number of taxa and density (individuals/m

)generally increased at all stations in successive quarters (Table C-4, Figures C-3 and C-4);the only exception occurred at Station 5 (Table C-4)..These seasonal increases appeared to be related to seasonal increase'in bottom water temperature (Figure C-3).Substratum temperatures during September showed little deviation (0.5'C, maximum)from bottom water temperatures at all offshore stations.Further investigation will provide sufficient data to test for correlation between bottom temperatures and fluctuations in species richness and density.Mean biomass data for all stations combined decreased each sampling quarter (Table C-4, Figure C-4)from 7.680 g/m in March to 1.348 g/m~in September.

Comparison of biomass with density and number of taxa suggests that the increases in number of taxa and density through the surfer and early fall were probably a result of recruitment of predominantly younger, and therefore smaller, individuals.

A measure directly related to the distribution and abundance of species in a community is species diversity (Appendix Table H-129).The Shannon-Weaver function of species diversity (8)(Lloyd et al., 1968)is recommended for biological monitoring of water quality (EPA, 1973).C-8 I I Calculated 8 for most stations increased seasonally

-(Table C-4).Exceptions to this trend were again found at Station 5 and also at Station 3.Diversity values at the latter were affected by large recruitment of young bivalve molluscs (crassinelia duplinana).

Hean 8 for all stati'ons combined showed a slight increase seasonally (3.9 to 4.6;Table C-4, Figure C-5).Diversity of the macroinverte-brate community'near the St.Lucie plant was consistently high and was generally higher than benthic diversities encountered at any other Florida Power 8 Light plant.The equitability component of diversity (based on a hypothetical maximum diversity) proposed by Lloyd and Ghelardi (1964)(Appendix Table H-129)varied little seasonally (range=0.75-0.78).

These two functions suggest little change in the actual apportionment of species through the seasons in the offshore area, although number of taxa and density increased.

Individual station characteristics, in terms of number of taxa, density and biomass, are presented in'Figure C-6 (see also Table C-4).Generally, the deeper water stations (0, 2, 4, and 5)contained greater numbers of taxa and higher densities.

These stations were characterized by heterogeneous and porous shell-hash sediments which provided a suitable substratum for diverse fauna.From 190 to 239 total taxa were, collected at these trough stations.Only 54 taxa were collected at Station 1, which was located on the beach terrace adjacent to the plant discharge.

Due to the homogeneous composition

'-9 of fine sands, beach terrace substrata probably form tightly compacted deposits which may inhibit successful settlement of many benthic macro-invertebrates., Station 3, with 68 taxa, was found to be of intermediate richness compared to trough stations and Station 1.Intermediate rich-1 ness was characteristic of Pierce Shoal, which lacked large shell material but retained the good porosity needed to provide sufficient oxygen and food supplies to the infauna.Density and biomass totals indicated similar differences between stations (Figure C-6);the trough stations again supported.greater densities (x=11,665 to 15,295 individuals/m~)

and biomass (x=1.850 to 12,463 g/m~)than Stations 1 and 3 (x density=420 and 2,053 indivi-duals/m~, and x biomass=0.822 and 0.700 g/m , respectively).

The trends observed in number of taxa collected-, density, and biomass between.stations were also reflected in diversity values (Table C-4).Species diversity (8)of trough stations was, with one exception, higher than that at Stations 1 and 3 each quarter.Equitability, perhaps a more sensitive function in lower latitudes (EPA, 1973), showed little variation between stations;all values remained within the range of those reported for healthy environments (EPA, 1973).~C-10 I

The distribution of percentage abundance among the major taxa at each station indicated that annelid worms could be considered the dominant group of organisms at the trough stations (Figure C-7).At Station 3, the'olluscs appeared to predominate, while Station 1 appeared to be predominantly a cnustacean-mollusc community.

McCloskey's (1970)index of dominance (Appendix Table H-129)was used to determine which species appear to characterize the stations in the study area.This method essentially ranks each species by abundance and frequency of occurrence.

The sum of the rank"scores" for a species indicates its dominance value at a station.This analysis (Table C-5)revealed a dominance of fouling organisms at the trough stations (e.g., tube building worms, nsetavermilia sp.and Omphalopoma sp.','slipper shells, crepidula fornicata; thitons, zschnochi ton hartmeyeri and Z.papi llosus;and barnacles, aalanus trigonus and a.venustus).

This finding fur ther indicated the importance of the shell-hash as a habitat requirement at these stations.Dominant species at Stations 1 and 3, however, were burrowing bivalve molluscs (e.g., 2'ellina iris and crassinella duplinana) and amphipod CruStaCeanS (e.g., pseudoplatyichnopus Sp.and&richophoxus Sp.A).The population dynamics of these species should be a useful tool in assessing future.environmental quality.Because colonial organisms such'as hydroids, cora'ls and bryozoans are difficult to quantify, they are not included in grab analyses.The bryozoans, however, occurred in sufficient quantity to warrant discussion.

A total of 34 taxa were collected during the V first quarter of, sampling(Table C-6).Thirty of these were commonly found encrusting larger shell-hash particles, which accounts for their abundance at the trough stations.Two branching species that are m'orphologically restricted to large-sized particles for attachment sites were unique to these stations.Conversely, one species that is morphologically well adapted to the use of smaller particles for r attachment was'the only species that occurred at Station 3.No bryozoans were found at Station l.Numerous individuals of several meiofaunal (0.5-1 mm in size)groups were retained on screens used to sieve benthic grab samples.In some instances, these organisms were of sufficient size to be considered along with typical macrofaunal forms.However, in many cases they were trapped on the screens only by their adherence to larger particles.

These groups include nematodes, gastrotrichs, kinorhynchs, halocarids, and harpacticoid copepods.Since all are historically associated with meiofaunal assemblages and because they were not quantitatively sampled, none were treated in the macroinverte-brate analyses.Relatively large numbers of nematodes and copepods were retained on the sieves, as these forms exhibited the most ubiquitous distributions (Table C-7).Because the stations appeared to differ distinctly in terms of the biotic parameters discussed above, it was important to determine I

whether these differences were due to some environmental heterogeneity or chance.Therefore, stations were compared in terms of faunal similarity with all replicates from all quarters pooled for each station.With the 36 top-ranked species as determined by HcCloskey's (1970)dominance index (Table C-5), faunal similarity was calculated between all combinations of stations by the coefficient of Czekanowski (1913).As suggested by Nichols (1970), the modification to, this coefficient by Bray and Curtis (1957)was used to account for the relative success of a species at a station, because the species list used for comp'arisons was reduced to the dominants (Appendix Table H-129)..The resulting similarity coefficients were reduced from matrix form to a dendrogram (Figure C-8)using the"nearest neighbor" sorting technique (Lance and Williams, 1967).As indicated by a high association percentile, the dendrogram clearly shows a very close similarity among the trough stations.Stations 1 and 3 are not only faunally.dissimilar from, the trough stations but also from each other.Because hydrographical'data showed no discernible differences between the statio'n, the fauna]relationships may be closely related to substrate variations.

To test this hypothesis, the stations were ranked according to similarities in both fauna and mean particle size of the sediment, starting with the most dissimilar station.Stations with high degrees of association were placed close together, and those with, lower degrees of association farther apart.When compared using the non-parametric rank correlation coefficient, C-13 Kendall's~(Kendall, 1962;Appendix Table H-129), the rankings show a highly significant correlation (p~.01)(Table C-8).It is evident, therefore, that three distinct types of habitat are present: hard-packed sand beach terrace habitat (Station 1), I coarse sand offshore shoal (Station 3), and shell-hash trough habitat (Stations 0, 2, 4, and 5).Faunistically, these habitats comprise the turbulent zone of the continental shelf similarly described by Day et al.(1971)for North Carolina.The faunal differences between Station 1 and the trough stations may well be associated with proximity to the surf zone (Day et al., 1971).The low faunal similarity to other stations may be largely a result of the noticeably lower density (420 individuals/mz) at Station 1.The differences between Station 3 and other stations must be attributed to the topographically unique characteristics of the shoal, although density values approached those for the trough stations.Benthic Trawls During nine months (March-November 1976)of trawl collections, 9,040 specimens of macroinvertebrates of 156 taxa were identified (Appendix Tables H-130 to H-135).Although seasonal patterns of species richness (observed number of taxa)varied among stations, maximum species richness was found to occur during August when data from all stations were combined (Figure C-9).In contrast to grab C-14 I l data, there was no evident association between temperature and species richness patterns.Species richness data for the nine-month period were pooled and indicated that collections from Stations 0 and 5 were highest in number of taxa,'nd that co'llections from Station 3 were lowest (Figure C-10).The results were in general agreement with grab data in that trough stations exhibited higher species richness values than Station 1 or 3.This could be'the result of preferences of larger, macroinvertebrate species for h'eterogeneous shell-hash substrates, the greater abundance of potential food source organisms at trough stations, or a combination of the two factors.Trawl data do suggest, however, that a more diverse, assemblage of larger, more moti'le organisms existed at Station 1 than cou'Id be seen.from grab data.The Morisita index of community similarity (Morisita, 1959;Appendix Table H-129)was used to compare trawl stations.This index has previously been applied to semi-quantitative data, such as those derived from dredge and trawl samples (Ono, 1961).,The Morisita index compares two samples, taking into account'bundances of cojoint species, total abundances in each sample, and respective diversity.

The dendrogram formed by utilizing the Morisita index and group average sorting (Lance and Williams, 1967)indicated little similarity between Station 4 and all other stations.Little similarity C-15 was also indicated between Stations 1 and 3 and Station 0, 2, and 5 (Figure C-11).When compared to the benthic grab similarity dendro-gram (Figure C-8), the major deviation in station grouping using trawl data was the displacement of Station 4.This disparity was due primarily to the la'rge number (2,984 individuals) of sand dollars (Hellita quinquiesperforata) collected at that station.The abundance of this organism might be associated with the station's proximity to Pierce Shoal.The grouping of Stations 1 and 3 and Stations 0, 2, and 5 can again be attributed to substrate affinities (see benthic grab similarity discussion).

Comparison of the most abundant species collected at each station (Table C-9)substantiated the results of station similarity analyses.Excluding zeliita,'many of the more abundant species collected at Station 4 were also collected frequently at other trough stations.Two of these species, the molluscs Anomia simplex and crepidula fornicata, are fouling organisms commonly associated with shell-hash.

Trachgpenaeus constrictus and portunus spinimanus are large epifaunal decapod crustacean species, not included as dominants from grab data but among the more abundant, species in trawl collections from the trough stations..

Stations 1 and 3 were characterized by compara-tively high abundances of epifaunal decapod species and a paucity of fouling species.Again, these larger macroinvertebrate forms do not lend themselves to capture by grab samplers,and therefore do not appear as dominant species among forms taken in grab sampling.

Five species of commercially important shellfish occurred in trawl collections.

The pink shrimp, penaeus duorarum duorarum, was the most abundant (43 specimens) when all trawl data were pooled.It was captured at Stations 0, 4 and 5.The rock shrimp, sicyonia brevirostris, collected at all stations except Station 1, was the second most abundant (33 specimens).

Because of the small number of specimens collected, no inference can be made concerning.spatial or seasonal distributions of these two species.Other commercial species include the pink spotted shrimp, Penaeus brasiliensis, blue crab, callinectes sapidus', and stone crab, Menippe mercenaria', each represented by fewer than four ingividuals.

The penaeid Shrimp, Trachgpenaeus constrictus, WhiCh OCCaSiOnally occurs in commercial bait shrimp catches (Eldred, 1959)was common to all trawl stations, ranking as the most.abundant macroinvertebrate at Stations 0,,1 arid 3 (Table C-9).The observed greater abundance of T.constrictus at StatiOnS 0 and 1 (Figure C-12)WaS prObably influenced by their, relative proximity to shore.Burkenroad (1939)remarked that T;constrictus might be reStriCted largely tO Sandy bottoms.This may account for their abundance at Station 1 where the substratum was sandiest.The use of inshore water as nursery/grounds by this species.has been indicated by Joyce (1965)and was further suggested by the rare occurrence in trawl collections of C-17 li I) shrimp greater than 15 mm in carapace length.This may be indicative of migration of r.conscrictus offshore when reaching this size.Pooled monthly size frequency'ata for r.constrictus (Figure C-13)varied little from size frequency data at Stations 0 and 1.When compared with abundance data (Figure C-14), pooled size frequencies indicated a protracted juvenile recruitment throughout the sampling period with a substantial pulse of juveniles occurring between March and April at both stations.Seasonal patterns of abundance are apparently different at Stations 0 and 1 during May and June (Figure C-14).-This could be due to very localized variations in recruitment and migration.

~On the other hand, higher water tempera-tures and turbidity levels were recorded at Station 1, the immediate plant discharge, coincident with periods of power plant operation during May and June.Although data gathered while the plant was operational were insufficient to be conclusive, the actual effect of the discharge on the population of r.constrictus might be attributed to avoidance or mortality as a result of higher temperatures, increased turbulence, or bqth.If the effect of the discharge is in fact responsible for the population decline, then the phenomenon would be expected to be localized at Station 1.Collection of more data during plant operations may support these preliminary conclusions.

An increase in juvenile recruitment appears to be responsible'or the C-18 observed increase in abundance during July at Station 1.Decreases in abundances at both Stations 0 and 1 (Figure C-14)following July are most likely a result of seasonal responses in population structure of T.constrictus.

SUMMARY

The nearshore environment in the vicinity of the St.Lucie Plant supports a rich and diversified assemblage of benthic species.Physical and chemical parameters monitored, during the study showed no signi-I r ficant differences between stations (see Section G, Water guality).However, according to quantitative data, benthic residents at all stations showed increasing density and diversity with increasing seasonal water temperatures.

Analysis of both quantitative and semi-quantitative data revealed faunal dissimilarities between some stations.It was thus inferred that factors other than physical and chemical parameters exerted the strongest influence on faunal dissimilarities., Faunal distribution correlated strongly with sediment type, and observed faunal patterns were most probably related to sediment distribution, which is affected by currents, tides, and storms.Alteration within the community will likewise be associated with any activities, such as plant water discharge, that cause a physical change in the'enthic substrate.

Because plant opera-tion was intermittent during the sampling periods, however, effects of sustained operation cannot be documented.

LITERATURE CITEO Abele, L.G.1974.Species diversity of decapod crustaceans in marine habitats.Ecology 55:156-161.

Bloom, S.A., J.L.Simon, and V.D.Hunter.1972.Animal-sediment relations and community analysis of a Florida estuary.Mar.Biol.13:43-56.Boesch, D.F.1972.Species diversity of marine macrobenthos in the Virginia area.-Chesapeake Sci.13(3):206-211.

Bray, J.R., and J.T.Curtis.1957.An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin.

Ecol.Monogr.27:352-349.

Burkenroad, M.=D., 1939.Further observations on Penaeidae of the northern Gulf of Mexico.Bull.Bingham Oceanogr.Coll.6(6): 1-62.Czekanowski, J.1913.Zarys metod statystycznyck:

Warsaw.Oay, J.H., J.G.Field, and M'.P.Montgomery.

1971.The use of numerical methods to determine the distribution of benthic fauna across the continental shelf of North Carolina.J.Anim.Ecol.40:93-:125.

Duane, O.B., M.E.Field, E.P.Meisburger, D.J.Swift, and S.J.Williams.1972.Linear shoals on the Atlantic lower continental shelf, Florida to Long Island.Pages 447-498 in D.J.Swift, D.B.Duane, and 0.H.Pilken, eds.Shelf sediment transport.

Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc.Stroudsburg, Pa.Eldred, B.1959.A report on the shrimps (Penaeidae) collected from the Tortugas controlled area.Fla.St.Bd.Conserv., Sp.Sci.Rept.No.2:1-6.EPA.1973.Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents.

C.I.Weber, ed.EPA 670/4-73-001.

Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati.

Folk, R.L.1966.A review of grain-size parameters.

Sedimentology 6:73-93.Gallagher, R.M., and M.L.Hollinger.

In press.Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974.

I.Rationale and Methods.Fla.Mar.Res.Publ.23.C-20

LITERATURE CITED continued Hathaway, J.C.1971.Data file continental'argin program Atlantic coast of the United States.Vol.2: Sample collection and analytical data.Woods Hole Oceanogr.Instit.Tech.Rep.Ref.No.71-15.54 pp.Holland, J.S., N.J.Maciolek, and C.H.Oppenheimer.

1973.Galveston Bay benthic community structure as an indicator of water quality.Contr.Mar.Sci., Univ.Tex.11:169-188.

Joyce, Edwin A., 1965.The commercial shrimps of the northeast coast of Florida.Fla.Bd.Consery., Prof.Pap.Ser., No.6:1-224.Kendall, M.G.1962.Rank correlation methods, 3rd ed.Hatner Publ.Co., N.Y.199 pp.King, C.E., and.L.S.Kornicker.

1970.Ostracoda in Texas bays and lagoons: An ecologic study.Smithson.Contrib.Zool.24:1-92.Lance, G.N., and W.T.Williams.1967.A general theory of classificatory sorting strategies.

I.Hierarchial systems.Comput.J.9:373-380.

Lie, U.1968.A quantitative study of benthic infauna in Puget Sound, Washington, U.S.A., in 1963-1964.

Fisk.Dir.Skr.Ser.Havllnders.

14(5):229-,556.

Lie, U., and J.C.Kelley.1970.Benthic infauna communities off the coast of Washington and in Puget Sound.Identification and distribution of the communities.

J.Fish.Res.Bd.Canada 27:621-651.

Lloyd, M.J., and R.J.Ghelardi.1964.A table for calculating the"equitability" component of species diversity.

J.Anim.Ecol.33:217-227.

Lloyd, M.J., J.H.Zar, and J.R.Karr.1968.On the calculation of information-theoretical measures of diversity., Am.Mid.Nat.79:257-272.

Maurer, D., P.Kinner, and W.Leathern.1976.Benthic faunal assemblages off Delmarva Peninsula.

Estuar.Coastal Mar.Sci.4:163-177.-

McCloskey, L.R.1970.Dynam'ics of the community associated with a marine scleractinian coral.Int.Rev..Ges.Hydrobiol.

55(1):13-81.

C-21 LITERATURE CITED continued Morisita, M.1959.Measuring of interspecific association and similarity between communities.

Mem.Fac..Sci.Kyushu Univ., Ser.E (Biol.)3(l):65-80.

Nichols, F.H.,1970.Benthic polychaete assemblages and their relationship to sediments in Port Madison, Washington.

Mar.Bi'ol.6:48-57.O'Gower, A.K., and J.W.Wacasey.1967.Animal communities associated with rhalassia, Diplanthera, and sand beds in Biscayne Bay.I.Analysis of communities in relation to water movements.

Bull.Mar.Sci.17(l):175-210.

Ono, Y.1961.An ecological study of the brachyuran community on Tomioka Bay, Amakusa, Kyushu.Records of Oceanographic Works jn Japan (Special Number 5):199-210.

Sanders, H.L.1968.Marine benthic diversity:

A comparative study.Am.Nat.102(925)':243-282.

Watling, L., W.Leathern, P.Kinner, C.Wethe, and D.Mauser.1974.An evaluation of sewage sludge dumping on the benthos of Delaware Bay.Mar.Poll.Bull.5(3):39-42.

Wilhm, J.L.1967.Comparison of some diversity indices'applied to populations of benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream receiving organic wastes.J.Wat.Poll.Control Fed.39(10):1673-1683.

I.Wilhm, J.L., and T.C.Dorris'.1966.Species diversity of benthic macroinve'rtebrates in a stream receiving domestic and oil refinery effluents.

Am.Midi.Nat.76:426-449., C-22 I I ATL ANTIC OCE AN INDIAN RIVER ST.LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 0" 0 ZV4ZO 5000 0000 0000, I 2000 GCALt N FCCT INDIAN RIVER HUT CHINSON ISLAND 0o BO0 IO FLORIDA POWER R LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT LOCATIONS OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING STATIONS 1976 APPLIEO BIOLOGY, IIIC.FIGURE C-1 C-23

~L Ill%.RING 0'(YE I GHIE 0 g IRAh1E H[LICAI.SPRING CLOSING BAR~SCOOP HOUSING ROTAIING SCOOP Figure C-2.Shipek scoop sampler.C-24 I 30 15 O 25 JEJ K I-cC JJ: IJJ LEJ 20 I-O O O IO x N E VJ z o 5 CI z MAR JUN SEP 0 LEGEND TEMPERATURE

~---~DENSITY Figure C-3.Mean bottom temperature and mean density of individuals at the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling stations, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

I I r I-I I20 7.5 I 00 O'80 2.5 MAR JUN SEP 0 LEGEND TAX A B lOM AS S Figure C-4.Mean number of taxa and mean biomass/m~

of individuals at the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling stations, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

'I~!

I.O 0.8 IO Ch LL: Cl 2 LII X>-~I 0.6'.-<<C I-CX LII 0.4 LII X 0.2 0 MAR JUN SEP LEGEND DIYERSITY I EQUI TA BILI T Y'I Figure C-5.Mean diversity and mean equitability of the benthic macroinvertebrate community, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

l'l~~~~~'I~

4 I CO STATION NUMBER'-Figure C-6.Benthic macroinvertebrates:

number of taxa, density and biomass at each offshore station, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

f 4 4 1$-l IOO N<54I3 N*l29 Ns 5993 N*73I N<4675 M*3994 80 UJ Z 60<.0 20 0 L EG END STATION NO.ANNELIDA SIPUNCULIDA II ARTHROPODA ECHINODERMATA MOLLUSCA CEPHALOCHORDATA Figure C-7.Benthic macroinvertebrate distribution by major groups, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

I l l J 4 l 4 5~

100 STATION NO.5 90 80 LU 70 I-UJ O K LU 60 R O I-0 O el)50 40 30 20'igure C-S..Dendrogram showing faunal similarity between stations from grab data, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.C-30

~~~~~~~(f~~'l~'5 80 70 68 25.0 I-20.0 I-60 55 58 55 50 OC I-4o CQ K 30 46 42 47 20 Io MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV Figure C-9.Total number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected in benthic trawls compared to mean monthly bottom water temperature, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.C-31

~~~~~5 1~5 IOO 93 87 80 X<<K I-60 F 52 64 60 40 20 25 0 STATION NO.Figure C-10..Total number of macroinvertebrate taxa c'ollected

-from monthly trawling at each offshore station, St.Lucie Plant, March-November 1976.C-32

STAT ION NO.IOO 80 LLJ I-X u 60 UJ CL O I-40 O M V)20 Figure C-ll.Dendrogram showing faunal similarity between stations from trawl data, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.C-33

600 500 520 o 400 UJ O IJJ 300 z 200 403 l39 I 00 89 70 8I 2 STATION NO.4 Figure C-12.Abundance of 2'rachypenaeus constrictus from trawl collections, all months combined, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.C-34 1 l'I l 50 MAR N~5I 50 APR N>277 50 MAY N~I7 50 JUN N~I90 A 50 Kl I-LU o 50 JUL AUG N~I97 Ns36 80 SEp N=84 50 OCT N~20 50 NOV N~67 0,3 6 9 M2~LB 2I 24 27 30 CARAPACE LENGTH (mm)Figure C-13.Size frequency of rrachypenaeus constrictus from otter trawl'collections, all stations combined, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.C-35

200 a I50 I-O IOO X D 50 0 I)I)\\I\I I I h Il\\\\-MAR A PR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV LEGEND----STATION I STATION 0 Figure C-14.Seasonal abundance of Trachypenaeus constrictus from trawl collections, all stations combined,-St.Lucie Plant, 1976.C-36

TABLE C-1 BENTHIC GRAB AND TRAWL STATION COORDINATES ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Station De th m 7.6 11.3 7.6 11.3 11.3 C 8.2'atitude-Lon itude 27'21.2'80'14.1'27'21.40'13.3' 27'21.7'80'12.4'27'20.6'80'12.8'27'22.9'80'14.0'27'19.1'80'13.2'C-37 l-TABLE C-2 ANALYSIS OF SUBSTRATE PARTICLE SIZE ANDPERCENTAGE GRAVEL AT BENTHIC STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Mean grain Sorting coef f i ci ent mm Station Month diameter mm standard deviation Percentage ravel>2.0 mm 0 MAR 1.40 0.15 33.1 JUN 1.71 0.14 39.5 SEP 1.12 0.15 26.0 MAR JUN SEP 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.68 0.62 0.59 MAR JUN SEP O.80 1.25 0.90 0.19 0.24 0.26 15.0 29.9 13.8 MAR JUN SEP 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.75 0.70 0.72 MAR JUN SEP 0.86 1.40 1.20 0.25 0.08 0.22 13.5 26.6 20.5 MAR 0.72 JUN~0.58 SEP 0.82 0.14 0.48 0.28 19.6 5.8 13.2 C-38 I

TABLE C-3 SEDIHENT SIZE ANALYSIS AT BENTHIC STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Coa o Pebble Granu e Very coarse sand Coarse san He um sand ne sand Very fine sand Station Honth 4-64 am 2-4 am fl-2 am 0.5-1 am 0.25-0.5 am 0.125-0.25 am 0.63-0.125 am t and c ay<0.63 am 0 HAR 18.1 15.0 24.2 JUN 22.017.5 26.8 SEP, 14.5 11.5'8.9 29.0 25.0 32.9 9.8 4.8 17.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 0.4 0.3 0.8 HAR JUN SEP 0.8 1.8 1.8 3.1 2.5 2.8 38.2 28.1 23.8 47.8 51.0 44.6 9.5 16.1 25.2 0.5 0.2 1.0 HAR JUN SEP 8.2 9.8 7.8 6.8 13.0 20.1 27.9 6.0 19.0 35.3 29.8 41.0 34.8 8.8 26.0 1.0 1.1 0.4 1.0 0.4<0.1 0.3 2.1<0.1 HAR JUN SEP 0 0.8 0 1.4 0-18 3.7 7.4 4.9 42.9 46.4 48.8 50.8 44.0 43.9 0.7 0.4 0.5<0.1 0.3<0.1 4 HAR 7.8 JUN 20.5 SEP 12.7 5.7 6.1 7.8 15.0 15.8 27.3 37.9 33.1 37.1 32.1 15.2 13.8 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 5 HAR JUN SEP 9.8 3.3 6.9 9.8 2.5 6.3 14.2 4.8 17.3 17.9 37.6 35.3 36.4 48.8 33.7 6.7 2.1 0.3 4.6 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 f f TABLE C-4 BENTHIC GRAB HACROINVERTEBRATE DATA AND STATISTICAL INFORHATION FOR OFFSHORE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLAHT 1976 Htraber of species arter I 2 3 ota 96 127 149 13 18 35 92.130 131 Station 17 , 35 43 94'115'00 ,127" 73 98 87 108 lll 90 Hean number of individuals per sac>pie ota 480+143 772+299 584+243 13+5 12+8 26+12 379+176 34+15 354+160 329+63 731+433 76+53 371+107 592+174 955+246 137+68 911+177 522+27 9 90 4 3 n I CD Density (indiv1duals/ms)

I 11,992 2 19,300 3 14,592 4 0 0 3 3 636 2 030 317 9,475 842 8,858 8,225 300'18,283 1>892 9>283 14>808 642~23>891 3,425 22,767 13>058 6,618'10>644 13,063 Bicctass (9/mt)32.434 3.995 0.960 0.862 1.272 0.332 8.454 2.881 3.091 0.694 0.747 0.658 1.151 3.519 0.881 2.487 1.984 2.166 7.680 2.400 1.348.463 0.8 0.00 2.212 Diversity (u)4.1 4.4 5.4 2.5 3.6 4.4 3.4 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.3 2.7 4.3 4.7 4.8 4.6 5.1 4.4 5.2 4.9 3.9 4.2 4.6 Equitability-(e) 0.69 0.69 0.81 0.79 1.00 0.97 0.9 0.57 0.70 0.77 O.1.10 0.71 0.55 0.9 0.72 0.69 0.76 0.2 0.80 0.74 0.84 0.79 0.78 0.76 0.78 Total neer of different species.Sun of a>cans per staple tie>es nutaber of replicates.

TABLE C-5 TOP-RANKED SPECIES OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES FROM GRAB SAMPLING AT EACH STATION ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 S ecies ANNELIDA a son 0 1 2 3 4 5o Armandia maculata Eunice vittata~spZZis brevipes EuspZlis heteroci~ata Ezogone dispar Goniadides caroZinae Hemipodus z oseus Loimia medusa Medi omastus caZi fomiensis Metavermi Zia sp.Omphalopoma sp.Ophiodr'omus sp.A , Polygordius sp.Pvionospio cmstata Pzetodovvi ZZea heter steini SylZis r egulata car olinae MOLLUSCA 2 8~7 6 9 5 10 9 7 9 3 2'8 6 2 4 1 1 5 Caecum coopers Crassine ZZa dupZinana Cr epidula formicata Dentalium calamus Emi Zia concentmca Gl pcymems spectmlis 2'schnochiton hartmeyem Z.papillosus Semele nuculoides

" Tellana~~s CRUSTACEA Balanus tmgonus B.venustus Euvydice ZittoraZie Panathura fozmosa".Protohaustomue sp.A Pseudoplatyishnopus sp.A Timn sp.A T~chophoxus sp.A 3-9 1 4 10 6 10

TABLE C-5 (continued)

TOP-RANKED SPECIES OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES FROM GRAB SAMPLING AT EACH STATION ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 S ecies ECHINODERMATA Amphiodia puEcheEla CEPHALOCHORDATA Bmnchiostoma c~hzeum 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 10 Ranked according to McCloskey"(1970) biological index values.I C-42

TABLE C-6 R CAL'CULATED NUMBER OF BRYOZOA COLONIES/m~

COLLECTED AT OFFSHORE STATIONS WITH THE SHIPEK GRAB ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH 197,6 S ecies 17 8 8 8 odessa 267 i, 42'7 58 8 17 17, 8 ASCOPHORA ANASCA Aetae tmncata AZdezina smitti'AZdemna cf.smitti Alderineidae sp.'A Beania cupuhmensis B.hir4issima CoZletosia beZluZa Copodosium

?sp.CmbziZina zadiata Cupulcn&ia doma Nscopoz eZZa umbellata dep Plod idina pavuicella, Hincksina?Sp.Hincksini dae sp.,A Membranipoz'a seri ata?Membranipoza sp.,'ember'anipora sp.A'.tennuis Membraniporidae sp.Retevw'gula flectospinata 58 17 8 17 8 8 75 8 50 50 83 208 33 8'3 58 17 33 58.33 8 8 25 42 8 8 50 8 42 17 Stations 1 2 3 4 5 Cleidochasma pox'ce ZZanum Cpgelisula tata Hi ppopoz'ella uvuli fez'a Micvopoz eZla maz supiata MiczopozeZZa sp.A.Pcu asmittina nitidia Pcu asmittina sp..Schisopozella equi ata Smittinidae sp.Trppostega venusta 17 17 17 92 17 8 42 33 8 42 17 8 67 17 100 42 17 8:8 8 8 300 108 C-43 S ecies TABLE C-6 (continued)

CALCULATED NUMBER OF BRYOZOA COLONIES/m2 COLLECTED AT OFFSHORE STATIONS WITH THE SHIPEK GRAB ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH 1976 Station 0 1 2 3'4 5 CTENOSTOMATA AZcyonhdhum disc@'ozme A.polyoum Alcyonhdhum sp.B~ezbankia grachlie?17 8 8 25 Number of colonies/m Number of species 685 0 433 8 1163 340 19 0 13 1 23 15 C-44 l

TABLE C-7 PRESENCE OF MIEOFAUNAL FORMS IN GRAB SAMPLES BY STATION AND QUARTER ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Grou 0 Quarter 1 2 3 Station 1-2 3 4 5 Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 1 2 3~1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3'2 3 Gastrotricha Kinorhyncha X X X Nematoda X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Acari X X X Harpacticoida X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

-TABLE C-8 RANK CORRELATION:

RANKING OF STATIONS BY FAUNAL ASSOCIATION COMPARED WITH RANKING BY MEAN PARTICLE SIZE OF SEDIMENTS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Rank 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Ranke y faunal association 2 Ranked by mean article size Correlation:

v=0.73, significant at a=0.01.Using Bray and Curtis (1957)index.C-46 TABLE C-9 TOP-RANKED SPECIES OF INVERTEBRATES BY ABUNDANCE COLLECTED IN TRAWL SAMPLES ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 S ecies MOLLUSCA Anomia simpZex ChaetopZeur a apicuZata Cz epidula formicata Tuz'bo castanea 4 (87)2 (464)Station 2 (171)1 (1,066)5 (44)3 (76)4 (124)5 (96)4 (71)1 (417)CRUSTACEANS LeptochaeZa servatozbita Metapenaeopsi s goodei PemcZimenes Zongicaudatus PozCunus anceps P.gibbesii P.spinimanus 5 (47)Sicyonia do>saZis Tzachypenaeus constmctus 1 (520)Trachypenaeopsi s mobiZispinis 4 (14)5 (12)4 (19)3 (22)5 17)3 (91.)5 (48)2 (22)1 (403)4 (89)1 (70)2 (81)2 (139)2 (32)ECHINODERMATA MeZZita quinquiespezfozata 3 (105)3 (14)1 (2,984)Numbers in parentheses indicate total abundance for all months.

D.PHYTOPLANKTON INTRODUCTION The purpose of the phytoplankton, study at the St.Lucie Plant was to monitor changes in phytoplankton density, community composi-tion, pigment levels, and productivity and to examine the relation-ship between these changes and power plant operation.

Phytoplankton consists of passively drifting or weakly swirming algae.'Benthic algae'are frequently included temporarily in the phytoplankton.

Due to limited motility, these microscopic plants are largely at the mercy of waves and currents in aquatic environments.

Major groups of algae vary in temperature tolerance ranges and temperature ranges for optimum growth and reproduction (Patrick, 1969).Diatoms generally have relatively low temperature tolerance ranges (less than 30'C), while green algae tolerances cover a wider range.Blue-green algae are most tolerant of higher temperatures (thermophilic).

Because of these varying temperature optima and tolerance ranges, temperature is an important determinant in the seasonal succession of algal groups and species under natural conditions.

Thermal additions to waters from human activity may alter natural seasonal patterns by causing an early onset of

.f F'C-succession or even permanent alteration of species composition (Patrick, 1974).Since phytoplankters are primary producers, they form the basis of the aquatic food chain along with macrophytes, which are important contributors in shallow waters (Reid, 1961).Phytoplankton abundance and community composition either directly or indirectly influences the quantity and quality of all larger organisms that ultimately depend upon them for food.Phytoplankton standing crop is determined by the dynamic interaction of physicochemical parameters,and by grazing pressure from primary consumers.

Physicochemical factors which may influence the spatial and temporal distribution of phytoplankton are water temperature, light, nutrient availability, salinity, and currents (Whitford, 1960).Because any of these factors may limit phyto-plankton productivity or affect comounity composition and abundance, their relationship to standing crop must be considered when evaluating the impact of=power plant operation.

Thus changes in the phytoplank-ton component of the ecosystem were interpreted with regard to the physicochemical regime which existed at the time samples were collected, as well as to the potential influence of St.Lucie Plant operation.

Z Pertinent past studies concerning the effects of power plant cooling water discharge on phytoplankton populations have been done D-2 by Morgan and Stross (1969), Warinner and Brehmer (1966), Fox and Moyer (1973), Simmars and Armitage (1974), Menhinick and Jensen (1974), and Knight (1973).The results of these studies on t phytoplankton productivity and abundance varied.However, a general trend regarding the amount ofchange in productivity due to increased temperature was observed in three of these studies.Morgan and Stross (1969)observed a stimulation in the rate of carbon uptake with an 8'C r ise in temperature when ambient water temperature was less than 16'C in'he Patuxent River Estuary.This rise inhibited photosynthesis when ambient water temperatures were 20'C or warmer.Passage through the plant cooling system further depressed production when ambient water temperatures were high and offset thermal stimulation when ambient temperatures were low.However, Warinner and Brehmer (1966)observed decreased carbon assimilation with a 5.6'ise in temperature in the York River, Virginia, when ambient temperatures were between 15 and 20'C.Primary production was enhanced due to temperature changes from plant passage, when ambient temperatures were low during the winter months.Similar thermal studies at the Crystal River Power Plant, Florida, reflected the findings of the above studies, i.e., that the amount of change in primary production due to temperature increase was dependent upon ambient water temperature at the intake (Fox and Moyer, 1973).D-3

Simmars and Armitage (1974)found that algal density and composition in heated effluent, areas of the Potomac River, Yirginia, reflected density and composition observed in ambient temperature areas in the vicinity of the power plant.In Lake Norman, North Carolina, plankton populations downlake and uplake from a power plant were essentially similar (Menhinick and Jensen, 1974).In the Lake Norman study, discharge temperatures were low because cooling water was drawn from the cool hypolimnetic layer of the thermally stratified lake;thermal stimulation in production P was thus observe'd even at maximum ambient temperatures.

Knight (1973)found that in Lake Wylie, North Carolina, discharge samples exhibited a decrease in both abundance and diversity of phyto-plankton.He also noted a trend toward greater reduction in phyto-plankton at the highest ambient temperatures.

This reduction was attributed to both mechanical and thermal effects.MATERIALS AND METHODS Ph to lankton Anal sis Phytoplankton samples were collected monthly from surface and bottom levels of the water column at six offshore stations and in the intake and discharge canals (Figure D-1).Replicate one-liter whole-water samples were collected at each station with a pump designed to minimize damage to the phytoplankters.

Whole-water D-4 samples were used in conjunction with the sedimentation technique for qualitative analyses and quantitative estimates of standing crop.Allen (1930)presented"strong evidence that catches made by gravity settling (sedimentation) from one liter of water are fully dependable for most microplankton sampling.This technique provides a more accurate estimate of nanoplankters (those phytoplankters, generally less than 10@in size, which are not normally retained by the finest mesh plankton nets)than can be obtained from conven-tional net techniques (Braarud, 1957;Willen, 1962).The pump used in collections was designed with a reservoir between the collection hose and the pump mechanism (Figure D-2).Water samples were removed from the reservoir before passing through the pump impellers to eliminate possible mechanical damage to the.phytoplankters.

.When the collection hose was located at the proper sampling depth, the pump was operated for a sufficient length of time to ensure that the entire pumping system contained water from that depth.Samples for water chemistry were collected and physical measure-ments and weather observations were made concurrently with phyto-plankton collections at each station.These data were examined as being potential, factors influencing phytoplankton.populations.

D-5 I

Each one-liter water sample was preserved in the fi'eld with 5%buffered formalin and returned to the laboratory.

The preserved samples were allowed to settle for a minimum period of.10 days.The supernatant was siphoned from each settled sample with a vacuum pressure pump and discarded.

Each sample was concentrated to approximately 30 ml.The need for additional concentrati'on was determined by the amount of detritus or density of phytoplankters in the sample.E Microscopic analysis was performed by the Utermohl technique with inverted compound microscopes equipped with calibrated ocular micrometers (Utermohl, 1958).Identifications and counts were made by placing a well-mixed measured aliquot of a known sample concen-trate into a settling chamber.Samples were allowed to settle a minimum of one hour before analysis.Phytoplankton species were enumerated at'appropriyte magnification by random field counts (Littleford et-al., 1940;APHA, 1971;EPA, 1973)in at least two identically prepared counting chambers per replicate sample.Statistical analyses (hierarchical design analysis of variance)were used to determine the examined volume of sample concentrate necessary to ensure 90Ãaccuracy in counts at the 95%confidence interval.This analysis also provided information on the minimum number of replicates, chambers per replicate, and fields per chamber which could be counted without significantly increasing v'ariance.

'-6 I II I Counting effort was minimized by this type of analysis, thereby maximizing laboratory efficiency.

A minimum of one-half the entire counting chamber was examined to enumerate large and relatively scarce phytoplankters.

All phytoplankters, except some greens and blue-greens, were counted individually.

Filamentous green and blue-green algae were measured in 100'tandard lengths with each length representing r one counting unit.Colonial forms exclusive of diatoms were counted as each colony representing one counting unit.An average number of individuals per colony was specified where possible.Cells per liter were calculated as N by: where: C=count V=volume of sample concentrate (ml)s V=determined by multiplying the aliquot volume (ml)by the proportion of the counting chamber which was examined V.=initial sample volume (1)1 A minimum of two individuals verified both qualitative and quanti-tative analyses for each group of monthly samples.If discrepancies

'-7

were greater than lOX, counts were repeated.gualitative verific'a-tion of new species was performed on each samp'le.-as new species were encountered.

All samples were:retained in the Applied Biology, Inc.laboratory as permanent vouchers.Pi ment Anal sis-Replicate water samples for pigment determinations were collected concurrently with phytoplankton samples each month.Water sufficient to fill a 6-gallon polyethylene carboy for each replicate was pumped from specified surface and bottom depths at'Ieach station.Sa'mples were transported to the laboratory as quickly as possible after collection in an effort to minimize chl orophyl 1 degradati on.Samples were processed according to the method of Strickland and Parsons (1972)and recommendations of Unesco (1966).Samples were filtered through Whatman GFC filters (generally 0.5 to 5 liters total volume)in the Hutchinson Island laboratory on the day of co]lection.The filters were folded in half with the filtered particulates on the inside and immediately frozen under darkened conditions.

The'frozen filters were shipped in light-proof containers to the Atlanta laboratory for extraction and analysis on the day following collection.

D-8 l I 1 Frozen filters from replicate samples were extracted by grinding in a 90$aqueous solution of spectrophotometric-grade acetone.Filters'ere ground approximately 3 minutes with an electric drill-driven tissue grinder.Samples generally steeped for one hour while subsequent samples were being processed.

The extracts were decanted into graduated 15-ml centrifuge tubes and F spun for a minimum of 10 minutes at approximately 2,000 times gravity in a swing-out centrifuge.

The volume of the extract was measured and extinction values were read with 1-cm cuvettes in a spectrophotometer at a slit width of 1.0 nanometer.

Chlorophyll-a,-a, and-c concentrations were determined from readings at 665, 645, and 630 nm, respectively.

Carotenoid concentra-tion was determined from extinction at 480 nm.The amount of non-active chlorophyll-a, in terms of the quantity of phaeopigments present, was estimated.

from extinction at 665 nm one minute after acidifica-tion with 505 HCl.All extinctions were corrected by subtracting the turbidity reading at 750 nm.Excessive turbidity readings were reduced by additional centrifugation.

Results were obtained from the equations of Strickland and Parsons (1972)and chlorophyll and phaeopigment values were expressed as mg/m~.Carotenoid values were expressed as m-SPU (millispecified pigment unit)/ms.D-9 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Ph to lankton Com osition Ten major groups (divisions, classes)of phytoplankton were observed in collections from the St.Lucie Plant area.These groups were 1)Bacillariophyta (diatoms), 2)Pyrrhophyta (dinoflagellates), 3)Chlorophyta (greens), 4)Cyanophyta (blue-greens), 5)Euglen-ophyta (euglenoids)., 6)Cryptophyta, 7)Xanthophyta, 8)Chrysophyceae (yellow-brown algae and silicoflagellates), 9)Haptophyceae (includ-ing coccolithophores), and 10)Prasinophyceae.

One additional major group consisted of unidentified phytoflagellates.

These were pig-mented forms possessing flagella and were generally less than 10 mi crons in length.Total phytoplankton densities ranged from a low of 282 x 10'ells/liter on the surface, at Station 3 in June to 9,844 x 10'ells/liter on the bottom in the intake canal in October (Tables D-1 to D-8).Phytoplankton density was generally greatest during Harch and October with maximum densities observed at most stations during October.(Figures D-3 to D-10).Minimum phytoplankton abun-dance was generally observed in, May.Average phytoplankton density was greatest in the.intake and discharge canals and at Station l.Stations 2, 3, and 4 exhibited lowest abundance, while Stations 0 and 5 were intermediate.

Phytoplankton was most abundant in the intake canal and least abundant at Station 3.Bottom populations were consistently larger than surface populations at offshore stations.

Differences in average densities between surface and bottom collec-tions in the intake and discharge canals were much smaller (less than half)than those observed offshore.Several trends in the abundance of particular species were noted (Appendix Tables K-137 to H-144).The following species were more frequently observed at the offshore stations: Ceratauli na bergonii Gomphonema Spp..Guinardia flacci da/Leptocylindrus dani cus Navicula SP.6 Nitzschi a pungens V.atlanti ca Nitzschia Sp.2 Osci llatoria SPP.Peridinium hirobis Pinnularia Sp.1 Rhizosolenia alata R.alata f.indica R.imbricata R.setigera R.stolterfothii Thai assi onema ni tzschi oi des Thalassi othri x frauenfeldii Navicula sp.(wawrikae?)

was most abundant offshore from May through August and restricted to offshore stations in March, April, September, and October.Some species were more frequently observed in the intake/discharge canals.The following species exhibited this general trend: Gymnodini um simplex Navicula halophi la V.halophila Nitzschia acicularis V.closteri oi des N.closteri um Peri dini um trochoi deum Tetraselmis SP.Rhaphoneis surirella WaS generally mOSt abundant in.the intake/diSCharge canals during May through August but more abundant at offshore stations in March, April, September, and October., 0-11 Eucampia cornuta, Navicula membranacea, and pennate diatOm sp.3 were restricted to offshore stations when present and Gomphonema marina was observed only offsh'ore on five of seven sampling dates Pp when this species was present.Diploneis interrupta followed the Same trend On three Of fiVe Sampling dateS.Pleurosigma elongatum was observed only offshore in March, became more abundan't in the intake/discharge canals in May, and was again restricted to the offshore stations from July through October.Several species, lisped below, exhibited a general shift in abundance from offshore to the, intake/discharge canals within the May-August period;returning to offshore abundance in September:

Bi ddul phi a-auri ta N.closterium Campylosi ra umbel li formi s N.constricta Diploneis smithii V.smi thi i Nitzschia SP.1 Gomphonema Spp.Osci llatoria SPP'.Grammatophora marina Pinnularia SP.1 Melosira Sp.1 Rhaphonei s suri rella Nitzschia halophila V.halophila Pennate diatOm Sp.4 The most important species, in terms of abundance, throughout the sampling interval were diatoms (Appendix Tables H-137 to H-144).skele-tonema costatum was the most abundant diatom.The abundance, observed in March and April, decreased, in May.s.costatum reached a peak in June, decreased to a constant, level in July, August, and September, and peaked again in OCtOber.Nitzschia closterium and N.delicatissima, though.less abundant than s.costatum, followed the same pattern.Biddulphia aurita, Rhaphoneis surirella, Thalassionema nitzschioides, D-12 I

and rhalassiosira sp.1 exhibited similar trends in abundance.

Numbers were relatively constant during March and April, lower in May, higher in June and lower-again in July.These four species increased in abundance from August, reaching peak abundance in October.Cell numbers of a.japonica were greatest during March and April and lower throughout the rest of the sampling interval except in June, when a slight increase occurred.Leptocglindrus danicus, though of minor importance, exhibited greatest abundance in May, a month when other diatom species were decreasing.

Nitzschia longzssima was most abun-dant in April and June whereas N.paradoxa was most abundant in October.Diatoms (Bacillariophyta) were the dominant phytoplankton group in March and April.They accounted for 83 to 995 of the total phyto-plankton population at all stations except Station 0.Diatoms accounted for 505 of the total surface phytoplankton at this station in March (Figure D-ll, Tables D-1 and D-2).Reduction in the relative importance of diatoms at Station 0 was due to a pulse of the green algae calamgdomonas on the surface.Green algae (Chlorophyta) gen-erally increased in relative importance from March to May when greens accounted for 5 to 37K of the total phytoplankton (Figure D-12, Table D-3).Greens were less abundant than diatoms and unidentified phytoflagellates from June through October (Figures D-13 and D-14).Diatoms were again dominant in June, and accounted for 65.to 88%of D-13 I I I I I'I the total phytoplankton at all stations.l.Generally,'the unidentified phytoflagellate group was second to diatoms in relative abundance.

Unidentified phytoflagellates became increasingly important from March through May when this group made up 12 to 49Ãof the total phytoplankton and continued to be an important component'of the phytoplankton population through October.Dinoflagellates (Pyrrhopgyta) were'ost important in May, July, I August, and September; however, this group never exceeded 17%of the total phytoplankton and was generally under 105.The haptophytes were important only in May, accounting for 3 to 22%of the total phytoplankton.

Prasinophytes were important in May and October, while cryptophytes were more important from July through October.However, both these groups were minor contributors to the total standing stock of phytoplankton, exceeding 10Ãon only two occasions (Tables 0-3 to D-S).The phytoplankton community composition at the St.Lucie Plant was typical of a nearshore marine environment.

Shifts in population due to plant operation were not evident.U Highly significant differences in phytoplankton abundance between months were indicated for both surface and bottom depths at offshore stations (Table D-10).Phytoplankton densities at surface D-14 I

stations were significantly greater in October than in all other months except March.Bottom populations were significantly greater in October than in all other months, and densities were significantly greater in March than in May (Table D-ll).The high densities observed l in March and October are indicative of seasonal increases in phyto-plankton abundance.

These data fit the typical temperate and sub-tropical bimodal peak in abundance with an early spring bloom and a late fall resurgence of phytoplankton populations.

Entrainment and Tem erature Relationshi s Comparison of changes in phytoplankton density between intake (Station ll)and discharge (Station 12)appears in Tables D-12 and D-13.Surface population in the intake canal ranged from 542 x 10 to.5,757 x 10'ells/liter and in the discharge canal from 1,073 x 10'o 6,516 x 10~cells/liter.

The range in tempera-ture change (aT)between intake and discharge was+0.2'o+8.8'C (Table D-12).Changes in cell.density were variable with both increases and decreases in phgtoplankton abundance between intake and discharge.

There was no discernible relationship between phyto-plankton abundance and LT.Bottom populations in the intake canal ranged from 960 x 10>to 9,844 x 10~cells/liter, while densities in the discharge canal ranged from 656 x 10'o 4,375 x 10'ells/liter.

Temperature increases varied from+O.l to+9.1'C for bottom stations D-15

-I jl I (Table D-13).No relationship between the magnitude of aT and changes in phytoplankton density was evident.The absence of a trend between changes in phytoplankton density and the magnitude of aT may reflect a lack of plant effect.It should be noted, however, that plant operation was intermittent during the period when these data were collected, and these data should not be considered representative of sustained plant operational conditions.

Differences in phytoplankton density between intake and discharge stations were npt significant for either surface or bottom depths (Table D-10)..However, differences between months were highly significant.

The phytoplankton density was significantly greater in,October than in May (Table D-14).I Temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen data and other pertinent physical observations were obtained concurrently with phytoplankton collections and appear in Appendix Tables H-146 to H-150.Total phytoplankton density at surface stations exhibited a significant positive correlation with temperature in May as did prasinophytes in July, September, and October, and unidentified D-16

phytoflagellates in March (Table D-15).An increase in density with increasing temperature is probably a normal physiological response to optimal temperature.

Diatoms showed a significant nega-tive correlation with temperature in September.

However, the maxi-mum temperature differential between any stations was only+1.8'C in September, so this reduction in diatoms with increasing temper-ature was not due to a plant-generated thermal increment.

Also, plant effects were not indicated as a factor in the negative cor-relation between temperature and dinoflagellates in July or prasinophytes in August.A posi tive correlation between temperature and total bottom phytoplankton density was observed in July.Pi ment Anal sis and Primar Productivit Active chlorophyll-a, concentration was used as an index of phytoplankton standing crop.Surface values at the offshore stations ranged from 0.5 mg/m at Station 2 in May to 8.97 mg/m at Station 1 in October (Table D-16).Bottom values ranged from 0.41 mg/ms at Station 2 in May to 8.30 mg/ms at Station 0 in October.Chloro-phyll-a maxima were consistently observed at offshore stations in October, except on the bottom at.,Station 5 in March.With respect to trends in concentration, surface and bottom stations were gener-C ally consistent and higher values at both depths were generally observed in March, in June or July, and in October (Figure D-15).Peaks in chlorophyll-a concentration correspond to periods of highest D-17

phytoplankton density.The lowest chlorophyll-a values were generally observed at Station 3, while highest values were observed at Station l.Average, chlorophyll-a concentration in the intake canal ranged F from 1.38 to 14.90 mg/ms and from 0.81 to 11.40 mg/m in the discharge canal.Chlorophyll-a levels were greater in the intake than in the discharge; however, average concentrations in the canals were greater J than those observ'ed offshore.A highly significant difference in chlorophyll-a concentration between months was observed for bottom stations in the intake and discharge canals (Table D-17).Chlorophyll-a levels were significantly greater in October than in all other months.November levels were significantly greater than April, May, July, and September levels (Table D-18).Chlorophyll-a concentrations at offshore surface stations were significantly different, with levels at Station 1 significantly greater than those at Station 3 (Tables D-17 and D-19).Both surface and bottom offshore stations exhibited significant i differences between months.Chlorophyll-a levels at both, surface and bottom were significantly greater in October than in any other month (Tables D-17 and D.-20).At surface stations, September levels were significantly greater than those in April, May, July, August, and December, while levels in November were significantly greater than D-18

those in May and December.At bottom stations September and November levels were significantly greater than those observed in May and December.This late fall increase in chlorophyll-a levels corresponds to the seasonal peak abundance'bserved in the phytoplankton popu-lation.This October peak in chlorophyll-a with minimum chlorophyll-a levels in May is in agreement with observations made at the Sebastian and St.Lucie Inlets (Gibson, 1975).A significant positive correlation between chlorophyll-a and temperature was observed at bottom stations in March, indicating an increase in chlorophyll-a levels with increasing temperature (Table D-21).The trichromatic chlorophyll analysis allows one to measure chlorophylls-a,-5, and-c separately.

Assessment of these various chlorophylls is important, since some algal divisions contain chloro-phylls-a and-b as primary photosynthetic pigments, while other groups contain chlorophylls-a and-c.Chlorophyll-b concentrations were quite low.This pigment ranged from 0.0 to 0.44 mg/m3 at the surface and from 0.0 to 1.16 mg/m3 at the bottom at offshore stations (Table D-22).Stations 2 and 4 exhibited lowest chlorophyll-b levels, and levels were highest at Station 0.Concentrations were higher on the bottom than at surface stations.This trend was the'same in the intake and, discharge canals, and chlorophyll-a levels were comparable to those offshore.Levels in the discharge canal were higher than those in the intake.Chlorophyll-a concentration D-19

was higher in March and July through November with a maximum in October and minimum in June.Chlorophyll-c concentration ranged from 0.02 to 4.49 mg/ms at the surface and from 0.24 to 3.95 mg/ms on the bottom at the offshore stations (Table D-22).Values were generally slightly greater on the bottom than on;the surface.Seasonally, values were larger in March and from September through November, with maximum levels observed in October.Average chlorophyll-c concentration was lowest in June, again reflecting the seasonal distribution in phyto-plankton abundance.

Station 3 was lowest in chlorophyll-c, with the greatest concentration at Station.0.Chlorophyll-c was greater in the intake and discharge canals than at offshore stations.Levels were higher in'he intake canal than in the discharge canal.Phaeopigments are products'f chlorophyll degradation.

Measure-ment of phaeopigment concentration can provide an index to the phy-siological or growth state of algal populations.

Phaeopigments may result from zooplankton grazing and from death and decomposition of algal cells.Phaeopigment levels at the offshore stations ranged from 0.0 to 1.21 mg/m at surface stations and from 0.0 to 3.41 mg/ms at bottom stations (Table D-16).Average concentration of phaeopigments on the bottom was 2.4 times greater than that observed D-20

at the surface.This is a typical distribution, since dead phyto-plankters sink'nd thus tend to concentrate at the bottom of the water column.Phaeopigment levels were highest at Stations 0 and 5 and lowest at Stations 2 and 4.Seasonally, phaeopigments were highest in March and October and lowest in May.This trend reflects periods of high and low phytoplankton density.Phaeopigment levels in the intake canal ranged from 0.0 to 0.69 mg/m~and'from 0.0 to 1.41 mg/m in the discharge canal.The surface to bottom trend of increasing phaeopigment levels was typical of that observed at offshore stations.Phaeopigment concen-tration was sli'ghtly greater in the discharge canal, but levels in the canals were generally lower than those observed offshore.The largest increase in phaeopigment concentration between intake and discharge canals corresponded.to the period of greatest AT.Carotenoids are accessory pigments which aid in algal photo-synthesis.

The highest offshore carotenoid values were observed at Station 0 and the lowest at Station 3 (Table D-22).Offshore values ranged from 0.72 to 10.10 m-SPU/ms at the surface and from 0.68 to 10.96 m-SPU/ms at'the bottom.i Bottom values were generally higher than surface values.Peak carotenoid levels were observed in October with high values in March, September, and November.The lowest concentrations occurred in May.Intake and discharge canal D-21 f P I' concentrations were greater than those observed offshore.Carotenoids were higher in the intake than in the discharge canal, but differences were variable and carotenoid levels did not appear to be related to plant operation.

Gross primary productivity was calculated from active chloro-/phyll-a and light data.The total curve of Ryther and Yentsch (1957)was used for photosynthetic rate with an assimilation rate of 3.7 g carbon/hr/g chlorophyll.

Productivity ranged from 0.14.to 1.39 g C/mz/day (Table D-23).The average productivity at Station 1 was lowest with greatest productivity observed at Station 4 (Figure D-16).Seasonally, productivity was highest in July and lowest in May.This difference was statistically significant (Table D-24).'t Seasonal'variance in organic production has been documented in temperate and higher latitudes.

Regularly recurring cycles of an apparently seasonal nature have been observed in tropical seas (Steven, 1971).Thus, seasonal variance in productivity could be expected in the St.Lucie Plant area, which could be classified as a subtropical environment.

Low productivity in May was consistent with the observed minimum in phytoplankton density and active chlorophyll-a levels.However, maximum productivity was observed in July, while maxima for both phytoplankton density and active chlorophyll-a were observed in October.Due to zero light trans-mittance readings on the bottom in October, productivity data were D-22

available only for Stations 2 and 4.Productivity levels at these two stations, however, were lower than those recorded in July.The October productivity levels may have been reduced by high turbidity and reduced light penetration at the time samples were collected.

This lack of correspondence between the observed maxima for chloro-phyll-a and productivity values may reflect a lag period between high productivity levels and resulting high phytoplankton densities.

Interstation trends in productivity were not clearly evident.All stations generally exhibited minimum productivity in May.However, maximum-productivsty occurred at Station 0 in June.Station 1 exhibited almost equal productivity maxima in June and August.Maximum productivity at Station 5 occurred in September and productivity was also high at Station 4.A highly significant negative correlation between productivity and temperature was observed in June and corresponded with maximum recorded temperature increase between intake and discharge (Table D-25).A trend in decreasing productivity with increasing temperature cannot be established.from these data, since the relationship between temper-ature and productivity varied during other months and both May and July collections were madeduring an observed plant-generated thermal increment.

0-23 Species composition and density data for the November collection were not available for analysis at this writing.Since species analysis was completed before submission of this interim report, the species composition and density data for November have been included in the appendix (Table H-145)with a sugary table in the text (Table D-9).

SUMMARY

The most important components of the phytoplankton were diatoms.The diatom skeletonema costatum was the most important phytoplankter in terms of density and distribution.

Several of the more abundant species fell into general distribution categories:

1)more fre-quently observed offshore, 2)more frequently observed in the intake and discharge canals, and 3)observed, only at offshore stations.Many species exhibited a general shift in abundance from offshore in March to the intake/discharge canals during the May to August period, returning to greater offshore abundance in September.

Phytoplankton densities and pi,gments tended to be greater on the bottom and, except for phaeopigments, at the intake and discharge stations.The greatest increase in phaeopigments between intake and discharge corresponded with the highest observed aT.Chlorophyll-a levels were also greater in the intake than in the discharge canal.However, average chlorophyll-a concentrations in the canals were higher than those observed offshore and phaeopigment levels tended to be higher 1 offshore than in the canals.This situation indicates a physiologically healthy, actively growing phytoplankton community in the canals during this interval of the study.D-24 I I Statistically significant interstation differences in phyto-plankton density, chlorophyll-a, and productivity between intake and discharge stat'ions were not observed..

Chlorophyll-a was significantly greater at Station 1 (closest to the outfall)than at Station 3 (farthest offshore from the outfall).The higher concentrations of active chlorophyll-a observed at Station 1 may reflect an enrich-ment of the immediate vicinity due to the influx of discharge water, which exhibited higher average chlorophyll-a values than those observed offshore.Phytoplankton density, chlorophyll-a, and productivity exhibited statistically significant differences between months.Seasonally, phytoplankton density, chlorophylls, carotenoids, and phaeopigments exhibited maxima in October.Productivity levels were maximum in July, perhaps reflective of a lag between high pro-ductivity and resulting high phytoplankton densities.

Minima for the above parameters were observed in May or June.Lower phytoplankton densities and chlorophyll, carotenoid, and phaeopigment levels were generally observed at Stations 2, 3, and 4.The highest offshore values were generally observed at Stations 0 and'1.Productivity tended to be higher at Station 4 and lower at Station 1.Productivity exhibited a highly significant negative correlation with temperature in June.Although this corresponded with the highest observed hT, the relationship between I temperature and productivity varied during other months, and D-25 both May and July collections were made during an observed plant-generated thermal increment.

Interstation differences in productivity 1 were not statistically significant.

Notable trends in the relation-ship between phytoplankton density and temperature and between chlorophyll-a and temperature were not evident.Trends indicating plant effects on phytoplankton could not be substantiated because strong statistical evidence was lacking and partly because plant operation was intermittent during this period of the study.Seasonal influences appeared to be stronger than any plant-related effects.D-26 I

LITERATURE CITED Allen, W.E.1930.Methods in quantitative research on marine microplankton.

Bull.Scripps Inst.Oceanogr: 2(8):319-329.

APHA.1971.Standard methods for the examination of water and waste-water, 13th ed.American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.874 pp.Braarud, T.1957.Counting methods for determination of the standing crop of phytoplankton.

Cons.Internat.Explor.Mer.144:17.Environmental Protection Agency.1973.Biological field and labora-tory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents.

EPA 670/4-73-001.

National Environmental Research Center, Cinn.'ibson, R.A.1975.Phytoplanktonic and hydrochemical variations in the Indian River system including an inventory of.pollution sources.Pages 14-45 zn D.K.Young, ed.Indian River coastal zone study, second annual report.Harbor Branch Consortium, Fort Pierce, Fla.180 pp.(unpublished manuscript).

Fox, J.L., and M.S.Moyer.1973.Some effects of a power plant on marine microbiota.

Chesapeake Science 14(l):1-10.

Knight, R.L.1973.Entt ainment and thermal shock effects on phytoplankton numbers and diversity.

Univ.North Carolina.ESE Publ.No.336.72 pp.Littleford, R.A., C.L.Newcombe, and B.B.Shepherd.1940.An experimental study of certain quantitative plankton methods.Ecology 21(3):309-322.

Menhinick, E.F., and L.D.Jensen.1974.Pages 120-138~L.D.Jensen, ed.to thermal discharges from Marshall Norman, North Carolina.Report No.Plankton populations.

Environmental responses Steam Station, Lake 11.235 pp.Morgan, R.P., II, and R.G.Stross.1969.Destruction of phyto-plankton in the cooling water supply of steam electric station.Chesapeake Science 10:165-171.

Patrick, R.1969.Some effects of temperature on freshwater algae.Pages 161-185 zn P.A.Krenkel and F.L.Parker, eds.Biological aspects of thermal pollution.

Vanderbilt Univ.Press., 407 pp.~D-27 LITERATURE CITED continued Patrick, R.1974.Effects of abnormal temperatures on algal communities.

Pages 335-349 in J.W.Gibbons and R.R.Sharitz, eds.Thermal ecology.Technical Information Center, Office of Information Services.U.S.Atomic Energy Commission.

670 pp.Reid, G.K.1961.Ecology of inland waters and estuaries.

Reinhold, New York.719 pp.Ryther, J.H., and C.S.Yentsch.1957.Estimation of phytoplankton production in the ocean from chlorophyll and light data.Limnol.and Oceanogr.2:281-286.

Simmons, G.M., Jr., B.J.Armitage, and J.C.White.'974.

An ecological evaluation of heated water discharge on phyto-plankton blooms in the Potomac River.Hydrobiologia 45(4):441-465.

Steven, D.M.=1971.Production cycles in tropical waters.Pages 527-529 in Symposium on investigations and resources of the Caribbean Sea and adjacent regions.Unesco, Place de Fontenoy, Paris-7.545 pp.Strickland, J.D.H., and T.R.Parsons.-1972.A practical handbook of seawater analysis.Fish.Res.Bd.Canad.Ottawa, Bulletin No.167.310 pp.Unesco.1966.Determination of photosynthetic pigments in sea-water.United Stations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

Place de Fontenoy, Paris-7.69 pp.Warinner, J.E., and M.C.Brehmer.1966.The effects of thermal effluents on mqring organisms.

Air and Water Poll.Int.J.10:277-289.

Whitford, L.C.1960.Ecological distribution of fresh-water algae.Pages 2-10 in 0.A.Tryon, Jr., and R.T.Hartman, eds.The ecology of algae.Spec.Publ.No.2.Pymatuning Laboratory of Field Biology, Univ.of Pittsburgh, Pa.96 pp.Willen, T.1962.Studies on the phytoplankton of some lakes connected or recently isolated from the Baltic.Oikos 13:169-199.

Utermohl, H.1958.Zur vervollkommung der quantitativen phytoplankton-methodik.Mitt.Int.Ass.Theor.Appl.Limnol.9.38 pp., D-28 INDI AN RIVER ATLANTIC OCEAN 05 ST, LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA PLAN['270 20 9000 9000 9000 I 9000 SCALP.N FCCT INDIAN RIVER HUTCHINSON ISLAND 800 IO FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT LOCATIONS OF PHYTOPLANKTON SAMPLING STATIONS 1976 NARCH I977 APPLICO BIOLOGY, INC.FIGURE U I 0-29 I/O OTIC VALVC INTAKE WATCN fLOWr L WATCN fLOW I~lv RESERVOI R Ilr OATC VALVCq IC VOLT INKCLLCN fVUO a TONAAOC e O O r r A V'OALA Figure D-2.Pump design for whole water sample collections at the St;Lucie Plant, 1976.

1 6.0 7.0 Temperature data points connected for visual continuity only 32.0 3 I.O 30.0 29.0 28.0 2?.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 2 I.O Cl 0 L'I I 5.0 4.5 O 4.0 X 4I I 3.5 EL g 3.0 I.5 I.O 0.5 II 12 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS I I I2 0 I BOTTOM STATIONS 2 3 4 5 Figure D-3.Phytoplankton density and temperature, St.Lucie Plant, 26 March 1976.D-31 Temperature data points connected for visual continuity only 5.0 40 O 3 5 3.0)2.5 2.0 32.0 3 ISO 30.0 29.0 2 B.O 2'F.O 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 2 I.O EJ 0 0: X LU I I.5 I.O 0.5 II I2 0 I 2 SURFACE STATIONS 3 4 5 I I I 2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS Figure D-4.Phytoplankton density and temperature, St.Lucie Plant, 21 April 1976.D-32 5.0 45 Temperature data points connected f'o r visuaI continuity only 32.0 3 I.O 30.0 29.0 28.0 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 2 I.O O 0 IL'Ul I 4.0 O 35 2.5 2.0 I.5 IE I.O 0.5 II I2 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS II I2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS Figure D-5.Phytoplankton density and temperature, St.Lucie P1ant, 12 May 1976.D-33 I I 2hmperature data points connected for visual continuity only 36.0 35.0 50 29.0 26.0 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 2 I.O O 0 IL'LU I 4.5 m g 2.5 5 8 2.0 I.5 I.O 0.5 I I l2 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATCNS II I2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS Figure D-6.Phytoplankton density and temperature, St.Lucie Plant, 8 June 1976.D-34 I I l Temperature data points connected for visual conti nui ty only 5.0 4.5 4.0 O 3.5 X I 3.0 32.0 3I.O 30.0 29.0 28.0 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 2 I.O O 0 0: X 4l I 25 o 2.0 I.O 0.5 II I2 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS I I I 2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS Figure D-7.Phytoplankton density and temperature, St.Lucie Plant, 14 July 1976.0-35 Temperature data points connected for visual continuity only 7.0 5.0 4.5 o 4.0 X 35 3.0 2.5 8)a.o (576)32.0 31.0 30.0 29.0 2 8.0 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 2 I.O O 0 0: X UJ I I.O 0.5 II 12 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS II I2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS Figure D-8.Phytoplankton density and temperature, 5t.Lucie Plant, ll August 1976.D-36 Temperature data points connected for visual continui ty only 7.0 5.0 45 O 4.0 5" 3.5 g 3.0 23 I 5 2.0 IE 1.5 32.0 31.0 30.0 29,0 28.0 27.0 28.0 25.0 24,0 22.0 21.0 O 0 IL'4I I I.O 0.5 II I 2 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS II I2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATONS Figure D-9.Phytoplankton density and temperature, St.Lucie Plant, 14 September 1976.D-37 Temperature data points connected for visual continui ty only IO.O 90 8.0 32.0 3 I.O 30.0 29,0 28.0 27.0 28.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 2 I.O O 0 II" X III I-70 50 O 45 X 4.0 g 35 J 2.0 (5.87)(6.48)05 I I I 2 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS II I2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS Figure D-10.Phytoplankton density and temperature, St.Lucie Plant, 15 October 1976.D-38

!00 MARCH 80 60 40 20 I z II 4I C>IL'I I4 4l I<IOO 4I IZ 80 12 0 I'SURFACE STATIONS 4 5 APRIL l2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS 60 40 20 l2 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS LEGEND~BACILL'ARIOPHYTA

~PYRRHOPHYTA

~CHLOROPHYTA

~UNIDENTIFIED PHYTOFLAGELLATES

~OTHERS Figure D-ll.Phytoplankton percentage composition at the St.Lucie.Plant, 26 March and 21 April 1976.

MAY 80 60 40 20 I I I 2 0 I 2 3 4 SURFACE STATIONS JUNE l2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS<IOO 20 0 I2 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS l2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS~N~BACILLARIOPHYTA

~PYRRHOPHYTA

~CHLOROPHVTA

~UNIOENTIFIEO PHYTOFLAGELLATES

~OTHERS~HAPTOPHYCEAE

~W+~'cP PRASINOPHYCEAE Figure 0-12.Phytop1ankton percentage composition at the St.Lucie P1ant, 12 Hay and 8 June 1976.

100 80 60 40 20 I 0 I2 0 I 2 SURFACE STATIONS 4 5 AUGUST 12 0 I 2 3 4 BOTTOM STATIONS I e IOO CL'0 60 40 20 0 l2 0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS l2 V 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS~GN 0~BACILLARIOPHYTA

~PYRRHOPHYTA

~CHLOROPHYTA

~UNIDENTIFIED PHYTOFLAGELLATES

~OTHERS~CRYPTOPHYTA Figure D-13.Phytoplankton percentage composition at the St.Lucie Plant, 14 July and 11 August 1976.

IOO SEPTEMBER 80 60 40 20 X I I 12 bl<IOO r g 0 I 2 3 4 SURFACE STATIONS OCTOBER 12 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS 60 40 20 l2 A.0 I 2 3 4 5 SURFACE STATIONS l2 0 I 2 3 4 5 BOTTOM STATIONS~N~BACILLARIOPHYTA

~PYRRHOPHYTA

~CHLOROPHYTA

~UNIDENTIFIED PHYTOFLAGELI.ATES

~OTHERS EEEEEI CRYPTOPHYTA

~Xi~'RASINOPHYCEAE Figure 0-14.Phytoplankton percentage composition at the St.Lucie P1ant, 14 September and 18 October 1976.

I 0.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 STA.0~n\l I l\I\I 0.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 STA.4 h ,h I I M A M J J A S 0 N 0 IO.O STA.I, I 0.0 M A M J J A S 0 N 0 STA.5 8.0 6.0 E E 4.0/\I 8.0 6.0 4.0 I'\I I I I 2.0 I 0.0 8.0 O 6.0 O 4.0 2.0 STA.2/s I I 2.0 30.0 20.0 I 0.0 4.0 2.0 STA.I I h I I I IO.O 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 STA.3 ,r;/!4.0 I I.O 9.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 STA.I2 h I'l I I I I I l M A M J J A S 0 N D M A M J J A S 0 N D L EGEND>>---->>SURFACE BOTTOM Figure D-15.Active chlorophyll-a concentration at the St.Lucie Plant, March-December 1976 collections.

D-43 I 1, I I I I 5 l I I l.4 l.2 I.O 0.8 0 O N 0.4 o 0.2 STA.0'.O 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 STA.3 5 l.O P O 0.8 0.6 0.4 D O o 0.2 K O.M A M J J A S 0 STA.I"'.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 M A M J J A S 0 STA.4 l.o o 0.8 g O.6 0.4 STA.2',.l.4 STA.5 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 M A M J J A S 0 LEGEND,~~DATA NOT AVAlLABLE M A M J J A S 0 Figure D-16., Gross primary productivity at the St.Lucie Plant, March-October 1976.1 p-44 I I'1 1 TABLE 0-1 PHYTCPLAIXTOI OENSITT ANO PERCENTAGE CCHPOSITION b ST.LVCIE PLAWT 26 HARCH 1976 Taxon ta't on a I 3 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 3,736.226.8'99)*Pyrrhophy ta (dinoflagell ates)18,462.2 12.789.3 2.845.0 0)(<I)(<<I)2,127.4 (<I).Chlorophyta (green algae)25,528.4 (<<I)Cyanophyta (blue green algae)Euglenophyta (euglenoids)

Cryptophyta (cryptophytes) 4,254.8 41,128.9 19.855.4 (<I)(2)0)2.127.4 (<I)Xanthophyta (xanthophytes)

Chrysophyceae (yeller-brown algae and silicoflagellates)

Haptophyceae (haptophytes including coccolithophores)

Bac'illariophyta (dia'tons) 3~598~3>041~2 303 237.8 148.'7'38.6 (98)(99)" (96)138, 753, 1,244.1,329, 286.8 880 3 447.8 892>1 (50), (95)(88)"" (93)".3>950>2>828>679.4.768.7{94)'93)16.073.4'1.141.6 (<I)0)2,319, ,".-795.2" (90)3.864, 863.2 (94)425.5 614.6 (<I)133.683.3 15>789 8 (48)(2)26,946.8 (2)11.396.0 0)39,723.3 (2)38.292.5 0)187.5 (<I)1.418.3 (<I)3.488.9 13,851.5 2.836.5 0)(2)(<<I)5,673.0 (<I)7,091.2 (<<I)95>022.1 60>984.4 165>934~I 205>172.0 134>732.7 172>316 I (7)(4)(6)(5)(4)(4)4,348'37,1 (94), 39.710.8 0)3.058.2.456.6.555.286.0 698.6 433.4,, (93)=(89)(9))4.018.4 46.802.0 14.182.4>'<I)(2)'<I)190.044.1 224,791.0 168,061.4 567,295.7 (4)(7)(6)(8)62.5 (<I)5.673.0 (<I)6.382.I (<I)Prasinophyceae (prasinophytes) 25.528.3 8,509.5 (<I)(<I)9.927.8 (<I)127.7 (<I)1.560.1 19.855.4 (<<I)(<'I)2,826.5 11.346.0 (<I)(<I)2.127.4 (<I)Unidentified phytoflagell ates 14.182.5 17,019.1 38,292.5 21,273.7 (<I)0)(2)0)808.4 9,738.6 28,364.8 18,437.1 35.456.0 11,345.9 30,492.0 41.838.0 (<I)0)(2)0)0)(<I)0)0)42,547.3 16.546.3 57,438.7 85,094.4 0)0)(2)0)Other Total phytoplankton 3,681, 3,083, 974.4 719.6 1.418.3 (<<I)2.395.3.781~276.795, 1,418, 1,424, 2,572, 4.188.3,035, 4,124, 632.5 610.8 819.3 434.9 891.4 963.6 254.6 943.9 321~6 401~I 4,626.312.1 12.764.2 (<I)3,303>2>750>7>222>704.2 274.2 005.9 Values are expressed as cells per liter and represent the nean of two replicates.

Percentage values are given in parentheses.

S.Surface: 8~Button.

I f I I'l 1 TABLE 0-2 PHYTCPLANKTON DENSITY AND PERCEMTAOE COMPOSITION ST.LVCIE PUWT 21 APRIL 1916 tst on sn 3 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 B Bsclllarlophyts (dlstoms)1>436 1>914~1>038>1>>349.892.3 317.4 425.6 685.4 (83)-(85), (80)'87)I>>729>>2>592>>1>965>>3>>658~903>>2>>222>431~=I>622~l>>318>>216.1, 560.6 228.3 539.8.972.7 643.0, 724.4 949.1 486.6 (91).(92)'88)(88), (92)(85)'.(88);(91)(90)Pyrrhophyta (dine(lagellates) 18>720.9 39>727~6 23>233.3 15>>372.0 (I)(2), (2)-(I)11,514.0,6.390.6 14,891~5 27>>443.I 13,051.3 21>982.8 (I)(<I).(I)(I)(I).(I)7,968.7'2)32.822.1 (1)6.854.9 (<I)-.102,113.2 (6)16>>090.3 (I)56,256.9 (4)Cysnophyta (blue-green algae)Euglenophyta (euglenolds) cryptophyts (cryptophytes)

Kanthophyta (xsnthophytes) 1,560.1 (<I)ChrySoPhyceae (yells>>>-bro>n algae and slllcoflsgellates)

Hsptophycese (haptophytes Including coccollthophores) 50.0 (<I)1.329.6 (<I)313.9 (<I)3,782.0 (<<I)62.5 (<I)62.5 (<I)44.5 (<I)183.4 (<<I)7,091.2 283~7 (<I)(<<I)632.5 (<I)3,782.0 (<I)Chlorophyta (green algae)173.167.0 150,333.4 107.153.4 12,261.6 123.859.7 176,510.9 116,510.8 336.)22.8 44.816.4 190,044.1 (I 0)(6)(8)(5)(1)(6)(8)(8)(5)(1)2,219, 250.8 (91)5,654.0 (<I)95.541.6 (4)553.2.421.948.8 391.S (80)(9t)29,130.8 19.18S.O (4)'I)52,002.I 105,658.8 (8)(4)88.6 116.7 (<I)(<<I)P rat Inophyceae (praslnophytes)

Untdenttffed phytoflagellates 17,160.8 8,509.S 30.226.3 4.812.4 2.363.8 7.800.4 ll,891.5 8,509.5 (I)(<I)(2)(<I)(<I)(<I)(I)(<1)851.0 l.491.1 14,182.4 (<I)(<I)(<I)14,820.7 (2)2,836.5 (<'I)93>>603 9 141>>824 0 96>>174 5 107>>603.2 26>>473.9 45>>383.7 55>>311.4 117>>241 2 22>691~9 161>679.3 10.602.2 49>>638.4 56>>729.6 111,934.9 37.441.6 98.561.6 (5)(6)(7)(7)(I)(2)(2)(3)(2)(6)(2)(3)(4)(5)(5)(4)Other 2.127.4 (<I)5>>956.6 (I)4,491.2 2>836.5 (<I)(<I)14,182.4 (I)4,420.2 3.545.6 (I)(<I)Total phytoplankton 1.741, 2.314.104.0 760.4 l>296'>>549'>>903>>2>>828>>2>226'>>150>>9Sl>2>603>490>>l>>790>>I.528>, 541.6 193.6 58).2 768.7 956.1 028.3 531.5 623.8 840.7 538.0 364.5 2,446.69'I, 2,651.563.1 852.8 311.0 Valves are expressed as cells per liter and represent the mean of t>>o repl Testes.Percentage values sre given ln parentheses.

S~Surface: 8~Bottom.

~i'l 5 1 TABLE 0 3 PHTTOPIARKT{yi DEHSITT ARO PERCEHTAGE CCHPOSIZ IIXI ST.LUCIE PLAIN 12 HAT 1916 tatxon a tn 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 Bacillariophyta (diatons)157.081.1 (29)-Pyrrh'ophyta (dinof1agel1 ates)=.63.348.1 (12).chlorophyta (green algae)64.529.9 (12)Cyanophyta (blue-green 419ae)Euglenophyta (euglenoids) cryptophyta (cryptophytes) xanthophyta

{xanthophytes)

Chrysophyceae (yellow<-bro>>>>n algae and silicoflagellates) 81.297.0'8.003.4 49.091.4 P)~{7)-(1)205.644.7 143.951.4 35.622.7 (IS){I3)(5)83.4 41.7 (<I)(-I)76,224.9-(17)41,568.1 (9)51.379.2 30.973.4 32.473.8 ('IO)(3)'-'.(5)59,377.0 211.081~3 198.470.5 (12){23)(29)1,418.3-(<I)1.418.3 1.418.3 (<I)(I)421.1 1>>197.7{<I)(<I)4,727.5 6.854.8 (I)(I)984.0 (<I)421.7 (<I)1.546.2 (<I)576.636.1 220.343.0 161.390.7 99,148.7 154.581.5 136.123.7 140,490.0 (43){21).{25){22)(31)-(15)..-(21)155.433.6 122.011.2 101.633.3 (22)(18)(22)42,1)6'I 37,819.8 17,798.9 (6)(6)(4)99.513.1 96.440.3 86.51Z.6 (Ia)(14)(19)2,600.1 6,618.5 3,403.8 (<11, (I)(I)148.037.8 210,328.4 (23)(35)26>>494.6 23,961.5.(4)"(4)102.428.4 120,795.7 (16)(20)I 82.S26.5 (23)39,685.0 (5)140,499.3{IS)945.5 , (<I)1,265.1 (<I)209.738.6 IN.396.9 (28)~{20)19,825.1 23.435.3.(3)(4)'76,715.8 166,S2S.S (31)(25)709.1 (>>I)709.1 (.I)Haptophyceae (haptophytes Including coccolithophores) 6S 239 0 81 548 8 31 910 3 45 667 4 6)025 3 11)3)6)72 330 2 109 215 3 57>>438 7 83>>203 4 51>>226 8 66'84 5 90>>592 4 90>>912 0 60>>84S 2 59 SSZ 5 (12)(6)(3)(7)(13)(22)(8)(16)(8), (12){Il)(10)(15){12)(8)(9)Prasinophyceae (prasinophytes)

Unidentified phytoflagell ates Other Total phytoplantton 5,852.0 32>>505.8 16>>251'34>>574 at{I)(4)(2)(5)140>>470.0 286,988.1 162>>038 6 245>>912.5{24){37){22)(31)333.995 4 525>>457.8 313.714.6 109.111~2 84>>968.4 404.610.9 (25)(49)(48)(24)(It)(44)143.951.3 (27)6.382.2 (I)542, 375.1 335.177.2 322,413.2 184,030.9 (41)(47)(40)79.557.1 (12)20 F 100.2 (3)276.399.1{44)1.515.9 (<I)3.309.2 (<I)945.5 (<I)4,963.9 0)630.4 (<'I)498.310.3 11.346.0{I)1,332, 715.3 4.964.0 14.749.7 (<I)(2)1.012.656.455.706.3 018.0 910.6 7,676.8{I)567.3 (<I)3,156.1 (<I)945.5{<I)1,721.2 (<I)778>>753>>664>>782.8 094.1 169.8 926'79>>117>>'84>>45S>>=.631>>592>>321.9 121.4 098.4 644.9 505.)836.0 945.7 41,838.I 36.165.2 65,239.0 34,321.5 68,042.3 30,192.8 59,329.7 96.283.8 21.510.0 15.127.9 13,331.2 11,345.9 (8)(3), (6)(5)(15)(6)(6)(14)(3)(2)(3)(2)Talues are expressed as cells per Tiler and represent the eean of t<o replicates.

b Percentage values are given in parentheses.

c 5 Surfacet 8 gotten.

l l I TABLE 0-4 PNYTOPLANKTON KNSITT ANO PERCENTAGE CONPOSITION ST.LOCI'LANT 8 JIXIE 1976 tat on a t 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 S 8 5 8 Baclllarlophyta (dla toes)1,469, 1.281, 874.3 739.2 (66)(68)Iyrrhophyta (dlnoflagellateS)

'3.190.2 15.475.5 0)(I)=Chlorophyta (green algae)113~147.8.137,790.7 (5)(7)cyanophyta (blue-green a19ae)13.9 (<<I)Euglennphyta (euglenOIdS) 2.631.4 (<I)Crytophyta (crytophytes) 2.150.2<<547~2<<064.2<672.362.9 242,7 582.3 707.4-(65)" (78)'" (88)(74).34<<619 9 16<<446 0 8.564 4.'0s440 0..(I)(I)~(<'I)'I)197,350.8 141.434.7 51.311.2 269.599.9 (6)(4)(2)(7)2.741.0 3,289.2 (<I)(<I)2,741.0 6.578.4 (<<I)(<I)2.461<<3.479., 1+026<<l<<032~~424.4 906.1 243.4 572.4 (87)(87)(70)-(86)5.262.8 26.960.0 29,593.3.10,533.9 (<'I)(I)(2)(I)80.233.5 102.448.0 100,838.1 44.732.9 (3)(3)(7)(4)16.7 (<<'I)2,631.4 (<I)213.481, 534, 246...739<1.861.544.8 956.1 118:3 906;3-'91.6 (76)(74)(82)(86)'82)-(88).5,270.4 6.620.4 (2)(I)5.271.2',824.6 17,159.5 (I)(I)(2)1,265.I (<I)657.0 (<I)1,315.7 (<I)3,373.5 (<I)18,403.8 50.918.7 17,761.6 11,528.8 58.754.2 73,173.4 (7)(8)(3)(4)(7)(3)<<<<~<<Xanthophyta (Xanthophytes)

Chrysophyceae (yellow-brim algae and slllcoflagellates)

Haptophyceae (haptophytes Including coccolithophores) 10.525.4 (<I)Praslnophyceae (praslnophytes) 2,811.2 (<I)5,622.4 (<I)2,741.0 (<1)13.480.0 (<I)2,741.0 6.578.4 13,480.0 (<'I)(<I)(<I)3.289.2 13,156.8 (<<I)(I)5.392.0 (<<I)2,875.8 (<I)5<<751.5 (<I)5.392.0 16'76.0 2,875.8 (<I)(<<I)(<<I)3,947.0 (<I)1.971.9 (I)1,314.9 3,285.I (<I)(I)3,289.2 (I)Unt dent I fled phytoflagellates 623i628 4 444<)70 I 932<482 4 549<<293 I 203<<271'566<159.9 255<<020.8 388<<223.9 285e353~8 103<938 I 37.475.5 108<<407'88<<150.1 (28)(23)(28)(17)(9)(16)(9)(10)(19)(9)(13)(17)(14)1,265.1 (<I)1.686~7 (<I)809 I 12<369 3 20<<714 8 (<<I)(I)(I)25,484.8 66,625.5 164,610.0 (9)(7)(8)Other Total phytoplankton 10.525.4 (<I)2,811.2 (<1)2,243, 1,890.521.4 434.3 6.578.4 7.236.2 26.960.0 10.654.7 (<I)(<<I)(1)(<I)-12<<574.3 3<<947.1 (I)(<'I)3,325." 3,280.2.348, 3.602.2,823, 4,013, 1,466, 1,202.780.0 730.1 122.5 826.5 378.6 714.0 104.3 317.7 3,946.2 0)282.582.2 651, 649.286.899, 2,122, 185.8 906.5'53.6 060.3-860.6 a Values are expressed as cells per liter and represent the sean of tuo repllcates.

b Percentage values are given In parentheses.

5~Surface: 8~Sutton.

l TABLE D 5 PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE CONPOSITION ST.LVCIE PUNT 14 JVLY 1976 Taxon'tat on an t 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 Cryptophyta (cryptophytes) 68,540.1 (4)xanthophyta (xanttophytes)

Chrysophyccae (yello>>-br<a>n algae and silicoflagellates) 37,779.1 (2)Haptophyccae (haptophytes including coccol I\hophores)

Bacillariophyta (dlatons)354.123.5 357.040.5 (21)*(23)Pyrrhophyta

.~(dinoflagellates)

-tl82.773.5 45.320.0 (11)'3)Chlorophyta (green algae)97,098.5 109.455.1 (6)<7)Cyanophyta (blue-green algae)25.0 (I)Euglenophyta (cog 1enoids)382.769.5 (17)57.116.7 (3)102,810.1 (5)426.755.0 406.393.5 601.597.3 (20)." (30)~(39)7;615.6>41.885.6 68.017.6 (I).<3)'4)121.849.1 80.725.0 102.287.5 (6)<6)(7)16.754.2 33.3 (11 (<I)4,188.6 (<I)7.615.6 (<I)4,18S.6 3,807.8 (<<I)<<I)4>188.6 (<<))28,558.4 15,231.I 40.743.3 109,679.I<I)(I)(3)(7)37.246.0 25,374.6 (3)(2)49.341.5 54.210.6 20,625.6<6)(6)<2)30,145.0<2)97.579.0 Sl>742 2 172.143.5 136>445.6 IOS>402.7 101>398.2 (11)(8)(13)(9)(9)(8)62>717.7<6)36>467.7 (3)589,291.3 292,764.2 578.323.9 (55)(16);(58)30.703.1 71,078.8 64,732.2<3)-(4).P)24,015.4 172.619.5 15,231.I (2)(9)<2)5,847.5 (I)1,072.0 (<I)2.168.4 15,072.5 14.279.2 13,897.8 (<I)(I).(I)(I)2,668.4 (<<I)8.3 15,231.I (<I)(I)2,538.5 (<I)4>002.6 69>822 5 102>732 4 71>078.7 30>462 3 (<<I)P)(10)<4)(3)2,192.8<<I)1,072.0 2.379.9 (<<I)(<I)2,379.9 (<I)I>586.6 (<I)3.557.9 1,334.2 (<<I)<<I)3.807.8 (<I)3.807.8 (<'I)94.729.8 105>789.1 482,813.3 601,197.4 699,493.0 803,224.6 660,175,2 (11)(11)(36)(37)(55)*(59)(62)Prasinophyccac (prasinophytes)

Vni dent I f I ed phytof)agellates Other Total phytoplantton 976.968.696.3 670.1<57)(61)5~711.7 (<<I)7>615.6<<I)1,713, 1,582, 502.0 350.6 28.558.3 56,444.8 (2)(4)102,810.7 (5)1,507, 1,538, 753.628, 882~I 344.3 560.3 433.5 (69)(72)<55)(41)11.804.1 (<I)3.807.8 (<I)11,423.3 (I)578, 895.5 (67)12.791.2 (2)2>193, 2,125.1,372, 1,536, 860, 370.6 026.3 809.0 628.0 381.5 688, 047.6 (71)5.067.8 (I)967, 992.6 613, 810, 211.8 740.5 (46)(50)1,586.6 3,173.I (<I)(<I)l>326>l>613'78.2 433.2 351, 891.9 (28)6.115.0 (<I)1,269>858.0 401, 213, 304.1,185, 274.590.3 470.0 194.7 489.8 160.4 (30)(20)(29)(65)(2S)889.5 (<I)1,334.2 (<I)1,359, I 061~605.8 776.6 1.334.2 7.615.6 (<I)(<I)7.615.6 (I)1,068.1,836.989, 289.6 185.5 564.3 7>61S 6 8.377 2 18>964 3 19.004.2 28.823~0 15.865-8 15>865.8 52.811~5 20>012.8 14>676 0 14>676.0 Il>769.7 11>423~3 (I)(I)(I)(2)(3)(I)(I)(4)<2)(I)(I)(I)(I)Yalues are expressed as cells per liter and represent the rean of three repifcates.

Percentage values arc given in parentheSes.

5~Sur face: 8-Botsoa.

TABLE 0-6 PRTTOPEAvKTow DENS ITT'RO PERCOITAGE Oyd OSIT IN ST.tVCIE PlAIT 11 AUGVST 1976 5 8 tat ona t 5 8 5.8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 105, 168~348.9 771.2 07)06)329 s 463.606.717 s 460.2 901.2.252.7 894.4 09).(42)-02)(56)152>>320>>123, 155>>: 539.3 300.6 588.4 089.9-(20)(Tg)09)""08)&aclllariophyta (diatons)1.749, 1,725, 1,105.1.280.122.3 251.17..124.0 532.0 (30)(42)-(32){37)Pyrrhophyta

=(dlnof)ageliates) 465,12L9.45,693.l 129.531.3 83,771.3 (8)01 (4)(2)38,116.8 45,700.2 28>>633~3 28>>558.3 (5)(3)(4)'3)37,052.2 11,74l.0 (61 0).27.581:5 74,797.8 (3)"(4)131,639.8 192.123.0 (12)(10)22,697.9 (3)'8.011.5.0)64>040.9 30>>462.2 57>>878 3 45>>693~3 28>>558.4 71>>868.2 (5)(4)(3)(7)(3)(121 67>>2l3.0 (6)Chlorophyta (9reen 419ae)74,25).8 45,693.4 30.462.3 68.540.1 84.053.8 0)0)0)(2)00)401, 042.1'20).91,386.9 (4)154.215.2 (8)514>>s 546.7 (33)36>174.0 (2)53.309.0 (3)cyanophyta (blue-green algae)Euglenophyta (euglenoids)

)5,231.1 (<I)7,615.6 (<I)25.0 (<I)8.3 16.7 (<I)(<I)2.66&.l (<I)37.5 (<\)2.001.3 (<I)25.0 (<I)Cryptophyta (cryptophytes)5&6.398.6 106.6)7.9 167,542.5 106,617.9 45,362.4 71.156.6 186,786.2 100,064.0 27.923.7 I/8,{04.7 19,990.9 19,990.8 37,713.0 140,890.2 39,981.7 41.885.6 00)(3)=(5)*(3)(5)(6)00)(8)(4)02)-(3)(2)(6)03)(2)(3)xanthophyta (xanthophytes)

Chrysophyceae (yel le>>-bro>n algae and stlicoflagel laces)7>>615.6 (<I)1.334.2 (<I)1,778.9 (<I)4.002.5 (<I)2,134.7 13,875.5 (<I)0)itsptophyceae (haptophytes including coccol{thcphores) 15,231.1 15,231.1 15,231.1 53,309.0 (<'I)(<I)(<I)(2)28,558.4 0)2,538.5 12,184.9 2.855.8 (<'I)0)(<I)7,615.6 18,277.3 0)0)5.7'I1.7 0)5,711.7 (<I)Prasinophyceae (prasinophytes)

Unidentified phytof{age llates 9,519.5 (<I)60,924.6 22,846.7 22,681.2 16.010.2 133,418.7 8.005.1 (2)0)(3)0)P)0)17,135.0 11,385.0 22,41 4.3 17,135.0 (2)(2)(2)0)2>>&42, 2>>162>>1>>934>>I>789>>328>>391>>717>>376>>515.1>>011.436>>608, 315>>629>>l>313>>923>>510.1 820.8 353.8 658.1 210.1&06.3 792.7 240.8 320,0 347.2 943.1 293.3 223.9 736.4 685.1 387.4 (49)(53)(56)(52)(39)(35)(37)(29)(67)(60)(66)(70)(52)(60)(64)(59)Other 15,231.I (<I)5>>336.8 6>>226.2 8.005.'I 0)0)(<'I)4.002.6 (<I)12,184.9 0)25.260.6 (4)Total phytoplankton 5.757, 4,101, 3,443, 393.4 307.7 169.6>>3>>435'39'>110'>>921'>294'74'>>675'57'63'05'>>054~2>046~I 575'37.4 161'109.0 861'300.6 516.1 878.1 704.8 337'986.5674.6 029.4 014.4 4 Values are expressed as cells per liter and represent the s>ean of three replicates.

b Percentage values are given in parentheses.

5~Surface;8~Botton.

TABLE 0-7 PNVTOPUWNTON DENSITT ANO PERCENTAGE CONPOSITIONb ST.LVCIE PLANT 14 SEPTENBER 1976 5 8 5 8 tat one t 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 Baclllariophyta (dlatons)1.570.607, 710.6 370<4 (51)(63)510.1 (9)354, 937, 2,315.1.797, 3,491.705, 1,303, 460, 1,091, 779,'I,549~223.8 114.8, 353.8 523.9 689.8 575~3 182.8 060.2 842 3 540 4=590 I (20)~(62)(75)(56)(70)(45)~(64)(33).(46)'43)(65)438.1,505.311.6 574.6, (33)(57)Pyrrhophyta'(dinoflagellates) 14,841.8 , (<I)Chlorophyta (green algae)Cyanophyta (blue-green algae)Euglenophyta (euglenolds) 42.837.6 0)11,423.4 165.663.6 0)'8)13,327.2 0)5.711.7 (<I)11,423.3 0)5.711.7 (<I)5.7I1.7 (<I)62.5 (<<I)125,656.8 22;959.2.(7).(2)10.706.7 (<'I)34,270.0 7,61 5.6 38,077.8 56,017.9 68,043.5 0)(<I)0)(4)(3)28,558.4101,398.2 117,408.4 0)(6)(5)75.0 (<'I)66.7 (<I)333.3 (<I)283.3 (<I)2.667.5 (<I)250.0 (<<I)73.3 (<'I)400.0 (<I)200.0 (<I)400.0 (<I)64>753.3 114>'283 6 38>133.4 29>342 7 12.007.7 33>>541.9 11,448.4 32>045.5 (2)(4)0)(2)0)-(2)'<I)(2)45,734>9 (3)7,615.6 0)191.7 (<I)19>039.0 0)9.519.5 (<I)41.7 (<I)Cryptophyta (cry ptophytes) xanthophyta (xanthophytes)

'12.5 (<<I)314,142.1 19>038.9 342.700.5 382>682 2 79>963.5 78>059 6 152>311.3 114>233~5 136>043.5 116>074~3 57>878 3 74>251.7122>745 2 112.071.7 64,732.3 47,597.3 (10)(2)07)(21)(5)(3)(5)(2)(9)(6)(4)(3)(7)(5)(5)(2)Chrysophyceae (yel lou-broun a Igae and slllcoflagellates) 25,385.P.5,335.0 (\)(<'I)4,002.6 82,248.1 85,675.1 5.336.7 (<I)(6)(4)(<I)Itaptophyceae (haptophytes Including COCCOI lthOphOreS) 42.837.6 0)13,341.9 0)48,030.7 (3)7,615.6 (<I)99>002.4 12>692.6 77>358.1 28>017.9 33>508~5 (3)(<I)(5)0)(2)5,711.7 17,135.0 (<<I)0)3.807.8 (<I)Praslnophyceae (praslnophytes)

Uni dent l fled phytof legal lates 9.519.5 (<<I)10,673.5 60,924.5 (<I)(5)14,279.2 3,807.8 182,773.6 137,080.1 11,423.3 (<I)(<I)(9)(8)0)565>696>l>>018>695 4 824.3 582 0 (24)(52)(39)544, 174.I (35)13,337.6 0)1.056.65).8 1.096.765, 451, 582.1.043.1.269.641.6 364.4 222.4 590.9 332.6 261.I (SS)(42)(30)09)(32)(251 297'16, 725, 1,062, 688>330.5 001.9 371.5 440.6 (251 (521 (45)(38)00).1 Other 5 711.7 f<<l)5,711.7 (<I)13,341.8 26,683.7 15,231.1 0)0)0)3,807.8 (<I)959, 590.4 9,519.5 (<I)Total phytoplankton 2>393~I>329 2 619~229.5 566.0$93.1 1.804~421.0 3,056, 308.7 2>047>1>392>>2>354>>909.3 312.2 547.4 l>987>I>804>>l>514~3>075>3>221>>4>989.1>570~712.8 989.0 181.7 102.6 751.7 806.7 135.0 Values are expressed as cells per I(ter and represent the sean of three repllcates.

Percentage values are given In parentheses.

5~Surface: 8~Botton.

TABLE 0-8 PHTTOPLANKTON DENS)IT AND PERCENTAGE COHPOSIT ION ST.WCIE PtÃIT 15 OCTOBER 1976 Taxcn tat one t 3 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 Bacillariophyta (dlatcns)Pyrrhophyta

'(dinoflagellates) chlorophyta (green algae)2,364.6,120.536.2 022.1 (5))(62),.45,693.4 (<I))9.038.9 (<I)Cyanophyta (blue-green algae)250.0 (<<I)Euglenophyta (euglenolds) 297,007.1 (3)3,431, jl 5.3 57,200.0 ())83.3 (<I)2.299 Pl)3 38.077.8 (I)83.3 (<I)2.657>5>969'5).8 gI).9 30.462.2 19.038.9 ()).(<I)15>23)I 38 077 8 (<<I)(<I)166.7 (<I)4,813.648.7 (62)53,534.2 (I)13.341.9 (<I)666.7 (<I)4>973>1,658'/gj'P).'6 683 7>50,770.3 (<<I), ())53,367.5)5.231.1 ())(<I)166.6 555.5 (<I)(<I)1,594.1,159, 3,498, g/.5 285.3 266.4 7>615.6 72>096.2'33;3.(<I)'2), (<<I)15.23).l 32,020.5 (<I)())66.7 575.0 333.3 (<I)(<I)(<<I)4>002.6 (<I)Cryptophyta (cryptophytes) xanthophyta (xanthophytes) 22,846.7 (<<I)66.7 (<'I)66.7 (<I)25.0 (<'I)437>895.1 228>467.0 285>583 7 228>467.0 76>155.7 152.311.3 400>256.1 466>965 5 360>470.1 198>004.8 280>179.3 245>490.4 (9)(2)(4)(5)(2)=.(2)(5)(6)(9)(6)(9)(4)1,)46.4.718, 1.221, 814.3.720.I 924.3 (41)>(64)(43)57,116;8 22.846.7 9).386.9 (2).(<<I)(3)159,926.9 (2)312.5 400.0 10,365.6 (<'I)(<I)(<'I)3,716.765.3'57)'5.693.4'))22.846.7 (<I)400.0 (<<I)276.064.3 (10)104.2 (<I)16.7 (<I)200.0 (<I)7.615.6 (<I)251.313.7 182 773 6 182 773.6 (3)(6)(3)Chrysophyceae (ye)looo-brooon algae and si1 icoflagellates) 26.683.7 13.341.9 (<<I)(<I)12.007.7 10.673.5 (<I)(<<'I)22.846.7 (<<I)Haptophyceae (haptophytes including coccolithophores) 38,077.8 91,386.8 ())(I)95.194.6 19.038.9 45,693.'4)33,272.4 (I)(<I)(I)(2)25,385.2 22.846.7 ())(I)Prasinophyceae (prasinophytes)

Un ident)f led phytOflagellates Other 57,116.7)14,233.5 60,924.5 76,155.6 66,709.3)06,735.0 319,853.8 53,309.0 104,066.6 (I)(3)(I)(I)(I)(I)(8)(2)(3)38,077.8 45,693.4 0)(<<I)l>770>2>970~2>551~I>675~I>233~I>865~2>441~2>641 e\>634~I>134~I>348>I>857~619.1 070.8 214.7 424.5 721.7 813.7 562.6 690.7 808.1 719.3 BQ.3 188.6 (38)(30)(39)(38)(30)(22)(31)(31)(40)(37)(44)(32)22,846.7 38.077.8 (<I)())15,231.1 228,466.9 (<I)(3)133.418.7 30.462.3 38.077.9 76.048.7 256,)Q.9 (2)())())(2)(4)28,558.4 22.846.7 ())(<I)152.311.3 91,386.8 205,620.3 (5)(I)(7)114.233.5 (2)22.846.7 (<I)1,123, 296.0 (40)28.558.4 (I)1,941.1,127, 969.4 103.8 (26)(39)2>033.356.2 (31)114~233.5 7>615.6 342,700.5 (2)(<<I)(5)Total phytop)anktcn 4.668.9.844, 494.9 034.0 6>515~4>375~4~134~8>482~7>816>8>415~4>095~3>064~3>089~5 868~2 813 7>346~2 854~686.4)22.3 739.2 983.2 403.2 712.1 941.1 624.6 170.2 249.4 136.2 490.5 422.4 6,481.8'I5.9 a b Values are expressed as cells per liter and represent the nean of three rep)icates.

Percentage values are given in parentheses.

c 5<<Surface;B.Button.

TABLE 0-9 PMTTOPLANKTON OENSITT ANO PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION ST.WCIE PULNT 10 NOVEISER 1976 Taxon 5 8 5 8 tat one t 5 8 5 B 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 Beef liar fophyta (dlatc>>xs) 765.123.4 (l2)Pyrrhophyta (dlnOflagellateS)

'15.964.4.0)3.451.1.192.2.QO.2.816, 626.9 , 428.3.161.9 598.1 (56)(46)'(4l)(6>>57>241.7 45>>726.6>76>155.6 8.255.1{1)-(2)0)=<<>>16,010.2 (<>>3,650.0 (<I)Chlorophyta (green algae)30.462.3 19.038.9 (2){<>>Cyanophyta (blue-green algae)66.7 291.7 (<>>{<>>Eug1 enophyta (aug 1 enof ds)53.450.8.0),=80.051.2 0)23>013,5 69>040.2 20>162 9'26.716.8 0){2)0), 0)30.462.3 22.846.7 40,025.6 32.020.5 (2)0)(2)0)2,833.3 (<>>433.3 233.3 (<>><<>>3>925.0 2>000.0 (<I)(<I)4,724.1,563.2,977, I,509~2,103, 764.Z.075.6 970.9339.0 505.1 (6>>(77)04),'.(60)'62)3.807.8 (<>>1.816.7<<I)15.231.I (I)2,288.9 (<>>415, 622.473.8 821.3 (39)(Q)11;556.6: 30.706.6 0)0)1,115, 1,018.7)5, 1,427, 806.3'354.8.055.5.357.9 (55)(50)-(55), (55)7,615.6 (<<I)9>816.6 0)6.633.3 (>>9.519.5 (<>>2,333.4 (<>>45,793.4 45.693.4 19.088.9 19,205.7 (2)(2)(2)0)CD I Cyl CryptOphyta (cryptophytes) 91>386.8 437>895.1 106.617'456.934.0 368.235.7 653.751.8 38>077.8 190>389.2 224>143.4 224>143.5 79>963.5~{5)(7){4)(8)(8)(9)" (2)-(5)(9)(7)(7)Xanthophyta (xanthophytes) 25,385.2 (2)5,077.0 (<I)137.080.2 45,693.4 106,617.9 76,155.7 (7)'(2)-(8)(3)Chrysophyceae

{ye lieu-bro>n algae and slllcoflagellates)

Maptophyceae (haptophytes Includfng coccoli thophores)

Prasfnophyceae (prasinophytes) 209.428.I (3)38>077.8 0)16,010.3 (<>>7,615.6 15,231~I<<I)(<I)7.615.6 30.4Q.3 (<>>0)4,002.6 10,673.4<<>>(<>>5,336.7 (<I)7.615.6 0)5.077.0 (<>>133>272.4 64>041~0 Q>367-5 53>309 0 106>617.9 52>033.3 l2>694.0 68>540.1 20>>308.2 (2)(>>(>>(3){3)(2)(>>(6)(2)9.519.5 (<I)7,615.6 (<>>30,462.3 45 693.4 IS.231.1 19,038.9{2)(2)'>>(>>Onfdentl fled phytoflagellates 913, 867.9 (50)I>903>I>233~2~703>>I>256~2>001~312 586~644~885>475>441>891.6 721.7 526.0 804.3 280.8 238.2 398.6 41 2.4 900.3 972.9 702.8{3>>(48)(45)(27)(26)05)05){25)(26)(44)(38)670>891, 418>l>037>169.9 021'856 2 620.9 (33)(44)(3Z)(40)Othert Total phytoplankton 1.816.871.5.76,155.6 (I)48.030.7 160,102.5 (>>(2)7,729, 602.0 6>>155>2>578~6>038>4>597'69.6 494.5 127.7 635.5 7.615.6 15,231.I<<'I)(<I)2,043.4,014, 456.5 421.3 36,023.1 80.051.2 15,231.1 (I)(2)(I)5,077.0 (<>>2,534~3,413~1,079, 1,173, 066.7 041.5 978.1 675.1 7>615.6 (<>>Z.031, 975.5 11,423.3 (>>.',046~1,292.2,600, 456.3 906.2 751.5 Values are expressed as cells per lfter and represent the e>ean of three replfcates.

b Percentage values are gfven In parentheses.

5~Surface: 8~Button.

I l TABLE D-l 0 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, FOR PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITY ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-OCTOBER 1976 INTAKE-DISCHARGE STATIONS Degrees of Sum of Mean De th Source freedom s uares s uare F Surface Stations Months Error Total 1 7 7 15.8615321 x 10.3495500 x 10>4.6636227 x 10>s.4167738 x 10i4.8615321 x 10.4993571 x 10.9480324 x 10~0.091 5.267**Bottom Stations-.1 Months 7 Error,-7 Total 15.,1050566 x 10.5364225 x 10'4.i1636155 x 10>4'.7105437 x 10~4.1050566 x 10.76631.79 x 10>~.2337365 x 10 0.449 3.279 OFFSHORE STATIONS Degrees of Sum of Mean De th Source freedom s uares'u'are F Surface Stations Months Error Total 5 7 35 47.8162714 x 10>s.4964351 x 10".3366269 x 10i4.9146891 x 10i4 K.1632543 x 10.6806216 x 10 s.9617910 x 10~1.697 7 3 74**Bottom Stations 5 Months 7 Error 35 Total.47.8534055 x 10 s:1487050 x 10>s.6002755 x 10>4.2172666 x 10.1706811 x 10~~.2124357 x 10>4.1715073 x 10 0.995 12.386**Significant at a=.01.D-54 r P I TABLE D-11 DIFFERENCES BETHEEN HONTKLY HEAN PHYTOPLANNTCN DENSITY (TUKEY'5 TESl')OFFSHORE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT HARCH OCTOBER 1976 Sun ac a n Hean 1304354.5 650657.I 1411525.7 U 1287848.1 1140876.6 E 1805394.6 4133968.7 (2446645.5)APR (1304354.5)

-1,142,291.0

~1,795,988.4 1.035,119.8 1,158,797.4 i 653,697.4" 107,171.2 16,506.4 I;305.768.9 641,250.9 163>477.9~501>040.1 1,687,323.

2 Z>829>614.2~*

HAY (650657.1)

JUN (1411525.7)JUL (1287848.1)

(1140876.6)5EP (1805394.6)

Slgnlflcant at a~.01, HSO~2.15 x 104.760,868.6 637,191.0 123,677.6 490,219.5 270,649.1 146,971.5 1,154,737.5 393,868.9 517,546.5 3,483>311.6~~2,722,443.

0~a 2,846,120.

6"~2,328,574.1~~

664,518.0 2,993,092.

I~~nt Hean 2745138.9 656154.2 UN 1979909.7 ttc>n stat Ons U 1255918.9 1262219.1 2913331.4 6609979.3 HAR (3509908.9)

APR (2745138.9)

HAY (656154.2)

JUN (1979909.7)

JUL (1255918.9)(1262219.1)

SEP (2913331.1) 2,247,689.8 1,482,919.

8 1,323,755.5 599,764.7 606,064.9 723,990.8 717,690.6 6,300.2 764,770.0 2,853>754.7~

1,529,999.2 2,253,990.0 2,088,984.7 765,229.2 1,489,220.0 596,577.5 168,192.5 2,257.177.

2 933,421.7 1,657,412.5 1,651.112.3 2,560,070.

4~3,324,840.4~~

5,413,825.

I~i 4,090,069.

6ii 4 814 060.4+*4,807.760.

2*',156,648.2~~

Slgnlf (cant at a~.05, HSD~2.438 x 104.P*Slgnlflcant at a~.01, HSD~2.925 x 104.

l TABLE D-12 COMPARISON OF INTAKE (STATION 11)AND DISCHARGE'(STATION 12)SURFACE PHYTOPLANKTON ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-OCTOBER 1976 Tem erature'C..Intake , Discharge Date Intake.Dischar e hT'C cells/liter

-cells liter Changes in cell counta 26 MAR 22.0 21 APR 24.9 12 MAY 25.0 8 JUN 26.5 14 JUL 25.0 11 AUG 27.2 14 SEP 27.5 15 OCT 24.4 22.2 26.1+0.2+1.2 35.3 26.0 27.5 29.3 24.8+8.8+l.0+0.3+0.4 28.,3.-"+3.3 3,681,974.

4 1,741,104.0 542,375.7 2,243,521.4 1,713,502.0 5,757,393.4 3,056,308.7 4,668,494.9 2,395,632.5 1,296,541.6 "1,072,706.3 3,325,780.0 2,193,370.6 3,443,169.6 1,987,712.8 6,515,686.4

-34.9-25.5+97.7+48.2+28.0-40.1-34.9+39.5 a percentage change-dischar e-intake intake l=

TABLE 0-13 COMPARISON OF INTAKE (STATION 11)AND DISCHARGE (STATION 12)BOTTOM PHYTOPLANKTON ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-OCTOBER 1976 Tem erature'C'Date.-Intake Dischar e Intake hT'C-*cells/liter Discharge cells/liter Changes in cell counta 26 MAR 21.5 21 APR 24.2 12 MAY 24.8 8 JUN 26.3 14 JUL 23.0 11 AUG 26.9 14 SEP 28.3 15 OCT 24.5 22.5 25.5 28.5 35.4 25.5 27.0 29.0 24.8+l.0+l.3+3.7+9.1+2.5+0.1+0.7+0.3 3,083,719.

6 2,314.760.4

',332,715.3 1,890,434.3 1,582,'350.6 4,101,307.7

.959,590.4 9,844,034.0 3,781,610.8 1,549,793.6 656,018.0 3,280,730.

1 2,125,026.3 3,435,737.4 1,804,989.0 4,375,122.3

+22.6-33.0-50.7+73.5+34.2-16.2+88.0-55.5 a percentage change-dischar e-intake intake

TABLE 0-14 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HONTNLY HEAN SURFACE PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITY (TUKEY'S TEST)INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT HARCH-OCTOBER 1976 nth Hean P Y 1518822.8'-807541.0 UN 2784650.7 U 1953436.3 UG.4600281'.5 SE 25220'l0.8 CT 5592090.7 HAR (3038803.5) 1,519,980.7

',231,262.5.-

254,152.8 1,085,367.2 1.561;478.0 516,792.7 2,553,287:2 APR (1518822.8)

HAY (807541.0)

JUN (2784650.7)

JUL (1953436.3)

AUG (4600281.5)SEP (2522010.8) 711,281.8 1,265,827.9 434,613.5 3,081,458.

7 1,003,188.

0 4,073,267.

9 831,214.4 1,815,630.8 g 2,646,845.2 262,639.9 2,807,440.0 568,574.5 3,638,654.4 2,078,270.7 991,809.2 3,070,079.9 1,977,109.

7 1,145,895.1 3,792,740.

5 1,7 l4,469.8 4,784,549.

7**Significant at a~.05.HSD=4.082 x 10e.

TABLE D-15 SIHPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEMPERATURE VS SELECTED PHYTOPLANKTON GROUPS ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-OCTOBER 1976 Grou 6 R 2 APR 2 Y 8 JUN 14 JUL ll AUG 14 SEP 15 OCT'URFACE'TAT IONS Total phytoplankton-Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cryptophyta Cyanophyta Haptophyceae Prasinophyceae Pyrrhophyta Unidentified phytoflagellates

.53032.49192.60913 b b b b.67414.87127**-.24861-.32829-.09723 b b b~"b.45933.69892.70740>>:64262.21469-.b b-.63132.35129.46121.64476.30718.11799.66700 b b b b.61466.62520.-57259-.34531-.08263-.12224 b b.85761**..26742.35939-,61058-.61280.18990-.50294 b b.22269-.56759-.63968-.45070-.78715*-.18892.11499 b b.74945*.61850.13205-.39598-.49155-.02436.19388.20467-.57328.72118*.62803-.31410 BOTTOM STATIONS Total phytoplankton Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cryptophyta Cyanophyta Haptophyceae Prasinophyceae Pyrrhophyta Unidentified phytoflagellates

.51239.50181.54736 b b b b-..09561.42792-.61812-.63357-.50832 b b b.00487.06380.15409.16007-.35899-~69640-.02301.28959.43534.04933.07250-.28664 b b b b-.33819.08332.77283*.20558.41878-.23730-.27384.00446.22712-.70921*-.41950-.26912-.39978-.84614**.66670-.42837-.44523-.57209.46502.53379 b b.51223.13864-.20520-.27423-.22928.50344.23662-.60833-.45315-.07078-.25357-.40943 n=8.Group not sufficiently represented for analysis.*Significant at a=.05.**Significant at a=.01.

l TABLE, D-16 ACTIVE CHLOROPHYLL-a AND PHAEOPIGMENTS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Date.Station Pi ment and De th Chloro h ll-a mg/s Phaeo i ment mg S, B A'B A MAR 0 26 1-.2 0.89 1.87 1.38 2.00 1.14 1.57 3.13 2.21 2.67 2.29 2.70 2.46 2.96 6.81 4.59 3 3.10 4;3.45 5;.~2.37 0.03 1.06 0.55 0.01 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.55 0.30 0.12 0.53 0.33 0.14 0.47 0.31 0.14 3.41 1.78 11;-2.67 3.27 2.97 12'1.43 2.49 1.96 0.04 0.05 0.33 0.19 0.59 0.32 APR 21 12 1.82 1.$4 1.83 1.72 2.28 2.00 1.48 2.42 1.95 0.95 1.59 1.27 I 1.29 2.59 1.94 0.84 2.28 1.56 1.07 2.17 1.62 1.44 1.41 1.43 ND 0.10 0.05 ND 0.21 0.11 ND 0.41 0.21 ND 0.03 0.02 ND 0.15 0.08 ND 0.11 0.05 0.03 ND 0.02 0.02 ND 0.01 a Phaeopigment

=-,phaeophytin-a plus phaeophorbide-a.

b S=Surface;B=.Bottom;A=Average.S and B values represent mean of duplicate determinations.

Value represents single determination.

d ND=Not Detected.D-60 l

TABLE D-16 (continued)

ACTIVE CHLOROPHYLL-a AND PHAEOPIGMENTS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Date Station Pi ment and De th Chloro h ll-a mg/3 Phaeo i ment mg S B A S B A MAY 12 0'0.95 0.68 0.81'0.83 0.60 0.72.o.5o o.41 o.46 3 0.52 0.49 0.51 4 0.63 0.60 0.62 5 0.58 0.62 0.60 11." 1.07 2.22 1.64 12'1.12 0.87 0.99 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 NDc 0 02 ND 0.05 0.03 ND 0.02 0.01 ND 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.03 JUN 8 12 4.02 5.17 4.60 3.79 3.58 3.69 1.48 1.20 1.34 0.79 0.94 0.87 2.60 1.81 2.20 1.62 1.52 1.57'.2.65 4.29 3.47 2.55 3.79 3.17 0.03 0.69 0.36 0.71 0.27 0.49 0.03 0.20 0.12 0.02 0.16 0.09 ND 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.20 0.13 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.18 1.41 0.80 Phaeopigment

=-phaeophytin-a plus phaeophorbide-a.

b S=Surface;B,=Bottom;A=Average.S and B values represent mean of duplicate determinations.

ND=Not Detected.,

TABLE D-16 (continued)

ACTIVE CHLOROPHYLL-a AND PHAEOPIGNENTS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Date Station Pi ment and De th Chloro h ll-a mg/s Phaeo i ment mg S 8 A S B A JUL 14 0'.00 1.47 1.74 1 0.83 0.72 0.78 2 2.42 2.19 2.30 3" 1.71 1.57 1.64 4 1.62 1.67 1.65 5 1.12 2.43 1.78 11-'1.74].OZ 1.38 12 , 0.81 1.49 0.81 ND 0 05 0 03 ND 0.02 0.01 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND<0.005<0.005 ND: ND ND AUG ll 1.36 1.13 1.24 2.36 2.26 2.31 0.02 0.20 0.11 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.67 1.01 0.85 1.11 0.53 0.69 0.98 0.61 0.84<0.005 0.02 0.01<0.005<0.005<0.005<0.005 0.08 0.04 1.13 0.95 13.00 4.12 1.04 8.56 ND ND 0.23 0.12 0.26 0.13 5.66 3.48 4.57 ND ND ND a Phaeopigment

=phaeophytin-a plus phaeophorbide-a

.b S=Surface;B=Bottom;A=Average.S and B values represent mean of dupl i cate determinati ons.ND=Not Detected.d Value represents single determination.

D-62 I

TABLE D-16 (continued)

ACTIVE CHLOROPHYLL-a AND PHAEOPIGMENTS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Pi ment and De th Chloro h ll-a mg/s Phaeo i ment mg Date StationS B A S B A SEP 14.3.16 2.86 2.31 2.92 2.95 2.44 3.01 2.61 2.69 3.46 3.12 3.29.28.55 1.27 14.91 12 4.45 2.63 3.54 0'.72 3.92 3.32 1'.09 5.63'.36 0.10 0.93 0.52 ND 1.17 0.59 ND 023 012 ND 0.32 0.16 0,04 0.55 0.30 ND 0.25 0.13 ND 0.24 0.12 0.24 0.06 0.15 OCT 15 2 12 8.81 8.97 8.30 8.27 8.55 8.62 7.30 3.95 5.62'3.63 6.30 4.97 6.20 5.29 ,7.37 5.99 5.74 6.68 13.53 11.50 12.51 13.22 9.63 11.42 ND 0.73 0.37 1.21 0.45 0.83 ND 0.17 0.09 0.19 1.72 0.96 ND 0.72 0.36 ND 1.30 0.65 ND ND ND ND ND ND a Phaeopigment

=phaeophytin-a plus phaeophorbide-a.

b S=Surface;B='Bottom;A=Average.S and B values represent mean of duplicate determina'tions.

ND=Not Detected., D-63 l l TABLE D-16 (continued)

ACTIVE CHLOROPHYLL-a AND PHAEOPIGMENTS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Date Station Pi ment and De th Chloro h ll-a mg/s Phaeo i ment mg S B A S B A NOV 10 12:2.97'.88 2.94 7.91 3.93 2;89 2 27 2.92 5.11 4.71 6.21 5.69 1.63 2.31 3.30 3.09 5.44 3.91 2.91 1.97 3.19 2.60 4.91 5.95 0.15 2.44 1.30 0.39 0.53 0.46 0.24 0.51 0.38 0.22 0.40 0.31 0.01'0.54 0.28 0.03 , 0.63 0.33 0.06 0.48 0.27 0.13 0.21 0.17 DEC 13 01.26 1.15 1"'.16 1.25 0.77 1.82 3.'.',*0.61 0.53 4='.70 0.60 5" 0.80 0.92 11.'.83 2.92 12 2.35 1.95 1.20 1.21 1.30 0.57 0.65 0.86 2.37 2.15 0.17 0.24 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11" 0.51 0.32 0.07 0.16 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.17 0.69 0.43 0.19 0.35 0.27 Phaeopigment

-=.phaeophytin-a plus phaeophorbide-a.

S=Surface;B='.Bottom; A=Average.S and B values represent mean of duplicate determinations.

Value represe'nts single determination.

D-64 I

TABLE D-17'NALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CHLOROPHYLLS ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-DECEMBER 1976 INTAKE-DISCHARGE STATIONS Degrees of Sum of Mean De th Source freedom s uares's uare F Sur face Stations-Months.-.Error Total 1 9 9 19 0.5113602 x 10~0.5698402 x 10s 0.2682710 x 103 0.8892472 x 103 0.5113602 x 10~0.6331558 x 10~0.2980789 x 10~1.716.2.124 Bottom Stations Months Error'otal 1 9 9 19 0.0824180 x 10'.1377439 x 103 4 0.4744220 x 10'.1'433123 x 103 lt 0.0824180 x 10>1.564 0.1530488 x 10~29.034**0.5271356 x 10 0 SHORE STATIONS Degrees of Sum of Mean De th Source freedom s uares s uare F Surface Stations , 5 Months-..'Error..45 Total.59 0..1561806 x 10~0.1910393 x 103 0.4046084 x 102 0.2471182 x 103 0.3123612 x 10'.474"*0.2122659 x 102 23.608"*0.8991298 x 10 Bottom Stations.5 Months'P Error.45 Total ,.59 0.1542856 x 10~0'.1561554 x 103 0.6638944 x 10~0.2379734 x 103 0.3085712 x 10'.092 0.1735060 x 10~11.761**0.1475321 x 10'*~Significant at a=.01.D-65 5

TABLE D-18 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONTHLY MEAN SURFACE CHLOROPHYLL-a (TUKEY'S TEST)INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-DECEMBER 1976 Month APR Mean 1.79 MAY.1.55 JUN 4.04.JUL'.26 AUG.3.80 SEP.1.95 OCT 10.57 NOV 5.20'DEC 2.44 MAR (2.88)1.09 APR (1.79)MAY (1.55)JUN (4.04)JUL (1.26)AUG (3.80)SEP (1.95)OCT (10.57)NOV (5.20)l.33 0.24 1.16 2.25 2.49 1.62 0.53 0.29 2.78 0.92 2.01 2.25 0.24 2.54 0.93 0.16 0.40 2.09 0.69 l.85 7.69**2.32 0.44 8.78**3.41*.0.65 9.02**3.65*0.89 6.53**1.16 1.60 9.31**3.94**1.18 6.77**1.40 1.36 5 37**8 1 3**2.76 8.62**'3.25*0.49*Significant at a=.05, HSD=2.95.**Significant at a=.01, HSD=3.85.

TABLE D-19 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN SURFACE STATION CHLOROPHYLL-a (TUKEY'S TEST)OFFSHORE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Station Mean 0 (2.68).1 3;26 0.58 2 2.40 0.28 3 1.58 1.10 4 2.34 0.34 5 2.16 0.52 1 (3.26)0.86 1 68**0.92 1.10 2 (2.40)3 (1.58)4 (2.34)0.82 0.06 0.76 0.24 0.58 0.18**Significant at"a=.01, HSD=1.52.D-67 Month Mean TABLE D-20 DIFFERENCES BETHEEN MONTHLY MEAN CHLOROPHYLL-a (TUKEY'S TEST)OFFSHORE STATIONS ST.'" LUCIE PLANT MARCH-DECEMBER 1976 ur ace stat ons PR UN'JUL UG SEP CT N V 0 C 1.35 0.67 2.38 1.62 1.15 3.62 7.05 2.83 0.88 MAR (2.49)APR (1.35)MAY (0.67)JUN (2.38)JUL (1.62)AUG (1.15)SEP (3'2)OCT (7.05)NOV (2.83)1.14 1~82,'.11 0.87 0.68.1.03 0.27 1.71 0.95 0.76 1.34 1.13 4.56**0.34 0.20 2.27**5.70**1.48 1.61 0.47 1.23 0.47 1.24 4.67**0.45 2.00*5.43**1.21 2.47**5.90**1.68 3.43**0.79 1.50 0.74 0.27 2.74"*4,22~" 6~17"*1~95" 0.48 2.95**6.38**2.16**0.21*Significant at a~.05, HSD~1.83.**Significant at a~.01, HSD N 2.15.Bottom stations Month Mean R Y., UN UL UG SEP OCT N V OE 2.17 0.57 2.37 1.68 1.19 3.48 6.35 3.84 1.05 MAR (2.80)APR (2.17)MAY (0.57)JUN (2.37)JUL (1.68)AUG (1.19)SEP (3.48)OCT (6.35)NOV (3.84)0.63 2.23 0.43 1.60 0.20 1.80 1.12 1.61 0.49 0.98 1.11 0.62 0.69 1.18 0.68 3.55**1.04 1.75 1.31 4.18**1.67 1.12 3.98**1~47 1.32 0.49 1.80 4'7**2.16 0.63 2.29 5.16**'.65*0.14 2.87**0.36 2.43*2.51*5.30**2.79**2.91**5.78**3.27**0.48*Significant at a.05, HSD~2.34.**Significant at a~.01.HSD~2.76.D-68 I I I I TABLE D-21 SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEMPERATURE VS CHLOROPHYLL-a ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-DECEMBER 1976 Date 26 MAR 21 APR 12 MAY 8 JUN 14 JUL 11 AUG 14 SEP'5 OCT 10 NOV 13 DEC Surface.66649-.29477-.29501-.69173.33433.17399-.34615-.'80816-.,80198-.64952 Bottom.91283*-.64310-.36375-.71518.39674 ,.62465-.49841/-.59063-.'79566-.73388 n=6;*Significant at a=.05.D-69 TABLE 0-22 RESULTS OF TRICHROMATIC CHLOROPHYLL AND TOTAL CAROTENOID DETERMINATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 ent an De th Chloro h II-b Chloro h 11-a Chloro h ll-c mg s Date Station 8 8 A m-SPU>Carotenoids

~m S 8 HAR 0 0.91.2.44 1.68 I 2.05=1.24 1.65 2 3.58 2.58 3.08 3 3.23 2.64 2.94 4 3.62 2.79 3.21 5 2.48 9.00 5.74 11 2.68 3.55 3.12 12 1.46 2.91 2.19'.04 1.16 0.60 0.01 0.13'.07 0.02 0.07 0.05 HD 0.26 0.13 ND 0.08 0.04 ND 0.08 0.04 ND ND HD ND HD ND 0.02 4.48 2.25 0.93 0.59 0.76 1.95 1.07 1.51 1.08 1.75 1.42 1.61 1.07 1.34 0.52 3.69 2.11 1.05 1.06 1.06 0.12 0.48 0.30 1.06 2.03 3.00 3.32 3.43 2.38 2.43 1.19 9.62 5.34 1.41 1.72 2.75 2.88 3.63 3.48 1.97 2.70 10.96 6.67 2.73 2.58 2.66 1.93 APR 0 1.75 1.93 1.84 1 1.66 2.45 2.06 2 1.44 2.70 2.07 3 0.92 1.64 1.28 4 1.21 2.72 2.00 5 0.77 2.24 1.51 11 1.08 2.16 1.62 12 1.48 1.43 1.46 ND HD HD ND HD<0.005 ND<0.005 0.13 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 ND HD<0.005<0.005 0.67 0.60 0.54 0.36 0.53 0.35 0.34 0.55 1.06 0.87 1.09 0.85 1.04 0.80 0.70 0.53 1.24 0.89 0.92 0.64 0.79 0.57 0.50 0.53 1.78 1.66 1.47 0.94 1.26 0.96 1.21 1.61 2.61 2.20 2.86 2.26 2.89 2.18 2.07 1.51 3.19 2.23 2.65 1.81 2.11 1.66 1.78 1.70 a S Surface;8~Bottom;A Average.5 and 8 values represent mean of duplicate determinations.

ND~Hot Detected.Value r'epresents single determination.

TABLE D-22 (continued)

RESULTS OF TRICHROHATIC CHLOROPHYLL AND TOTAL CAROTENOID DETERHINATIOHS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Chloro h ll-a Date Station S Chloro h 11-h nt an e t Chloro h Il-c ,+-PU>Carotenoids

'~m 5 8 HAY 0 0.99 0.70 0.85 1.0.86 0.62 0.74 2 0.53 0.42 0.48 3 0.55 0.53 0.54 4 0.61 0.64 0.63 5 0.58 0.64 0.61 11 1.07 2.27 1.67 12 1.14 0.92 1.03-0.06 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.49'.39 0.44 0.37 0.31 0.34 0.31 0.33 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.50 0.93 0.72 0.45 0.37 0.41 1.38 0.99 1.19 1.24 0.97 1.11 0.80 0.76 0.78 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.87 1.05 0.96 0.98 1.02 1.00 1.42 2.56 1.99 1.71 1.27 1.49 JUN 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 ll 12 4.04 5.67 4.32 3.82 1.50 1.34 0.83 1.06 2.63 1.92 1.63.1.67 2.81 4.52 2.72 4.61 4.86 4.07 1.42 0.95 2.28.1.65 3.67 3.67 ND 0.34 ND ND ND ND ND 0.01 ND 0.01 ND 0.02 0.06 0.10<0.005 0.93-0.17 ND ND 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.47 1.70 2.41 2.06 1.52 1.75 1.64 0.61 0.63 0.62 0.32 0.52 0.42 1.07 0.90 0.99 0.59 0.75 0.67 1.31 2.04 1.68 1.20 4.67 2.94 3.75 5.96 4.86 4.58 3.88 4.23 1.70 1.61 1.66 1.05-1.47 1.26 2.63 2.23 2.43 1.91 2.15 2.03 3.46 5.60 4.53 2.77 11.09 6.93 S~Surface;8 Bottaa;A~Average.S and 8 values represent aean of duplicate deterainations.

ND Not Detected.I l I I I TABLE D-22 (continued)

RESULTS OF TRICHROHATIC CHLOROPHYLL ANO TOTAL CAROTENOID DETERMINATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Chloro h 11-a~g Date Station S Chloro h 11-h~g s.<nt an e t Chlorooh 11-c n-SPUx Carotenoids

~~m 5 8 JUL 0 2.01 1.52 1.77 1 0.82 0.74 0.78 2 2.39 2.19 2.29 3 1.57 1.55 1.56 4 1.63 1.60 1.62 5 0.97 2.35 1.66 11 1.65 1.00 1.33 12 0.78 1.41 1.10 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.11 0.19 0.15 0.36 0.24 0.25 0.16 1.05 0.50 1.31 0.93 0.90-0.65 0.84 0.49 0.81 0.93 0.46 0.48 1.12 1.22 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.89 1.44 1.05 1.11 0.98'1.17-0.83 2.50 1.29 2.84 1.94 1.98 1.49 2.25 1.64 1.64 2.07 1.04 1.17 2.33 2.59 1.76 1.85 1.79 1.89 3.11 2.30 2.37 2.31 2.35 2.00 AUG ll 0-1.38 1 2.35 2 0.85 3 0.51 4 0.66 5 1.11 11 12.68 12 5.47 1.25 1.31 2.32 2.33 1.13 0.99 0.68 0.60 1.07 0.87 1.09 1.10 4.33 8.51 3.50 4.49 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.16 0.22 ND 0.05 0.20 0.19 0.29 0.24 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.35 0.18 0.28 0.17 095 090 093 1.40 1.34 1.37 0.61 0.80 0.71 0.45 0.52 0.49 0.58 0.74 0.66 0.95 0.88 0.92 6.28 2.28 4.28 2.68 2.09 2.39 2.02 3.07 1.40 0.87 1.18 1.88 12.28 5.70 1.80 1.91 2.83 2.95 1.66 1.53 1.17 1.02 1.66 1.42 1.74 1.81 5.62 8.95 4.38 5.04 a 5~Surface;B Bott';A Average.5 and B values represent nean of duplicate determinations.

h Value represents single determination.

ND, Not Detected.

I MR TABLE D-22 (continued)

RESULTS OF TRICHROMATIC CHLOROPHYLL AND TOTAL CAROTENOIO DETERMINATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Chloro h 11-a+9 Date Station S Chloro h 11-h nt an e t Chloro h ll-c~-SPU, Carotenoids

~m 5 8 SEP 0 2.84 4.54 3.69 1 7.16 6.42 6.79 2 3.08 3.00 3.04 3 2.32 3.16 2.74 4 2.98 2.81 2.90 5 3.28 3.31 3.30 11 27.01 1.43 14.22 12 4.47 2.67 3.57 0.10 0.29 0.19 0.35 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.21 0.12 0.16 0.20-0.20 ND 0.16 0.48 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.20 0.08 0.43 1.50 2.27 3.15'.99 1.66 1.40 1.29 1.69 1.43 1.32 1.46 1.74 12.05 0.88.1.84 1.02 1.89 3.07 1.53 1.49 1.38 1.60 6.47 1.43 2.80'.50 3.65 7.12 6.54 6.83 3.25 2.96 3.11 2.50 2.92 2.71 3.06 2.67 2.87 3.82 3.32 3.57 24.99 1.52 13.26 4.74 2.91 3.83 OCT 0 8.63 8.88 8.76 1 9.86 8.70 9.28 2 6.93 4.12 5.53 3 3.78 7.43 5.61 4 6.17 5.81 5.99 5 7.11 6.87 6.99 11 13.12 11.68 12.40 12 12.76 9.56 11.16 NO 0.32 0.16 0.07 0.25 0.16 0.07 0.21 0.14 0.44 0.52 0.48 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.08 0.36 0.22 ND NO ND ND NO ND 4.14 3.65 4.49 3.87 3.36 2.05 3.00 3.47 3.40 2.74 3.40 3.30 6.47 5.49 5.84 4.57 3.90 7.95 4.18 10.10 2.71 6.34 3.24 4.22 3.07 5.69 3.35 6.46 5.98 11.82 5.21 10.79 8.20 8.08 8.02 9.06 3.72 5.03 8.12 6.17 5.62 5.66 6.87 6.67 10.87 11.35 8.46 9.63 a 5~Surface;8~Buttons A Average.S and 8 values represent mean of duplicate determinations.

ND Not Detected.

I TABLE 0-22 (continued)

RESULTS OF TRICHROHATIC CHLOROPHYLL AND TOTAL CAROTENOIO DETERHINATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 P nt and e t Chloro h 11-a Date Station Chloro h ll-b 9 s Chloro h ll-c 9 8 A p-PU>Carotenoids

'~m 5-8 HOV-0 3.10 9.50 6.30 1 4.18 4.32 4.25 2 3.13 3.24 3.19 3 1.78 2.59 2.19 4 3.36 3.46 3.41 5 2.32 3.35 2.84 11 5.18 5.08 5.13 12 6.37 5.93 6.15 0.11 0.53 0.32 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.25 0.18 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.05 1.51 2.22 1.65 1.02 1.62 1.04 2.19 2.65 3.95 2.73, 2.06 2.14 1.69 1.67 1.36 1.19 1.92 1.77 1.75 1.40 2.51 2.35 2.62 2.64 3.03 9.85 6.44 4.19 4.05 4.12 3.07 3.28 3.18 1.96 2.66 2.31 3.11 3.51 3.11 2.08 3.33 2.71 4.82 4.85 4.84 5.76 5.63 5.70 DEC 0 138 131 135 0.07 1 1.26 1.35 1.30 0.05 2 0.98 2.16 1.57.0.06 3 0.66 0.63 0.64 0.06 4 0.79 0.69 0.74 0.08 5 0.86 1.02 0.94 0.07 11 1.97 3.39 2.68 0.08 12 2.51 2.20 2.35 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.11-0.11 0.66 0.58 0.54 0.40 0.46 0.50 0.86 1.12 0.72 0.69 0.68 0.63 1.04 0.79 0.38 0.39 0.42 0.44 0.49 0.49 1.44 1.15 0.96 1.04 1.41 1.23 1.06 0.72 0.84 0.86 1.82 2.37 1.24 1.33 1.30 1.26 2.18 1.62 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.78 1.06 0.96 3.82 2.82 2.21 2.29 a 5~Surface;8 Bottom;A~Average.,S and 8 values represent mean of duplicate determinations.

'5 t TABLE D-23 GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY (P), EXTINCTION COEFFICIENT PER METER (k)AND SURFACE RADIATION (g-cal/cd/day)

ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-DECEHBER 1976 Date Stat on an arameter 3 4 SurFace P k P k P k P k P k P radiatson 26 HAR 0.17 0.61 0.23 0.53 0.21 0.99 0.14 1.50 b b 0.65-0.55 448.43 21 APR 12 HAY 8 JUN 0.32 0.53 0.28 0.65 0.41 0.44 0.26 0.46 0.31 0.57 0.33 0.43 611.40 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.22 511.16 1.39 0.29 0.50 0.65 0.39 0.31 0.20 0.39 0.62 0.31 0.50 0.27 532.67=14 JUL 0.58 0.28 0.28 0.25 1.00 0.21 0.93 0.16 1.27 0.12 0.69-0.24 612.44 ll AUG 0.55 0.20 0.53 0.39 0.38 0.14 0.47 0.16 0.42 0.22 588.52 14 SEP 15 OCT 0.49 0.43 0.30 1.33 0.52 0.37 b b b b 0 75 0 53 0.46 b 0.36 b 0.57 0.70 377.87 0.83 0.20 1.28 0.16 317.42 P=g organic carbon produced/mt/day.

b 0.0 transmittance reading on bottom.Data not available.

TABLE D-24 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY OFFSHORE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT'jLPRIL-0ULY AND SEPTEMBER 1976 Source Degrees of freedom Sum of s uares Mean s uares Stations Months Error Total 20 29'4083067 x 10'0816613 0.963.1303113 x 10'3257783 3.841*.1696127 x 10.0848064.3407547 x 10'Significant at a=.05.TUKEY'S COMPARISON OF MONTHLY MEAN DIFFERENCES Month Mean APR (0.32)MAY{0.24)JUN (0.60)JUL (O.79)MAY 0.24 0.08 JUN 0.60 0.28 0.36 JUL 0.79 0,47 0.55" 0.19 SEP 0.65 0.33 0.41 0.05 0.14*Significant at a=.05, HSD=.503.D-76

\jf~f~~~~~~~~~~~~

TABLE D-25 SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEMPERATURE VS GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-OCTOBER 1976 Date 26 MAR 21 APR 12 MAY.8 JUN 14 JUL 11 AUG 14 SEP 15 OCT.'urface

.64191-.08393.09692-.92457**.58224.22121.20232 N.A.Bottom.86408-.38674-.15081-.92385**.65293.33883.26962 N.A.n=6.n=5.Data not available; equipment failure.**Significant at a=.Ol.D-77 I)l~'4 E.ZOOPLANKTON INTRODUCTION Zooplankton collectively refers to animals that'are non-swimmers, poor swimmers, or free-floating organisms in a body of water.Zoo-plankters range in size from microscopic to macroscopic organisms variously distributed in the water column.Ecologically, zooplankton may be divided into two main groups: (1)holoplankters, which spend their entire life cycles iq the water column, and (2)meroplankters, temporary members of the zooplankton that consist predominantly of larval forms associated with benthic adults.The availability of soluble nutrients, which promote phyto-plankton growth and reproduction, determines the abundance of phyto-plankton as a basic food source for the subsequent grazing of zoo-plankton (Bainbridge, 1953;Davis, 1955).'ooplankters, in turn, are an important food source for many other forms of marine animals.The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of power plant operation on the density,and composition of the zooplankton population.

Previous studies in the area include those on general conditions and the zooplankton population, along with studies on

specific zooplankters.

Bjornberg (1971), Bsharah (1957), Clarke (1940), Davis (1950), and Reeve (1973)presented studies on zoo-plankton populations along with associated environmental conditions similar to those at St.Lucie.-Reeve (1964)and Woodmansee (1958)studied seasonal patterns of the zooplankton.

Studies on chaetognaths in the Florida Current, which passes a few miles east of St.Lucie, include those by Owre (1960), Pierce (1951), and Pierce and Wass t (1962).The literature on copepods is extensive; some of the general studies include Grice (1960), Owre (1962), and Park (1970).Lewis (1954 and 1955)'studied the occurrence, vertical distribution, and h larval forms of euphausids.

An additional study on euphausids was contributed by Moore (1952).,The distribution of ruciser has been studied by Bowman and McCain (1967)..Chen and Be (1964)studied the seasonal distribution of pteropods, while Chen and Hillman (1970)C studied their value as indicators of water masses.Wormelle (1962)surveyed the distribution of pteropods in the Florida Current.Siphonophores of the Florida Current have been studied by Moore (1953).MATERIALS AND METHODS Zooplankton was collected monthly at six offshore stations, 0 through 5 (Figure E-1).All except Station 0 to thermal addition.Stations located in the canals (ll and 12, respectively) were sampled entrainment effects.were potentially subjected intake and discharge to determine immediate E-2

Collections were made by horizontally towing a half-meter, 202-micron mesh plankton net.Towing speeds were 0.5 to 2 knots for intervals of 5 to 10 minutes.Duplicate samples, one for qualitative and quantitative analysis and one for biomass, were collected offshore from surface and bottom depths at each station.The water column ranged in depth from 7.1 to 11.2 meters.Surface samples were collected at sufficient depth (1 to 2 meters)to ensure continued submergence of the plankton net.A flowmeter positioned in the mouth of the net indicated the amount of water filtered.Weather conditions, tidal stage, and moon phase were recorded.Wind velocity (knots), current direction and velocity (cm/sec), air and water temperature (C), salinity ('/o,), dissolved oxygen (ppm), and turbidity were measured at each collection.

When the collection of zooplankton was completed, the con-centrated sample was washed into a pre-labeled polyethylene bottle and preserved with 5X buffered formalin.The samples were returned to the laboratory and allowed to settle a minimum of four days.Each sample was then concentrated by vacuum pump to a minimum working volume, which depended on the density of detritus and plankters in the sample.The.sample was further concentrated if necessary with a modified Pasteur pipette.E-3 5 i~~~~~~~~~,4~

For qualitative and quantitative analysis, replicate one-ml aliquots were withdrawn with a Stempel pipette.Organisms were identified to the lowest practical taxon.Dissections and staining were used when necessary for identification.

Keys used for taxonomic identification are included in Literature Cited.Zooplankters per cubic meter were calculated by multiplying the count by appropriate dilution factors and dividing by the volume of water filtered in cubic meters.The volume of water filtered was calculated by: y-<(r2)1 where: V=volume of filtered water radius of net at mouth 1=distance net is hauled'iomass of the zooplankton was determined by ash-free dry weight (EPA, 1973).Net samples were'washed with several volumes of distilled water to remove any buffer, salt, or other dissolved solid contaminant in the sample.Samples were concentrated by sedimentation or c'entrifugation.

The method chosen was based on the number of samples to be processed.

With sedimentation the samples were settled after each washing.If samples were concentrated by centrifugation after washing, a centrifuge with a swing-out head was used.E-4

~ig~~

Dried samples were weighed on an analytical balance.The samples were then ashed in a muffle furnace for one hour at 550'C.Samples were cooled, rewet with distilled water to reintroduce the waters of hydration, and dried to a constant weight at 105'C.Results of the ash-free weight'determinations were expressed as milligrams of ash-free weight per unit volume of water.Aliquots used as subsamples for identification and counts were retained along with the whole sample as vouchers.Vouchers were retained as part of a permanent collection which may be used in the future to.verify counts and identifications.

Results of analyses were coded along with physical parameters for computer analysis.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Members of eleven phyla, including Protozoa, Coelenterata, Rotifera, Nematoda, Mollusca, Annelida (Polychaeta), Arthropoda (largely Crustacea), Bryozoa, Chaetognatha, Echinodermata, and Chordata, were identified during the March-November 1976 period of this study (Tables E-1 to E-9).Major contributors to the zooplankton population included copepods, which comprised 25 to 95K of the population; cirripedia (barnacle) nauplii, which accounted for 22 to 93K;cladocerans, which made up 23 to 63K;eggs, which comprised 20 to 62%%d;molluscs, which made up 23 to 57K;and decapods, which accounted for 20 to 55Ã(Tables E-1 to E-9).E-5 l ll Total zooplankters per cubic meter ranged from 31.0 to 20,206.3.Average densities for stations ranged from 1162.5 to 4588.2 (Table E-10 and Figure E-2).In general, the zooplankton population at St.Lucie was neritic (nearshore) rather than oceanic (offshore) in character.

Oceanic zooplankters such as siphonophores, euphausids, salps, chaetognaths such as Sagitta bipunctata, S.lyra, and S.minima, and the sergestid shrimp lucifer typus were either absent or present in low concentrations.

Neritic forms identified included the chaetognaths S.friderici, S.helenae, and S.hispida', the COpepOdS Calanopia americana, Labidocera aestiva, and Undinula vulgaris;and the sergestid shrimp lucifer faxoni.All the above-mentioned zooplankters are holoplanktonic.

Other holoplanktonic groups identified in this study include pteropods such as clio sp.and creseis acicula, clado-cerans, ostracods', mysids, cumaceans, isopods, hyperiid amphipods, and appendicularians such as oikopleura sp.Meroplanktonic forms are generally larval stages associated with the benthos.They were major contributors to the zooplankton popula-tion.Some of these meropl ankters included hydromedusae, molluscan larvae, polychaete larvae, cirripedia (barnacle) nauplii, cypris larvae, decapod larvae, cyphonautes larvae, and echinoderm larvae.Forms generally considered benthic included nematodes, gammarid and caprellid amphipods, and harpacticoid copepods.E-6

~~~~l' Physical parameters monitored during collections"included temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen.Minimum temperatures, generally in November, ranged from 20.0'o 21.4'C.Maximum temperatures occurred in September and ranged from 27.8 to 29.2'C.The highest temperature (35.4'C)was recorded in the discharge canal in June (Table E-ll).Salinities ranged from 30.0 to 36.1'/and were generally lowest in June and highest in November (Table E-12).Dissolved oxygen values ranged from a low of 4.8 ppm in July to a high of 7.6 ppm in October (Table E-13).The difference in temperature (aT)between the intake and discharge stations ranged from+0.2 to+9.0'C (Table E-14).Although fluctua-tions in temperature between intake and discharge were noted, no significant correlation between total zooplankton abundance and temperature was observed (Table E-15), and zooplankton abundance between these two stations was not significantly different (Table E-16).Althoughno significant changes in the zooplankton abundance due to thermal addition were noted, some major physical damage to individual zooplankters was observed.Other studies (Benda and Gulvas, 1976;Cairns, 1976;Dayies and Jensen, 1974 and 1975;Heinie, 1976;and Markowski, 1959)show that such damage may be caused by mechanical abrasion due to passage through the plant, exposure to E-7

I biocides, or physiological stresses (e.g., response to pressure changes).However, physical damage to the zooplankton was minimal and ranged from (1 to 45 of the total population in the intake canal and from 0 to 2X in the discharge canal (Table.E-14).Generally, low percentages of damaged cladocerans, ostracods, copepods, and decapods were noted in collections from the intake and discharge canals (Tables E-17 to E-20).High percentages of damaged chaetognaths (100%in some instances; Table E-21)and of damaged appendicularians (up to 74Ã;Table E-22)were noted.However, these organisms are highly susceptible to net damage and damage by formalin preserva-tion (Owre, 1960;Pierce, 1951).Thus, the percentages for the latter two groups do not necessarily indicate detrimental effect due to plant operation.

Zooplankton population density fluctuated between the intake and discharge canals.Percentage change from the intake canal into the discharge canal ranged from a 125 decrease to a 484K increase, with a mean 52'A decrease (Table E-14).~, The observed fluctuations in density hetween intake and discharge were probably a result of aggregations or patches of zooplankton.

Different zooplankton patches were sampled because the lag-time in collection between the intake and discharge canals did not correspond to the time a parcel of water took to pass through the plant.E-8 l

Patchiness is a recognized factor in sample design.To minimize its effects, attempts will be made to coordinate sampling times in the intake and discharge canals with travel time of a parcel of water through'the power plant.Detailed information on this subject is provided by Cushing, 1962;Heinie, 1976;Laevastu, 1962;Wiebe, 1970;and Wiebe and.Holland, 1968.Analysis of variance indicated significant seasonal.variation in total zooplankton abundance between months (Table E-16).Tukey's test for difference between means (Table E-23)indicated that zooplankton abundance was significantly greqter in September (Figure E-6)than in all other months.Zooplankton densities in September ranged from 1536.6 to 20,206.3 zooplankters per cubic meter (Tabl'e E-7).In'I addition, zooplankton abundance was significantly greater., in August than in May (Figures E-4 and E-5).The greater abundance in September was primarily due to copepods, which comprised 28 to 96K of the total zooplankton population., Cladocerans made up from<1 to 63Ãof the population, and decapods accounted for<1 to 31$of the population.

Similar peaks in abundance in the fall (September and October)have been observed by, Deevey and Brooks (1971).and Woodmansee (1958).The least productive month was May, wheq zooplankton densities ranged from 54.9 to 1339.2 zooplankters per cubic meter, with a mean of 442.7 (Figures E-8 and E-9).E-9

1 Differences in zooplankton abundance from month to month are normal seasonal occurrences.

These seasonal differences.are thought to be caused by an interaction among the fluctuation of nutrients as they are alternately accumulated and depleted, the availability of these nutrients to promote phytoplankton growth and reproduction, the abundance'of phytoplankton.as a basic food source, and the sub-sequent grazing of zooplankton on the phytoplankton (Bainbridge, 1953;Davis, 1955).The seasonal.fluctuations of the zooplankton population in this study closely parallel those of the phytoplankton.

Biomass values were generally highest at Stations 2 and 3.k Stations 1, 4, and 5 had lower values, while ll, 12, and 0 had the lowest biomass (Figure E-10).Biomqss ranged from 0.004 x 10 g/m~to 16.752 x 10 g/ms (Table E-24).The lowest mean biomass value, 0.43 x*10 g/ms, was observed in June and the highest mean value, 2.4 x 10=g/ms,, in March.However, analysis of variance Lj indicated no significant differences in biomass between stations or months (Table E-25).In general, the bottom population was greater than the surface population as evidenced by the number of zooplankters per cubic meter and the amount of biomass (Tables E-1 to E-10 and E-24;Figures E-2 to E-10).An e'xception to this trend was a larger mean surface popu-lation at Stations 1 and 2 (Figure E-2).In addition, the mean II number of zooplankters*at the control (Station 0)was less than that at all other stations, including both the intake and discharge (Figure E-2).Certain other observations from this study also deserve mention, although in some instances there was no significant statistical correlation.

The increases and decreases of the zooplankton popula-tion at the intake and discharge, discussed above, parallel pulses in the cirripedia-(barnacle) nauplii population.

These zooplankters show a high tolerance to chlorination procedures (Oavies and Jensen, 1975).Also, in September at the intake, there was a notable pulse in the population due to an increase of calanoid copepods, probably Acartia bermudensis, which comprised 96'A of the total zooplankton population (Table E-7, Figure E-8).Finally, in August at Station 3, there was a 754 reduction in the surface cladoceran population (Table E-17).

SUMMARY

Analysis of var iance indicated no significant differences in zooplankton abundance between stations, and there was no significant correlation between total zooplankton abundance and temperature.

Physical damage to zooplankton was not significantly different between the intake and discharge canals.

Analysis of variance indicated a significant season'al variation i'n total zooplankton abundance between months.The population was significantly greater in September than in all other months.Differences in zooplankton abundance from month to month are normal seasonal occurrences.

Analysis of variance indicated no significant differences in zooplankton biomass between stations or months.

LITERATURE CITED Bainbridge, R.1953.Studies on the interrelationships of zooplank-ton and phytoplankton.

J.Mar.Biol.Ass.U.K.32:385-447.

Barnes, R.D.1974.Invertebrate zoology, 3rd ed.W.B.Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pa.870 pp.Benda, R.S., and J.Gulvas.1976.Effects of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant on Lake Michigan.Pages 243-250 zn G.W.Esch and R.W.McFarlane, eds.Thermal Ecology II.ERDA Symposium (CONF-750425), Augusta, Ga.Bjornberg, T.K.'S.1971.Distribution of plankton relative to the general circulation system in the area of the Caribbean Sea and adjacent regions.Pages 343-356 in Symposium on investigations and resources of the Caribbean Sea and adjacent regions.Unesco, Paris.Boden, B.P.1954.The Euphausiid Crustaceans of southern African waters.Trans.Roy.Soc.S.Africa 34(l):181-243.

Bowman, T.E., and J.C.McCain.1967.Distribution of the planktonic shrimp, zuc~f'er, in the western North Atlantic.Bull.Mar.Sci.17(3);660-671.

Bsharah, L.1957.Plankton of the Florida Current V.Environmental conditions, standing, crop, seasonal, and diurnal changes at a station forty miles, east of Miami.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 7(3):201-251, Cairns, J., Jr.1976.Heated waste-water effects on aquatic ecosystems.

Pages 32;38 zn G.W.Esch and R.W.McFarlane, eds.Thermal Ecology II.ERDA Symposium (CONF-750425), Augusta, Ga.Chen, C., and A.W.H.Be.1964.Seasonal distributions of euthecosomatous pteropods in the surface waters of five stations in the western North Atlantic.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 14(2):185-220.

Chen, C., and N.S.Hillman.1970.Shell-bearing pteropods as indicators of water masses off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 20(2):350-367.

Clarke, G.L.1940.Comparative richness of zooplankton in coastal and offshore areas of the Atlantic.Biol.Bull.78(2):226-255.

LITERATURE CITED continued Cushing, D.H.1962.Patchiness.

Pages 152-164 zn J.H.Fraser and J.Corlett, eds.Rapports et Proces-Verbaux des Reunions.Cons.Perm.Intern.pour'1'Explor.

de la Mer.Davis, C.C.1950.Observations of plankton taken in marine waters of Florida in 1947 and 1948.g.J.Fla.Acad.Sci.12(2):67-103.

1955.The marine and fresh-water plankton.Michigan State University Press.562 pp.Davies, R.M., and L.D.Jensen.1974.Pages 162-235~Loren D.Jensen, ed.Environmental responses to thermal discharges from Marshall Steam Station, Lake Norman, North Carolina.1975.Zooplankton entrainment at three mid-Atlantic power plants.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.47(8):2130-2142.

Deevey, G.B., and A.Brooks.1971.The annual cycle in quantity and composition of the zooplankton of the Sargasso Sea off Bermuda.II.The surface to 2000 m.L.8 0.16(6):927-943.

Environmental Protection Agency;1973.Biological field and labora-tory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents.

EPA-670/4-73-001.

National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati.

Fraser, J.H.1947.Thaliacea-II.

Family: Doliolidae.

Fisches d'dentification du Zooplancton.

Sheet No.10.Geiger, S.R.1964.Echinodermata:

Larvae.Classes: Ophiuroidea and Echinoidea (Plutei).Fisches d'dentification du Zooplancton.

Sheet No.105.Gosnes, K.L.1971.Guide to identification of marine'and estuarine.invertebrates.

Wiley-Interscience, New York.693 pp.Grant, G.C.1963.Investigations of inner continental shelf waters off lower Chesapeake Bay.Part IV.Descriptions of the chaetognatha and a key to their identification.

Chesapeake Science 4(3):107-119.

Grice, G.D.1960.Calanoid'and cyclopoid copepods collected from the Florida Gulf Coast and Florida Keys in 1954 and 1955.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 10(2):217-226.

Gurney, R.1927.Report on the larvae of the Crustacea Decapoda.Trans.Zool.Soc.Part 2, pp.231-286.

I I LITERATURE CITED continued Heinie, D.R.1976.Effects of passage through power plant cooling systems on estuarine copepods.Environ.Pollut.11:39-58.Hyman, L.H.1959.The invertebrates:

smaller coelomate groups.Vol.5.McGraw-Hill, New York.pp.47-63.Kaestner, A.(Transl.by H.W.Levi and R.L.Levi).1970..Invertebrate zoology, Vol.III.Interscience Publishers', New York.523 pp.Laevastu, T..1962.The adequacy of plankton sampling.Pages 66-73 in J.H:-Fraser and J.Corlett, eds.Rapports et Proces-Verbaux des Reunions.Cons.Perm.Intern.pour 1'Explor.de la Mer.Lewis, J.B.1954.The occurrence and vertical distribution of the euphausiacea of the Rlorida Current.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf.and Caribbean 4(4):265-301.

1955.Some larvae euphauSids of the genus, stylocheiron from the Florida Current.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 5(3):190-202.

Markowski, S.1959.The cooling water of power stations: a new factor in the environment of marine and freshwater inverte-brates'~J.Anim.Ecol.28(2):243-258.

Meglitsch, P.A.1972.Invertebrate zoology, 2nd ed.Oxford University Press, New, York.834 pp.Miner, R.W.1950.Field book of seashore life.G.P.Putnam's Sons, New York.888 pp.Moore, H.B.1952.Physical, factors affecting the distribution of euphausids in the North Atlantic.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 1(4):278-305.

1953.Plankton of the Florida Current.II.Siphonophora.

Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 2(4):559-573.

Newell, G.E., and R.C.Newell.1963.Marine plankton, a practical guide.Hutchinson Educational, London.221 pp.Owre, H.B., and M.Foyo.1967.Copepods of the Florida Current, Fauna Caribaea, No.1, Crustacea, Part 1: Copepoda.Insti-tute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Miami.137 pp.

LITERATURE CITED cont inued Owre, H.B.1960.Plankton of the Florida Current.Part VI.The Chaetognatha.

Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 10 (3): 255-322.1962.Plankton of the Florida Current.Part VIII.A list of the copepoda.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 12 (3): 489-495.Park, T.S.1970.Calanoid copepods from the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico.2.New species and new records from plankton samples.Bull.Mar.Sci.20(2):472-546.

Pike, R.B., and D.I.Williamson.

1959.Crustacea.

Decapoda: larvae.XI.Paguridea, Coenobitidea, Dromiidea, and Homolidea.

Revised ed.Fisches d Identification du Zooplancton.

Sheet 81.Pierce, E.L.1951.The chaetognatha of the west coast of Florida.Biol.Bull.>100(3):205-228.

Pierce, E.L., and M.L.Wass.1962.Chaetognatha from the Florida Current and coastal water of the southeastern Atlantic States.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 12(3):403-431.

Reeve, M.R.1964.Studies on the seasonal variation of the zooplank-ton in a marine sub-tropical in-shore environment.

Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 14(l):103-122.

1973.The ecological significance of the zooplankton in the shallow subtropical waters of south Florida.Second International Conference on Advances in Estuarine Research.34 pp.Roberts, M.H., Jr.1975.Larval development of Jinnotheres chamae reared in the laboratory.

Chesapeake Sci.16(4):242-252.

Ryland, J.S.1965.Polyzoa'(Bryozoa).

Order Cheilostomata, Cyphonautes larvae.Fisches d'fdentification du Zooplancton.

Sheet No.107.Tokioka, T.1955.Notes on some chaetognaths from the Gulf of Mexico.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 5(l):52-65.

Tregouboff, G., and M.Rose.1957.Manuel de Planctonologie Mediterranienne, Tome I-Texte, Tome II-Illustrations.

Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique, Paris.794 pp.

LITERATURE CITED continued Wiebe, P.H.,-and W.R.Holland.1968.Plankton patchiness:

effects on repeated net tows.L.8 0.13(2):315-321.

Wiebe, P.H.1970.Small-scale spatial distribution in oceanic zooplankton.

L.E 0.15(2):205-217.

Williamson, D.I.1960.Crustacea.

Decapoda: larvae.VII.Caridea, Family Crangonidae.

Stenopodidea.

Fisches d'dentification du Zooplancton.

Sheet 90.1967.Crustacea.

Decapoda: larvae.IV.Caridea, Families: Pandalidae and Alpheidae.

Fisches d'dentification du Zooplancton.

Sheet 109.Woodmansee, R.A.1958.The seasonal distribution of the zooplankton off Chicken Key in Biscayne Bay, Florida.Ecology 39{2):247-262.

Wormelle, R.L.1962.A survey of the standing cro'p of plankton of the Florida Current.VI.A study of the distribution of the pteropods of the Florida Current.Bull.Mar.Sci.Gulf and Caribbean 12(l):95-136.

E-17

ATlANTIC OCEAN INDI AN RIVER 05 ST.LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA'i 2 AN~0 Oo 27o 20 sooo aooo sooo ioooo 5CALC IR PKCT INDIAN R IVER HUTC INSON IS AND 00 80 IO FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT LOCATIONS OF ZOOPLANKTON SAMPLING STATIONS 1976 NARCH I977 APPLIEO GIO LOGY, INC.FIGURE E-18 LEGEND S,OOO OBLIQUE TOW SURFACE SAMPLE BOTTOM SAMPLE 4,000 CC I 4f X o 3000 0)o CC 2,000 IIDOO II INTAKE l2 D5CHARCE 2 3 OCEANIC STATONS Figure E-2.Mean zooplankters per cubic meter by station at the St.Lucie Plant, March-November 1976.

I K EU I UJ O Sg K UJ 0.Vl 0'hC X O N 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 I.500 I,OOO 500 LEGEND IMllCH APRIL 0 II I2 0 INTAKE DISCHARGE OBUQUE NAULS 2 3 4 SURFACE OCEANIC 0 2 3 BOTTOM OCEANIC Figure E-3.Total zooplankters per cubic meter by station and date at the St.Lucie Plant, March and April 1976.

l II 0 INTAKE DSCHARGE OBLIQUE HAULS a SURFACE OCEANIC a 3 4 BOTTOM OCEANIC Fi,gure E-4.Total zooplankters per cubic mete'r by station and date, at the St.Lucie Plant, Nay and June 1976.

12.000 11,500 11.000 10,500 10,000 9,500 9,000 8,500 8,000 7.500 g 7,000 6,500 0.6,000 g 5,50O IJJ I-5,000 4,500 4,000 R 3@00 3.000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1.000 500 0 11 12 0 INTAKE DISCHARGE OBLIQUE HAULS LEGEND JULY AUGUST 2 3 4 5 0 SURFACE OCEANIC BOTTOM OCEANIC Figure E-5.Total zooplankters per cubic meter by station and date at the St.Lucie Plant, July and August 1976.

I 20,500 20400 l 7400 I 7,000'l2,000 I I@00 IO,OOO 9+00 6,500 o 6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 5,500~o OOOO N 2400 2,000 l,500 I,OOO 500 0 I I I2 0 INTAKE DISCHARGE OBUQUE HAULS LEGEND SEPTEMBER OCTOBER DATA NOT AVAILABLE 2 5 4 5 0 SURFACE OCEANIC 2 5 4 5 BOTTOM OCEANIC Figure E-6.Total zooplankters per cubic meter by station and date at the St.Lucie Plant, September and October 1976.

5~I~I taboo 2SCO IWO II It 0 INTAKE OISCHARGE OBUQUE HAULS SURFACE OCEANIC BOTTOM OCEANIC Figure E-7.Total zooplankters per cubic meter by station at the St.Lucie Plant, November 1976.

18.RO IS/IO~EGEND STATION II STATION l2 STATION 0~x S'TATION I IS.14.I V a II~8>eO I'lC X l,4 4/Rl DATE 7/I4 8/II Figure E-8.Mean zooplankters per.cubic meter by date at Stations ll, 12, 0, and 1, St.Lucie Plant, March-November 1976.

STATION 8 STATION S STATION A~~STATION S NOT AVAILABLE p,/////j E.S/IR DATE 8/I I IO/IS Figure E-9.Mean zooplankters per cubic meter by date at Stations 2, 3, 4, and 5, St.Lucie Plant, March-November 1976.

I l l 4D LEGENO 08LIOUE HAUL a SURFACE SAMPLE 8OTTOM SAMPI.E O 2.8 X h ED 5 Pi I.O II INTAKE IE DSCHARGE S OCEAIAC STATIONS Figure E-10.Zooplankton biomass at the St.Lucie Plant, March-November 1976.

TABLE E-1 OENSITY AND PERCENTAGE CONPOSITION (X)OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 26 NRCH 1976 Taxon tatzon an e t c 8 S B S B 5 8 S 8 S B Protozoa Coelenterata Nollusca Poiychaeta 1.4 (<I)1.4 (<1)0.4 (<1)1.1 (<I)2.3 (<I)2.3 (<'I)13.8 (3)40.0 1.7 (2)(I)3.5 (3)51.5,, 3.5 (2)(3)32.7 1.2 1.2 2.6 (2)(<I)(I)(1)8.2 18.0 5.2 (I)(I)(<1)89.8 12.0 34.8 22.3 (6)(4)(2)(I)1.2 2.6 (<I)(<1)19.5 (I)6.5 (<1)18.0 (<'I)9.0 (<1)292.0 432.8 1480.0 (12)(12)(23)3.2 9.0 9.0 (<1)(<'I)(<1)Crustacea nauplii 10.8 (I)3.4 (11)8.2 (I)4.8 2.6 (<1)(<1)32.5 (I)cladocera ostracoda copepoda cirripedia (barnacle) nauplii decapoda others Chaetognatha 0.9 (<I)111.4 (7)1313.3 (86)34.7 (2)5.2 (<I)0.9 (3)4.6 (1)2.6 2.3 (8)(<'I)14.9 18.0 419.0 (3)(58)(75)447.6 0.9 9.2 (93)(3)(2)B.1 2.6 46.0 (2)(8)(8)3.5 6.9 (I)(I)165.2 6.9 (7)(5)1392.8 100.5 (62)(73)17.1 (I)285.4 3.4 (13)(3)97.0 5.2 (4)(4)22.8 1.7 (I)(I)40.8 (3)122.5 (8)8.2 (I)2.4 (I)22.8 358.0 (8)(23)2.4 6.0 (I)(cl)2.4 18.0 (1)(I)5.3 (<1)147.8 58.8 (9)(4)11.8 3.5 (1)(<1)10.4 5.1 (I)('I)2.4 5.2 (<I)(<I)40.8 21.5 (3)(8)841.0 210.3 (56)(75)6.5 (<'I)133.0 343.4 758.0 (6)(IO)(12)1505.6 2289.3 3645.8 (63)(65)(56)22.7 1.8 9.0 ('I)(<I)(<1)175.2 291.5 243 7 (7)(8)(4)6.4 37.7 162.4 ('I)(I)(3)35.5 69.8 99.3 (2)(2)(2)Chordata urochordata fish 51.2 (3)1.4 (<1)23.0 28.5 5.2 16.3 (4)(1)(4)(1)1.2 30.0 28.8 3.5 (<I)(2)(2)(<1)10.8 1.3 (1)(<I)35.7 (2)1.8 ('1)

TABLE E-1 (Continued)

DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE COHPOSITION

(")OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 26 HARCH 1976 Taxon Eggs Hiscellaneous 5~8 1.6 4.9 2.6 (<I)(I)(8)1.4 (<1)29.9 137.0 (5)(6)tat on an e th B 5 8 5 B 5 8 5 6.9 302.1 6.0 103.3 73.3 126.6 51.9 54.1~(5)(20)(2)(7)(4)(5)(2)(I)TOTAL 1534.7 480.5 3).0 559.3 2237.6 138.5 1510.6 282.2 1584.5 1633.4 1470.2 2400.9 3529.0 6488.3 a Values expressed are undanaged zooplankters per cubic aeter and represent the ux.'an of three subsaxples.

b For detailed taxononic listing, see Table H-151.c 9~oblique;S surface;B bottom.d Sanple not preserved israediately.

e Scyphozoan ax.dusa reeved fron sanple before analysis.

TABLE E-2 DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE CONPOSITION (X)OF MAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED.ST.LUCIE PLANT 4 APRIL 1976 Taxon S 8 5 tatzon an e t 3.4 8 S 8 S B S B Protozoa Coelen tera ta Mollusca Polychaeta Crustacea nauplii cladocera 2.5 (<I)6.7 5.5 (2)(<1)1 9'2 36 5 201 0 (<I)(<I)(9)(6)8.1 (I)82.9 (13)1.5 (<'I)1.2 11.5 (<I)(4)402.8 12.9 (16)(4)1.2 (<I)3.7 (<I)6.0 (<1)2.3 (<I)0.6 6.0 35.8 4.1 2.5 3.8 (<1)-(1)(I)(<I)(<1)(1)0.8 (<I)0.9 6.7 33.9 ('I)('I)(I)8.9 (<I)82.5 32.5 3096.1 (26)(3)(57)6.7 24.2 (<I)(<I)9.2 10.1 4.8 (3)(<1)(<1)8.8 260.8 (3)(8)21.5 (<I)17.I 106.5 (6)('10)1.7 (<1)3.2 75.3 (1)l2)5.1 7.8 (<I)(1)1.6 16.1 (<1)(<1)2.4 2.7 26.6 2.6 (<I)(<'I)(9)(I)ostracoda copepoda cirripedia (barnacle) nauplii decapoda others Chaetognatha 16.1 6.9 (6)(<'I)165.7 1.3 (62)(<I)34.1 159.8 (9)(5)8.2 11.1 (2)-(<1)1.4 (<I)52.7 34.0 223.0 2632.9 (20)(5)(55)(BI)0.6 648.1 7.4'8.3 (<I)(92)(2)-(<I)2.5 (<I)358.1 1844.5 155.4 (58)P3)=(48)14.2 22 4 3.8 (2)(<'I)(1)82.9 129.3 7.7 (13)(5)(2)6.2 (<1)5.4 (2)126.1 378.9 1787.8 112.1 (40)(33)(33)(35)4.S 4.8 1.6 (<1)(<1)(<I)23.2 107.7 208.3 9.6 (7)(9)(4)(3)4.8 2.4 (<I)(<1)4.4 (<1)1196.3 (36)5.4 (<1)2.7 (<1)23.2 160.9 (8)(16)2.6 (<1)0.9 (<I)1096.9 151.7 633.5 (33)(49)(62)26.9 24.8 15.6 (<1)(8)(2)Chordata urochordata fish 3.8 (1)11.8 (4)2.2 41.3 10.1 54.6 29.6 (<I)(I)(2)(2)(9)5.9 5.5 2.0 1.2 66.0 (1)(<I)(<I)(<I)(21)49.1 352.0.193.8 108.1 (16)(31)(4)(34)'206.3 4.8 12.0 (18)(<I)(<'I)427.4 8.6 64.9 (13)(3)(6)8.1 17.2 2.6 (<I)(6)(<I)

~lj TABLE E-2 (Continued)

DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE CONPOSITION (X)OF l4QOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 4 APRIL 1976 Taxon 5 8 5 tat on an e thc S 8 5 8 5 8 S Eggs Hi seel 1aneous 11.8 6.3 68.4 (4)(<I)(16)~e 132.2 46.5 (4)(8)2.0 (<I)51.0 21.2 21.4 31.4 116.3 59.6 147.8 30.0 28.6 (2)(7)(7)(3)(2)(19)(4)(9)(3)+e+e+e+e+e TOTAL 265.6 700.9 403.5 3233.4 616.9 251 8.2 321.9 312.4 1150.1 5479.6 321.4 3287.9 306.9 1025.6 a Values expressed are undamaged zooplankters per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

b For detailed taxonomic listing, see Table H-152.c 8~oblique;S~surface;8~bottom.d Scyphozoan medusa removed from sample before analysis.e Echinodenn larvae noted as present;however, due to fragility of specimens.

a quantitative analysis is not available.

TABLE E-3 DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE COHPOSITION (N)OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 12 HAY 1976 Taxon tat on an de t 8 S B S 8 Protozoa Coelenterata Hollusca Polychaeta 4.9 (I)1.1 2.5 74.4 25.7 (<1)(5)~(9)'ll)3.8 7.3 1.7 (2)(2)(3)11.4 5.1 (I)(2)20.7 1.8 (8)(<1)0.9 ('I)8.1~3.6 91.4 (4)('I)(7)2.7 (<I)12.7 6.5 (2)(<1)-1.9 2.8 1.2 ('I)('I)('I)3.7 (<1)6.0 (2)10.0 3.0 (I)(1)10.0 (1)2.6-6.1 (3)(3)3.7 6.1 (4).(3)0.5, (<I)Crustacea nauplii 0.7 (<1)24.7 (3).-8.2 6.5 5.0 (I)('I)-('I)cl adocera ostracoda copepoda cirripedia (barnacle) nauplii decapoda others Chaetognatha Chordata urochordata fish 52.6 143.6 (26)(33)12.2 (3)112.2 90.0 (55)(21)3.4 138.7 (2)(32)0.8 (<<I)0.4 (<I)13.6 283.4 (25)(36)0.8 (I)2.4 243.4 (4)(31)15.2 (2)3.8 (<1)9.5 (I)2.6 (1)66.8 80;7 663.7 (29)(31)-(85)2.6 (1)100.2 124.1 18.8 (43)(47)(2)5.7 (2)5.1~9.4 18.7 (2)(4)(2)3.8 30.1 (1)(4)2.8 (<I)222.1 (17)98.9 416.1 692.7 (49)(64)(52)2.3 6.5 (I)(<1)38.5 44.5 130.6 (19)(7)(10)1.2 2.7 26.1 (<I)(<I)(2)2.3 35.4 19.6 (1)(5).(1)43.1 80.0 98.0 (22)(12)(7)1.2 (<I)1.5 (I)4.5 (2)599.1 115.3 (65)(48)7.5 (<1)22.5 52.5 (2)(22)7.5 7.5 (<1)(3)37.4 (4)147.3 24.0 (16)(10)2.5 (<I)60.7 128.8 (61)(54)5.7 49.1 (6)(21)3.1 6.1 (3)(3)2.6 12.2 (3)(5)1.6 (2)

TABLE E-3 (Continued)

DENSiTY AND PERCENTAGE CCHPOSITION (5)OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 12 HAY 1976 Taxon tat on an e 5 8 5 8.S 8 S 8 S 8 5 Eggs Hiscellaneous 29.7 34.1 33.9 121.7 23.1 11.3 38.5 (15)(17)(62)(15)(10)(4)(5)+e 3.5 46.3 (2)(7)1.8 (<1)39 2 79 9 6 0 17 3 30 7 (3)'9)(2)(17)(13)+e TOTAL 204.7 430.8 54.9 787.3 231.2 257.6 780.9 200.3 654.9 1339.2 928.7 241~3 98.9 239.1 a Values expressed are undamaged zooplankters per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

b For detailed taxonomic listing see Table H-153.8~oblique;S~surface;8~bottom.d Scyphozoan medusa removed from sample before analysis.Echinoderm larvae noted as present;however, due to fragility of specimens, a quantitative analysis is not available.

I l I TABLE E-4 DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE CONPOSITION (X)OF HAIOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 8 JOBE 1976 Taxon Protozoa Coelenterata 1.5 (I)S 8 9.7 9.5 (2)(4)28.1 (7)10.6 5.5 4.3 (1)(2)(<I)4.2 (<I)3.7 3.6 15.1 (I)(<I)(3)2.0 (<I)2.4 6.3 10.8 (<I)(4)(<I)1.8 (<1)tat on an e t c 8 S 8 S 8 S 8 S 8 Hollusca Polychaeta Crustacea nauplII cladocera 12.4 (3)3.0 (I)0.5 (<I)10.5 11.8 19.3 5.1 (2)(5)(I)(I)22 48 69 13 (<I)(2)(<I)(<1)0.7 2.4 1.4 3.9 (<I)(I)(<I)(1)0.7 (<I)28.9 16.4 220.7 (2)(5)(6)3.0 5.5 2.1 (<I)(2)(<1)7.6 4.4 19.1 (I)(I')'-=(<I)1.5 1.1 ('I)(<I)7.4 60.5 5.0 (I)(2)(I)7.3 (I)7.4 14.3 6.0 (I)(<I)(I)2.0 (<I)88.7 (7)337.4 (15)6.3 5.4 (4)(<I)4.2 5.4 (2)(<I)1.1 1.8 (I)(<I)ostracoda copepoda clrrlpedla (barnacle) naupIII decapoda others Chaeto9natha Chordata urochordata fish 159.3 310.2 (41)(50)181.1 243.0 (47)(39)8.1 12.7 (3)(2)1.1 14.1 (<I)(2)0.4 (<1)0.7 (<I)0.4 1.4 (<I)(<I)102.0 1045.3 (42)(59)92.5 609.3 (37)(34)7.1 53.7 (3)(4)2.8 (<I)2.4 2.8 (1)(<I)2.4 4.1 (I)(<I)1.4 (<1)260.5 (61)80.4 (19)15.3 (4)3.9 (I)949.9 148;7 (71)(42)176.6 141.0 (13)(40)115.6 5.5 (9)(2)4.6 4.4 (<I)(I)6.1 (<I)6.4-3.1 1.1 (I)(<I)(<I)10.2 7.6 1.1 (2)(I)(<I)2150.6 (55)946.8 (24)507.2 (13)4.2 (<I)17.0 (<1)I 8.5 (<I)6.4 (<I)752.5 (56)7.4 398.7 (I)(12)1.9 576.8 (<I)(17)5.6 24.9 (I)(I)7.6 7.1 (1)(<I)34.2 (7)7.0 (1)143.8 (11)273.3 (20)9.6 (I)1.0 7.2 (<I)(I)148.0 74.7 (21)(2)9.3 14.3 (1)(<1)13.1 19.2 (3)(I)18.1 7.2 (4)(1)3.6 (<1)479.2 2096.7 361.3 (69)(63)(75)112.6 1367.4 (66)(59)12.6 285.3 (7)(12)6.4 236.9 (4)(10)34.1 (I)2.2 (I)4.2 23.3 (2)(I)5.3 (3)

I I I TABLE E-4 (Continued)

DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE COHPOSITION (S)OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 8 JUNE 1976 Taxon S 8 tat on an e 8 S 8 S 8 S 8 Eggs Hiscellaneous 18.5 19.4 11.8 (5)(3)(5)~d 28.9 15.4 (2)(4)~d 13.7 16.4 23.4 9.3 67.6 18.1 33.6 10.5 10.8 (1)(5)(1)(1)(2)(4)(3)(6)(<1)j+d+d+d~d~d (<I)/+TOTAL 388.1 624.6 246.7 1775.9 430.5 1330.3 351.1 3914.5 694.1 3342.8 482.9 1337.5 171.7 2320.4 Values expressed are undamaged zooplankters per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

b For detailed taxonomic listing, see Table H-154.8~oblique;5 surface;8~bottom.d Echinoderm larvae-noted as-present; however, due to fragility of specimens, a quantitative analysis is not available.

l L I l r TABLE E-5 DENSiTY AND PERCENTAGE CONPOSITION (5)OF MAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 14 JULY 1976 Taxon Protozoa Coelenterata 0.7 (<1)7.0 (<1)tatonan et 3.0 (1)8 S 4.2 (1)1.4 (<1)Hollusca Polychaeta 0.7 (<'i)6.0 (<'i)17.9 (1)35.1 (<'1)16.9 6.0 (<1)(2)13.2 3.2 (<1)(1)-5.6 3 J)4.7 (<i)(1)(2)40.9 1.7 5.4 7.0 25.3 (1)(1)(<1)(1)(3)15.7 16.2 1.4 (1)(<1)(<<1)Crustacea nauplii 2.5 (2)95.6 (3)6.9 42.1 (<1)(1)5.6 (<1)19.8 (<'i)15.7 (1)1.4 (<1)cladocer a ostracoda copepoda cirripedia (barnacle) nauplii deca poda others Chaetognatha 17.7 (11)59.8 (38)37.0 (24)23.3 (15)1.2 (1)2.5 (2)6.0 (<1)33.6 1918.4 (25)(62)84.4 35.9 (62)(1)13.8 131.5 (10)(4)1.2 17.9 (1)(1)0.6 460.3 (<1)(15)960.9 28.1 2351.6 (40)(<1)(35)705.1 6841.8 3017.0 (30)(85)(45)13.8 28.1 22.6 (1)(<1)(<1)131.2 189.7 383.3 (6)(2)(6)89.8 21.0, 434.2 (4)(<1)-(6)200.4 625.2 287.6 (8)(8)(4)1.5 112.0 62.9 (<1)(1)(2)154.3 7630.3 91.8 2236.3 (45)(93)(32)(76)13.2 18.9 (<<1)(1)145.0 3.1 147.7 (2)(1)(5)19.8 1.6 31.4 (<'1)(1)(1)10.6 72.5 11.1 88.1 (3)(1)(4)(3)1.7 108.5 (1)(2)134.2 4768.3 (43)(90)1.7 (1)5.1 151.9 (2)(3)3.4 38.0 (1)(1)8.5 43.3 (3)(1)316.8 (43)541.3 278.7 (65)(40)2.8 (<1)39.2 63.3 (5)(9)75.5 (9)Chordata urochordata fish 3.2 (2)7.6 (5)0.6 35.9 (<1)(1)0.6 17.9 (<<1)(1)55.3 21.1 169.2 (2)(<1)(3)5.6 (<1)15.1 92.3 (4)(1)1.5 (<1)11.1 28.3 (4)(1)6.8 (2)1.4 50.7 (<1)(7)4.2 (1)

I l TABLE E-5 (Continued)

DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE CCMPOSITION (5)OF MAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED 5T.LUCIE PLANT 14 JULY 1976 tat on an e t Taxon 5 8 S 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 Eggs Miscellaneous 0.5 1.7'340.6 22I.2 168.6 (~1)(1)-(11)(9)(2)67.7 149.8 92.3 164.5 254.8 (1)(43)(I)(57)(9)149.5 162.8 152.5 (48)(3)(18)TOTAL 156.7 136.5 3083;9 2384.6 8007.8 6766.9 344.88210.4 291.1 2940.7 3)2.6 5294.4 832.3 734.8 Trl I (A Values expressed are undamaged zooplankters per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

b For detailed taxonomic listing, see Table H-155.8 oblique;5~surface;8~bottom.

I l l I TABLE E-6 DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION (T)OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECIED ST.LUCIE PLANT 11 AUGUST 1976 Taxon tat on an e t 5 8 5 8 S Protozoa Coelenterata Nollusca Polychaeta Crustacea nauplii cladocera ostracoda copepoda cirripedia (barnacle) nauplii decapoda others Chaetognatha Chordata urochordata fish 5.5 5.6 (I)(<I)27.2 5.5 13.1 8.7 (I)(I)(I)(3)4.5 6.8 (<I)(I)27.2 (I)4.5 (<I)3.7 8.7 (<'I)(3)655.3 66.9 (26)(23)128.9 1739.9 (14)(69)744.4 18.7 (79)(I)16.5 9.4 (2)(<I)9.0 6.9 18.7 (<I)(I)(I)99.7 8.2 11.2 2.9 (5)(I)(<I)(I)417.0 148.4 (21)(52)1346.0 (68)27.2 49.4 (I)(17)4.5 (<I)4.5 15.1 50.5 (<I)(2)(2)10.8 (<I)'IO.B (<I)195.0 (4)1028.8 (20)10.8 (<I)1516.I (29)1895.2 (37)140.8'(3)205.8 (4)32.5 (I)97.4 (2)10.8 (<'I)4.7 11.6 0)('I)ll.6 (<I)18.8 104.4 (5)(3)11.6 (<I)9.4 (2)117.4 1246.8 (29)(33)11.6 (<I)103.3 2087.7 (25)(55)47.0 11.6 (>>)(<1)84.6 121.8 (2'I)(3)5.8 (<I)81.2 (2)9.4 5.8 (2)(<I)4.7 29.0 (I)(I)7.9 11.7 (<I)('I)11.7 (1)365.4 70.0 (5)(2)11.7 (<11'7.9 (<I)230.3 268.3 (3)(7)15.9 (~)4662.0 3161.7 (58)(80)587.7 35.0 (7)(1)2041.2 23.3 (25)(I)15.8 11.7 ('I)('I)103.2 35.0 (I)(I)47.7 233.3 (I)(6)46.7 (I)205.0.(3)14.6 (<1)2578.2 (32),483.4 (6)3925.8 (48)58.6 (1)161.0 (2)29.2 ('I)146.4'(2)410.2 (5)58.5 (I)4.3 ('I)4.4 9.2 (<I)(<I)28.3 142.5 (I).(1)4.6 ('I)4.6 (<I)130.9 4187.I (3)(36)114.9 (I)3451.4 6126.6 (9'I)(53)4.3 372.3 ('I)(3)6.6 344.7 (<I)(3)59.7 (1)43.7 78.1 (I)(I).74.2 87.3 (2).(I)21.8 9.2 (I)(<I)0.6 ('I)116.5 15.0 (4)(I)0.6 ('I)2.1 ('I)1226.3 137.0 (40)(12)2.1 2.3 (<I)('I)1471.9 526.9 (47)(46)21.2 163.6 (I)(14)163.1 277.1'5)(24)2.1 4.7 (<1)'<I)61.4 16.8 (2)(I)21.2 6.4 (I)(I)6.4 1.7 (<I)(<I)

Ol CV~V 44~V IO~0&V CO III IO~+~V OJ V Cl Cl 8 8-.Rh=-I I m VI~Cl IJJ 8 8 5 8 I JI C 0 JJ Jl 0 JI 0 I J P 6 V Ol V IO D Os++Ol~V 4I~4 4I EJ Vl CO Cl CO IV CO P)Ol 8'I 5 0 C 8 JJ C L~J 5 0 00 ,4I 4I JJ~C 0 I O.4I 0 4I 0 Vl~J OI s 5 0 t.'8 I4 4I a~J Vl 4I 4I'0 I 0 P IJ 0 a 0 4I JJ CT e 0 4I 0 4 0 JJ 4I I 0 JJ JJ D 4I 8-JJ JJ JJ C 0 4l JJ VI O.CO~~JI 4I IJ D IO 4I V JJ O C Vl~0 IJI I t~D JJ 0 0 C IJ I5L W 0 D TABLE E-7 DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION (N)OF MAIOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 14 SEPTEMBER 1976 Taxon Protozoa 5 8 S 2.3 (<I)tat on an e t c 15.7 (<I)8 S-8 S B S 8 3.0 (<I)-Coelenterata Hollusca Polychaeta 12.5 (<I)8.4 (<I)1.4 (<I)8.4-7.1 (<'I)(<'I)17.9 16.1 (<I)(<I)26.9 60.0 (<I)(3)2.3 (<<I)8.5 (<I)12.7 109.9 (<I)(I)15.3 (<I)3.0 24.8 (<I)(<I)32.6 105.6 (<I)(I)5.9 12.4 (<I)-(<I)9.1 74.8 20.2 (<I)(<I)(<I)42.6 37.4 15.3 192.2 (I)(<I)(<I)(I)3.8 5.1 (<I)(<<I)Crustacea nauplII cladocera ostracoda copepoda cirrlpedla (barnacle) nauplII deca poda others Chaetognatha Chordata urochordata 16.6 (<I)58.2 (<I)19479.0 (96)481.9 (2)33.3 (<1)-4.2 (<I)58.2 (<I)4.3 (<I)8.3 351.7 (<I)(19)4985.0 910%(95)(48)171.0 M 5 (3)(<I)33.4 507.9 (<I)(27)2.9 (<I)8.4 28.4 (<'I)(2)16.7 22.7 (<I)(I)17.9 16.2 (<I)(<I)698.6 55.5 (I2)(3)9.0 9.2 (<I)(<I)3806.7 1228.6 (67)(57)26.9 18.5 (<I)(<I)555.4'72.1 (9)(31)44.9 16.1 (<I)(<I)134.3 41.6 (2)(2)304.5 4.6 (5)(<I)21.2 (I)93.1 6014.8 (6)(34)15.7 (<I)<<114.3 7349.7 (59)(42)21.2 455.4 (I)(3)410.6 3266.5 (26)(19)4.2 31.4 (<I)(<I)29.6 47.1 (2)(<I)8.5 15.7 (<I)(<1)3.0 124.3 27.4 (<I)(1)(<<I)193.2 (2)12.5 (<I)1875.1 4281.2 91.2 1800.9 (41)(43)(2)(19)37.3 3.0 (<I)(<I)1580.9 4728-5 2156.0 6468 4 (34)(48)(65)(67)53.5 31.1 15.2 12.5 (I)(<I)(<I)(<I)968.7 385.2 857.4 891.2 (21)(4)(26)(9)11.9 37.2 6.2 (<I)(<1)(<'I)14.8 43.5 60.8 105.9 (<1)(<I)(I)-(I)1797.8 8202.6 (28)(69)38.2 15.2 (<I)<<I)474.4 672.4 (7)(5)3.8 10.1 (<I)(<I)7.6 40.5 (<I)(<I)3.8 (<'I)65.7 (<I)3.8 (<I)4100.6 2624.7 (63)(22)f(sh 45.7 (<I)29.2 (<I)15.7 (<I)14.9 6.2 (<I)(<I)6.2 (<I)

TABLE E-7 (Continued)

OENSiTY AND PERCENTAGE CONPOSITION (S)OF NAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCiE PLANT 14 SEPTENBER 1976 Taxon Eggs Niscellaneous 8.3 (<1)12 32.6 53.8 9.3 (2)(1)(<1)-t 2.3 (<1)tat on an e t 12.7 94.2 (1)(<1)qd 3 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 11.9 37.3 27.4 43.6 11.5"5.1 (<1)(<1)(<1)(<1)-(<1)(<1)+d+d qd TOTAL 20206.3 5260.4 1878.1 5696.8 2154.7 1536.6 17447.1 4579.2 9854.6 3290.1 9652.8 6460.6 11853.8 Values expressed are undamaged zooplankters per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

b For detailed taxonomic listing, see Table H-157.9~oblique;5~surface;8~bottom.Echinoderm larvae noted"as present!however, due to fragility of specimens, a quantitative analysis is not available.

TABLE E-8 DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE COHPOSITION (X)OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 15 OCTOBER 1976 Taxon tat on an e t 8 S 8 S 8 Protozoa Coelenterata Hollusca Polychaeta 82.0 (1)22.0 (<I)1.8 (<I)1.8-(<1)100.8 66.7 (5)(7)14.4 68.2 (I)(8)0.9 4.0 (1)(<'I)4.5 359.5 (5)(7)118.6 (3)1.5 (<I)1.2 10.5 (<1)(<I)45.5 12.0 104.8 (3)(<1)(7)11.0 (<1)58.7 (5)17.4 (1)2.7 (<I)1.5 (<I)12.2 32.2 27.4 (1)(2)(2)1.5 7.6 (1)(1)3.3 (<1)63.0101.0 (5)(2)4.6 (<'I)Crustacea naupl i i cladocera ostracoda copepoda cirripedia (barnacle) nauplii decapoda others Chaetognatha Chordata urochordata fish 62.0 (1)624.4 (11)4729.2 (85)40.0 (<1)14.0 (<'I)10.0 (<1)2.0 (<1)3.0 (<I)36.0.7.6 (2)(I)1.8 (<'I)529.5 416.8 (24)(47)1415.6 80.3 (66)(9)25.2 221.2 (1)(25)14.4 (1)12.6 6.0 (1)(1)5.4 21.2 (<'I)(2)2.7 19.8 (3)(<1)162.0 (4)86.0 3018.9 (88)(73)252.9 (6)102.8 (2)0.9 15.9 (I)(<I).0.9 55.3 (I)(I)1.8 27.7 (2)(1)9.7 318.1 (I)(ll)17.4 (1)21.4 (2)13.4 42.0 29.9'I69.8 (I)(1)(2)(14)1679.8 1641.3 1327.4 738.1 (94)(55)(84)(61)6.1 394.6 15.0 123.0 ('1)(13)(I)13.3 501.1 49.9 28.0 (1)(17)(3)(2)1.8 25.0 2.6 (<I)(2)('1)15.2 30.0 24.9 4.0 (1)(I)(2)(<I)5.7 ('1)3.1 15.2 (<1)(1)1.9 (1)699.4 710.9 1146.5 (62)(52)(89).32.3 301.4 8.2 (3)(22)(1)316.4 98.6 46.5 (28)(7)(4)1.9 (<I)23.1 7.6 41.0 (2)(1)(3)43.0 170.6 13.7 (4)(13)(1)7.0 (1)123.7 3.3 (9)(<1)2.3 (<I)641.6 4371.0 (46)(90)333.6 29.3 (24)(1)179.7 325.8 (13)(7)2.3 3.3 (<I)(<I)4.7 32.7 (<I)(1)14.0 13.0 (1)('1)

I TABLE E-8 (Continued)

DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE COHPOSITION (X)OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PLANT 15 OCTOBER 1976 Taxon Eggs Hi seel 1aneous tat>on an e 1.2 (<1)11.9 0.6=+(<1)(<1)B 5 18.7 1.5 1.9 11.7 (2).(<1)(<1)(1)8.0/d+7.6/d 9.3/-d (I)/+(<I)/+(1)/+TOTAL 5585.6 2159.3 891.0 97.7 4149.3 1787.8 2962.1 1576.9 1207.1 1134.0 1363.1 1286.0 1397.5 4882.7 Values expressed are undamaged zooplankters per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

b For detailed taxonomic listing, see Table H-158.B~oblique;S~surface;B~bottom.Echinoderm larvae noted as present;however, due to fragility of specimens, a quantitative analysis is not available.~.

TABLE E-9 DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE CONPOSITION (X)OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LUCIE PUVlT 10 NOVENBER 1976 Taxon Protozoa Coelenterata Hollusca Polychaeta 4.3 173.6 (I)(4)15.0 (2)170.7 253.8 196.4 (13)(18)(7)13.6 12.9 137.0 (I)'(1)(5)tat on an e t 24.4 7.5 (2)(1)11.1 17.5 (I)(2)8 S B 1.5 (<I)14.2 12.1 61.9 34.7 (2)(6)(8)(5)17.1 6.1 1.5 26.7 (2)(3)('I)(4)195.0 (9)16.0 (1)5.5 997.3 (2)(8)1.9 124.7 (I)(I)Crustacea nauplii 9.1 10.2 (<1)(1)36.5 1.1 2.5 (1)(<1)(<1)9.3 (I)10.7 6.4 (2)'" ('I)-" 45.3 (<I).cladocera 9.1 (<1)12.5 (1)4.8 3.0 5.3 (2)(<I)(I)25.1 (11)ostracoda copepoda cirripedia (barnacle) nauplii decapoda others Chaetognatha Chordata urochordata fish 1.3 (<1)278.2 484.1 1024.2 661.9 (41)(12)(77)(48)378.7 3292.8 102.4 376.1 (55)(83)(8)(27)1.8 3.4 9.1 (<I)(<1)(1)0.8 13.7 2.6 (<I)(<I)(<I)2.9 4.6 3.4 20.7 (<1)(<1)(<I)(2)0.4 9.1 10.2 29.6 (<1)(<1)(I)(2)0.7 (<1)1.1 (<I)917.7 556.6 (33)(48)1451.9 532.2 (52)(46)4.6 5.5 (<1)(<I)9.1 4.4 (<'I)(<'I)32.0 22.2 (I)(2)4.6 2.2 (<'I)(<1)769.5 459.0 (75)(50)183.0 363.5 (18)(40)7.5 11.4 (1)(1)0.7 (<1)5.0 3.6 (<1)(<1)10.0 16.4 (1)(2)104.6 473.1 (51)(64)62.0 140.6 (30)(19)21.1 (3)10.5 (1)6.1 7.6 (3)(I)496.4 863.0 (76)(39)32.0 1070.7 (5)(48)9.6 (<I)3.2 (<I)16.0 (I)34.7 35.2 (5)(2)2.7 (<I)154.5 5904.7 (67)(47)18.6 5349.3 (8)(42)2.8 79.3 (1)-(1)22.7 (<1)11.3 (<1)4.6 (2)

TABLE E-9 (Continued)

DENSITY AND PERCENTAGE COHPOSITION (X)OF HAJOR ZOOPLANKTON TAXA COLLECTED ST.LuCIE PLANT 10 NOVEHBER 1976 Taxon S 8 Stat>on an e 5 8 Eggs Hi seel 1aneous 5.2'.2'.0 12.1 7.3 18.2 10.7 22.4 15.8 56.7 (1)'I)(<1)(I)(4)(2)(2)(1)(7)(<1)++4.6/d 1.1 ld (<1)/+(1)/+(<1)/+(I)/+(<1)/+(<1)/+(1)/+686.7 3987.0 1338.1 1373.2 2803.5 1164.1 1020.0 910.1 204.2 740.5 653.9 2240.7 230.7 12591.3 m I CJl Values expressed are undamaged zooplankters per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

b For detailed taxonomic listing.see Table H-159.9~oblique;5~surface;8~bottom.d Echinodenn larvae noted as present>-however, due to fragility of specimens, a quantitative analysis is not available.

TABLE E-10 TOTAL AND MEAN ZOOPLAHKTERS PER CUBIC HETER ST.LUCIE PLANT HARCH-NOVEISER 1976 Statson and de th Date B B S 8 x 5 8 x S 8 x 5 B x S 8 x 5-8-x 26 HAR 1534.7 480.5 21 APR 265.6 700.9 12 HAY 204.7 430.8 8 JUH 388.1 624.6 14 JUL 156.7 136.5 11 AUG 1971.3 937.8 14 SEP 20206.3 5260.4 15 OCT 5585.6 2159.3 10 HOV 686.7 3987.0 IEAN 3444.4 1635.3 31.0 559;3 295.2 403.5 3233.4 1818.5 54.9 787.3 421.1 246.7 1775.9 1011.3 3083.9 2384.6 2734.3 2535.4 285.0 1410.2 1878.1 5696.8 3787.5 891.0 97.7 494.4 1338.1 1373.2 1355.7 1162.5 1799.2 1480.9 2237.6 616.9 231.2 430.5 8007.8 5154.8 2154.7 4149.3 2803i5 2865.1 138.5 1188.1 2518.2 1567.6 257.6 244.4 1330.3 880.4 6766.9 7387.4 408.7 2781.8 1536.6 1845.7 1787.8 2968.6 1164.1 1983.8 1767.6 2316.4 1510.6 282.2 896.4 321.9 31 2.4 317.2 780.9 200.3 490.6 351.1 3914.5 2132.8 344.8 8210.4 4277.6 3781.1 8092.9 5937.0 17447 1 NA NAc, 2962.1 1576.9 2269.5 1020.0 910.1 965.1 3168.8 2937.5 2160.7 1584.5 1150.1 654.9 694.1 291.1 3943.5 4579.2 1207.1 204.2 1589.9 1633.4 1609.0 5479.6 3314.9 1339.2 997.1 3342.8 2018.5 2940.7 1615.9 8100.2 6021.9 9854.6 7216.9 1134.0 1170.6 740.5 472.4 3840.6 2715.2 1470.2 2400.9 1935.6 321.4 3287.9 1804.7 928.7 241.3 584.3 482.9 1337.5 910.2 312.6 5294.6 2803.5 3785.2 11540.8 7663.0 3290.1 9652.8 6471.5 1363.1 1286.0 1324.6 653.9 2240.7 1447.3 1400.9 4142.5 2711.7 3529.0 6488.3 50082 306.9 1025.6 6663 98.9 239.1 169 D 171.7 2320.4 1246.1 832.3 734.8 783$3100.7 1157.9 21293 6460.6 11853.8 91572 1397.5 4882.7 3140.1 230.7 12591.3 64110 1792.0 4588.2 3190.1>S.8 and B values represent the uean of three subsauples.

B~oblique;5~surface;8~botton Data not avaIIable.

W W&&M&W M W W&W W W TABLE E-ll TEHPERATURES (C)RECORDED DURING THE ZOOPLANKTON STUDY ST.LUCIE PLANT HARCH-OECEHBER 1976 Station and de thn 3 Date 8 9 S 8 x 5 8 x 5 B x 5 8 x S 8 x S 8 x 26 HAR 21.8 22.4 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.2 22.1 22.2 22.2 22.3 22.3 22.2 22.1 22.2 22.4 22.2 22.3 22.3 22.5 22.4 21 APR 12 HAY 8 JUN 14 JUL 24.6 25.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 24.9 28.4 22.9 22.9 22.9 24.0 23.8 23.9 23.8 23.4 23.6 24.2 23.8 24.0 24.5 24.0 24.3 25.0 24.0 24.5 24.8 24.0 24.4 23.5 23.2 23.4 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.7 23.7 23.7 24.6 23.9 24.3 26.4 35.4 22.9 22.9 22.9 28.2 27.7 28.0 27.9 27.6 27.8 28.1 27.7 27.9 28.3 28.0 28.2 27.3 27.2 27.3 24'25.8 23 F 1 23.0 23.1 23.0 22.6 22.8 24.0 23.3 23.7 25.0 24.0 24.5 23.7 23.3 23.5 23.0 22.7 22.9 11 AUG 27.1 27.3 27.5 27.4 27.5 28.0 27.7 27.9 27.9 26.5 27.2 27.5 27.2 27.4 28.4 26.7 27.6 27.6 27.4 27.5 14 SEP 27.9 29.2 27.8 27.8 27.8 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.5 28.4 28.5 28.7 28.5 28.6 27.9 29.2 28.6 28.5 28.2 28.4 15 OCT 24.5 24'24.0 26.0 25.0 26.1 27.0 26.6 27.4 27.5 27.5 27.0 27.1 27.1 27.5 28.0 27.8 26.5 26.2 26.4 10 NOV 20.0 20.4 20.0 20.2 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.2 20.5 20.4 01.4 21.3 21.4 20.5 20.4 20.5 21.2 20.7 21.0 13 OEC 23.9 28.6 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.7 23.7 23.7 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.2 24.3 24.2 24.5 24.3 24.4 8~oblique (mean of surface and bottom values).5~surface.8~bottom x~mean.

SALIHITIES (o/pp)RECORDED DURIHG THE'200PLAHKIOH STUDY ST.LUCIE PLAHT NRCH-DECEI8ER 1976'tation and de t Date 9 8 5 8 x 5 8 x S 8 x S B x 5 B x S 8 x 26 HAR 35.4 35.7 34.0 33.9 34.0 33.4 34.2 33.8 33.4 33.5 33.5 34.6 33.7 34.2 33.5 33.7 33.6 33.5 33.4 33.5 21 APR 34.2 12 HAY 34.0 34.3 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.4 33.8 34.3'4.1 34.2 34.0 34.1'3.9 34.0 34.0 34.5 35.0 35.2 35.1 34.9 35.2 35.1 34.9 34.2 34.4 34.0 34.1 35.0 35.0 34.2 34.4 34.1 32.5 34.2 33.4 34.3 34.3 34.8 34.6 8 JIP..'0.0 30.1 33.8 34.3 34.1 34.5 36.0-35.3 35.5 35.5 35.5 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 34.5 35.5 35.0 14 JUL 35.1 34.9 35.0 34.9 35.0 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.2 35.3 35.3 34.9 34.9 34.9 35.0 35.3 35.2 35.0 35.1 35.1 11 AUG 34.I 34.5 34.8 35.0 34.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 34.8 34.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 34.8 35.0 34.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 15 OCT 35.0 35.0 35.2 35.0 35.1 35.0 34.5 34.8 35.0 35.2 35.1 35.0 14 SEP 32.1 34.0 34.5 35.0 34.8 34.0 34.5 34.3 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 35.0 34.8 34.5 35.0 35.2 35.1 35.0 35.5 34.8 34.0 34.5 34.3 35.3 35.0 35.0 35.0 10 HOV 35.3 35.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5'5.5 35.5 35.5 36.1 35 0 35.6 35 5 35 5 35 AS 35 5 35 5 35 5 13 DEC 36.0 35.5 35.1 35.1 35.I 35.I 35.1 35.I 36.0 36.0 36.0 35.8 36 0 35.9 36 0 35 8 35'9 36.0 36.0 36 0 II~oblIque (ax.an of surface and bottora values).S~sueface.8~bottocr.x~crea n.

TABLE E-13 DISSOLVED OXYGEtt (ppm)RECORDED OURlttG THE ZOOPLANKTOtt STUDY ST.LUCIE PLANT PARCH-DECEPBER 1976.Sta Ion and de the Date 8 0 S 8 x 5 8 x 5-B x 5 8 x S 8 x S 8 26 HAR 6.8 6.8 6.4 6.4 6.4 21 APR 5.5 5.6 6.0 6.0 6.0 12 ttAY 6.2 6.0 6.3 6.2 6.3 8 JUN 5.2 4.8 6.3 6.2 6.3 14 JUL 5.3 5.2 6.4 6.1 6.3 11 AUG 14 SEP 5.4 5.4 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.6 NAb 5.3 5.4 S.4 15 OCT 7.4 6.8 7.6 7.0 7.3 10 NOV 6.2 6.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 13 DEC 6.2 6.3 5.7 5.7 5.7 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.2 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.4 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.2 5.9 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.1.6.0 6.1 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.4 5.9 6.2 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.0 6.2 6.3 5.9 6.1 5.2 5.5 5.4 6.1 5.3 S.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.1 5.4 6.5 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.2 6.4 6.8 6.3 6.6 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.7 6.8 6.8 5.8 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.9 6.2 6.3 6.3 5.7 6.1 5.9 5.6 4.9 5.3 5.7 5.1 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.1 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.3 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.0 7.2 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6.5.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.7 8~obltque (mean of surface and bottom values).S surface.8~bottom.x~mean.b NA~not available.

TABLE E-'l4

SUMMARY

OF ZOOPLANKTON COUNTS,.ZOOPLANKTON PHYSICAL CONDITION, AND INTAKE AND DISCHARGE TEMPERATURES ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-NOVEMBER 1976 Parameters X.Total.population Number'per cubic meter damaged., n a e isc ar e.an e n a e isc ar e Tem erature C Inta e Disc arge ambient thermal 26 MAR 21 APR 12 MAY 8 JUN 14 JUL ll AUG 14 SEP 15 OCT 10 NOV Mean 1541.1 273.2--209.3 389.5 159.7 1994.0 20235.4 5605.6.692.5 3455.6 482.7 707.2 430.8 628.3 139.9 943.3 5260.4 2197.1 4046.3 1648.4-69+159+1 06+61-12-.53,-61+484-52 2 1<1<1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1<1 2 1 21:8 22.4 24:6 25.8+0.6 24.9 26.4 24.0 25.8+1.8 27.1 27.9 24.5 20.0 27.3 29.2 24.8 20.4+0.2+1.3+0.3+0.4 g8.4"+3.5 35.4+9.0 a Values represent the mean of three subsamples.

b percent change=Dischar e-'ntake x 100.Intake TABLE E-15 SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS.

BETWEEN TOTAL ZOOPLANKTON PER CUBIC METER AND TEMPERATURE ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-NOVEMBER 1976'onth NAR ,-.,APR MAY.JUN JUL'AUG.-SEP OCT NOV Cor rel ati on coefficient 0.48406-0.36973-0.23603-0.16300 0.50367-0.46266 0.07793-0.28797-0.'24360 Degrees of, freedom 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 Critical values for correlation coefficients at a=,.05 were df 12=0.553 and df 10=0.576.E-51 TABLE E-16 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ZOOPLANKTON DENSITY ST e LUC I E PLANT MARCH-NOVEMBER 1976 Source Degree of Sum of Mean freedom s uares-s uare F values Stations Months Error 7..'9 17411775.99 2487396.57 0.8538 53555876.59 7650839.51 2.6261*142752812.8 2913322.71 TOTAL 63 213720465.4 September data not included in analysis.*Significant at a=.05.E-52 1 jl I TABLE E-17 OAHAGE TO CLAOOCERAN POPULATION ST.LUCIE PLANT HARCH-NOVEHBER 1976 a uantit 26 HAR Total Damaged Percent 21 APR Total Damaged Percent 12 HAY Total Damaged Percent 2 5 8 5 8 tat on an e th 2 5 8 0.8 0 (0)3 5 8 2,4 0 (0)5 8 5.2 6.5 0 0 (0)(0)1.5 0 (0)-S 8 8 JUN Total Damaged Percent 14 JUL Total Damaged Percent 0.5 0.7 0 0 (0)(0)1.5-1.1 0 0 (0)(0)5.0 3.0 (60)1.1 1.8 0 0 (0)(0)ll AUG Total Damaged Percent 14 SEP Total Damaged Percent 4.5 0 (0)-1062.3 96.0 407.0 29.1 (38)-(30)58.2 8.3 438.2 859.8 0 0 86.5 161.2 (0)(0)(20)(19)1754.3 216.0 1484.6 317.7 238.2 98.6 237.8 87.4 (14)(46)(16)(28)99.4 101.6 8998.7 NA 43.9 8.5 2983.9 (44)(8)(33)1073.3 3720.2 320.8 5225.8 1478.3 257.2 805.0 1142.6.189.9 1038.7 252.0 120.2 (75)(31)(59)(20)(17)(47)2698.2 5455.6 185.5 2449.0 4953.6 3444.0 823.1 1174.4 94.3 648.1 853.0 819.3 (31)(22)(51)(27)(17)(24)15 OCT Total Damaged Percent 10 HOV-Total Damaged Percent 66.0 57.6 13.7 4.0 21.6 6.1 (6)(38)(45)209.4 18.2 442;6 5.0 47.4 8.5 124.5 5.0 (23)(47)(28)(100)9.1 12.5 0 0 (0)(0)25.4 3.1 4.0 0 (16)(0)4.8 6.0 0 3.0 (0)(50)20.9 5.7 (27)5.'3 0 (0)175.0 9.8 51.3 6.5 (29)(66)27.0 1.9 (7)8~oblique;S~surface;8~bottom."Total" and"damaged" are expressed as number per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

Data not available.

l I TABLE E-18 DAMAGE TO OSTRACOD POPULATION ST.LUCIE PLANT NARCM-NOVEISER 1976 tat on an de th 2 0 2 ,3 a uantlt B 0 S 8 S 8 S 8 S 8 4 S 8 5 5 8 26 NAR 21 APR 12 PAY 8 JUN Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 0.9 0 (0)2.6 2.3 188.4 6.9 49.0 21.5 0 0 22.9 08.2 0 (0)(0)(12)(0)(17)(0)2.5 0 (0)2.6 0 (0)32.4 140.1 1.2 2.6 (4)(2)222.1 0 (0)3.6 0 (0)146.0 363.1 812.1 13.0 19.7 54.1 (9)(5)(7)4.5 0 (0)14 JUL 11 AUG Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 17.7 0 (0)6.0 1050 8 0 89.9 (0)(9)28.1 2441.8 0 90.2 (0)(4)1.5 112.0 0 0 (0)(0)11.6 15.9 0 0 (0)(0)62.9 F 7 108'0 0 0 (0), (0)(0)483.4 114.9 0 0 (0)(0)342.1 25.3 (7)2.1 2.3 0 0 (0)(0)14 SEP 15 OCT 10 NOV Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 1.8 0 (0)9.0 9.2 0 0 (0)(0)1.3 0 (0)1.1 0 (0)15.7 NA 0 (0)37.3 3.0 0 0 (0)(0)1.9 0 (0)-=2.3 0 (0)B~ob1$que;S~surface;8~bottom."Total" and"damaged" are expressed as number per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

Data not available.

5 I TABLE E-19 DANAGE TO COPEPOD POPULATION ST.LUCIE PLANT HARCH-NOVENBER 1976 at uantit 2 0 D 8 5 B S tat on an de th 2 3 4 5 8 5 B 5 B 5 B 5 8 26 NR Total Damaged Percent 112.3 14.9 0.9 0 (1)(0)30.0 453.5 1832.4 12.0 34.5-439.6 (40)(8)(24)135.2 34.7 (27)'57.3 225.8 974.4 1192.4 1406.2 1544.5 2307.2 3690.9 16.3 15.5 9.6 10.5 12.1 38.9 17.9 45.1 (2)(7)(1)(1)(1)-(3)(1)(1)21 APR Total Damaged Percent 54.6 39.7 1.9 5.7 (4)(14)229.0 2838.9 362.2 1919.1 6.0 206.0 4.1 74.6 (3)(7)(1).(4)162.3 130.8 387.9 1836.3 6.9 4.7 9.0 48.5 (4)(4)(2)(3)114.5 1107.6 2.4 10.7 (2)(I)155.1 651.7 3.4 18.2 (2)(3)12 NY Total Damaged Percent 53.4 143.6 0.8 0 (2)(0)13.6 292.9 0 9.5 (0)(3)69.4 2.6 (4)80.7 0 (0)663.7 0-(0)98.9 418.8 692.7 0-2.7.0 (0)(I)(0)599.1 0 (0)115.3 0 (0)63.8 128.8 3.1 0 (5)(0).8 JUN , Total Damaged Percent 159.3 311.7 0 1.5 (0)(I)109.1 1059.0.264.3 7.1 13.7 3.8 (7)(1)(2)949.9 0 (0)149.8 2169.7 1.1 19.1 (1)(1)479.2 2107.4 0 10.7 (0)(I)361.3 0 (0)757.3 4.8 (1)112.6 1367.4 0 0 (0)(0)14 JUL Total Damaged Percent 59.8 34.2 1948.3 732.7 6890.9 3050.8 161.9 7696.2 0 0.6 29.9 27.6 49.1 33.8 7.6 65.9 (0)(2)(2)(4)(1)'1)~(5)(1)95.0 2264.6 3.2 28.3 (3)(1)141.0 4849.7 6.8 81.4 (5)(2)548.3 304.0 7.0 25.3 (1)(8)11 AUG 14 SEP Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 19508.1 4989.2 29.1 4.2 (<I)(<1)924.8 4066.4 1258.6 14.2 259.7 30.0 (2)'6)(2)439.7 128.9 1782.8 171.7 1895.2 22.7 0 42.9 23.3 0 (5)(0)(2).('I4)(0)112.7 2087.7 9.4 0 (8)(0)914.3 7349.7 0 0 (0)(0)4685.8 23.8 (1)NA 3173.4 4086.9 11.7 161.1 (<I)(4)3477.6 26.2 (I)6232.3 105.7 (2)1491.0 532.1 19.1 5.2 (1)(1)1580.9 4778.2 2156.0 6530.7 1832.2 8258.2 0 49.7 0.62.3-34.4 50.6 (0)(I)(8)(1)(2)(I)15 OCT 10 NOV Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 634.4 540.3 10.0 10.8 (2)(2)287.2 520.6 9.0 36.5 (3)(7)438.0 94.1 21.2 8.1 (5)(9)1068.6 672.2 44.4 10.3 (4)(2)3066.3 47.4 (2)958.8 41.1 (4)1685.9 6.1 (<I)1668;3 1357.3 27.0 29.9 (2)(2)569.9" 799.6 466.8 13.3 30.1 7.8 (2)(4)(2)759.5 713.2 21.4 13.8 (3)(2)119.2 491.2 14.6 18.1 (12)(4)729.8 18.9 (3)515.1 18.7 (4)1187.5 41.0 (4)901.4 38.4 (4)660.3 18.7 (3)163.8 9.3 (6)4419.9 48.9 (1)6108.7 204.0 (3)b II~oblIque: S~surface;B~bottom."Total and"damaged" are expressed as number per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

Data not available.

TABLE E-20 DAHAGE TO DECAPOD POPULATION ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCN-NOVENBER 1976 uantit 0 B S 8 S tat on an de th 2 3 4 5 8 5 8 5 B 5 B 5 8 26 NR 21 APR 12 NAY 8 JUN Total 39.0-10.3 Damaged 4.3 2.2 Percent (11)(21)Total 21.8 7.5 Damaged 5.7 0.6 Percent (26)(8)Total 114.1 90.0 Damaged 1.9 0 Percent (2)(0)-Total.8.5 14.2 Damaged 0.4 1.5 Percent, (5)(11)3.5 66.7 0.9 20.7 (26)(3i)34.1 168.1 0 8.3 (0)(5)2.4 262.4 0 19.0 (o)(7)16.5 63.4 9.4 g.7 (57)(i5)468.1 182.7 (39)84.9 2.0 (2)105.4 5.2 (5)5.'1 1.7 (33)138.0 8.7 (6)135.4 11.3 (8)16.6.123.2 1.3 7.6 (8)(6)138.9 16.4 (12)7.7 0 (o)27.6 4.8 (17)23.2 0 (0)21.6 61.8 2.8 23'(13)(38)6.6 530.0 1.1 12.8 (17)(2)365.2 147.8 7.2 0 (2)(o>112.1 222.8 4.4 14.5 (4)(7)44.5 163.2 0-32.6 (o)(2o)1.9 598.0 0 21.4 (o)(4)62.3 178.4'02.3 261.7 3.5 3.2 10.8 18.0 (6)(2)(4)(7)9.6 1209.8 25.0 189.5 0 13.5 1.8 28.6 (0)(I)(7)(15)22.5 64.5 6.7 55.2 0 120 10 61 (0)(19)(15)(11)7.0 294.9 7.5 245.9 0 21.6 1;1 9.0 (0)(7)(15)(4)14 JUL 11 AUG 14 SEP Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent, 24.2 13.8 0.9 0 (4)(o)27.2 19.2-0 2.7 (0)(13)33.3 33.4 0 0 (o)(o)131.5 151.9 0 20.7 (o)(i4)9.4 52.3.0 2.g (0)..(31)509.3 609.3 1.4 53.9 (i)(9)203.7 14.0 (7)216.6 10.8 (5)683.6 11.5 (2)405.8 22.5 (6)89.3 4.7 (5)414.8 4.2 ('I)0 0 (0)151.6 6.6 (4)121.8 2104.6 0 63.4 (0)(3)3345.0 NA 78.5 (2)3.1 153.9 0 6.2 (o)(4)23.3.161.0 0 0 (0)(0)1025.2 465.9 56.5 80.7 (6)(17)5.1 173.6 0 21.7 (0)(13)39.2 63.3 0 0 (o)(o>6.6 353.9 175.8 287.0 0 9.2 12.7 9.9 (0)(3)(7)(3)887.8 928.6 627.4 712.9 30.4.37.4 153.0 40.5 (3)(4)(24)(6)15 OCT Total Damaged Percent 42.0 27.0 2.0 1.8 (5)(7)222.7 0.9 1.5 0.9 ('I)(Ioo)110.8 8.0 (7)18.7 5.4 (29)513;1 12.0 (2)59.9 10.0 (II)33.3 347.0 5.3 30.6 (16)(9)106.2 52.0 179.7 338.9 7.6 5.5 0 13.1 (7)(11)(0)(4)10 NOV Total Damaged Percent 2.2 9.1 0.4 9.1 (18)(0)3.4 14.3 0 5.2 (0)(36)4.6 6.6 0 1.1 (0)(17)15.0 7.5 (5o)14.2 2.8 (2o)2.4 21.1 2.4 0" (loo)(o)0 16.0 4.6 79.3 0 64 18 0 (0)(40)(39)(0)B~oblique;S~surface;8~bottom."Total" and"damaged" are expressed as number per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

Data not available.

TABLE E-21 OAHAGE TQ CHAETOGHATH POPULATIOH ST.LUCIE PLAHT HARCH-HOVEHBER 1976 uant5t 2 0 8 5 B 5 tat on an e th 2 3 8 5 8 5 8 5 5 5 8 26 NAR 21 APR 12 NY Total Damaged Percent, Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 0.5 0.5 (100)2.7 1.9 (70)0.9 23.0 0 18.4 (0)(80)2.1 0.7 (33)62.8 40.0 (64)7.6 5.1 3.&0.(50)(0)1.7 16.3 6.0 26.4 0 16.3 3.6 8.4 (0)('l00)(60)(32)6.9 0.9 5.5 1.5 0.9 1.1 (22)(100)(2Q)15.0 30.0 7.0 54.5 5.6 11.3 4.7'9.1 (37)(38)(67)(35)16.9 6.5 (39)117.6 98.0 (83)19.Q 13.9 (73)64.7 29.2 (45)2.7 0 (0)57.4 3.0 20.0 3.0 (35)(100)123.4 207.6 53.6 108.3 (43)(52)1.8 0.9 (50)5.2 18.4 2.'l 12.3 (40)(67)8 JUN Total Dama'ged Percent 1.5 0.7 1.1 0.7 (73)(100)4.8 6.9 2.4 4.1 (50)(59)9.1 23.4 9.5 24.9 3.0 6.4 1.9 17.8 (33)(27)(20)(72)1.0 9.6 , 3.3 0 24 11 (0)(25)(33)14 JUL ll AUG Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 2.5 1.7 0 1.1 (0)(65)4.5 16.5 0 1.4 (0)(9)502.1 248.8 41.8 48.4 (8)(20)61.7 11.2 (18)688.4 63.2 (9)97.4 0 (0)310.2 22.6 (7)4.7 4.7 (100)12.1 85.7 1.5 13.2 (12)(15)87.0 119.1 5.8 15.9 (7)(L3)15.8 103.8 4.7 15.7 (30)(15)70.0~161.0 35.0 14.6 (50)(9)15.3 6.8 (44)59.0 15.3 (26)48.7 5.4 (11)101.1 23.0 (23)86.7 11.2 (13)80.5 18.5 19.1 1.7 (24)(9)14 SEP 15 OCT 10 HOV Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 8.4 0 (0)14.0 12.6 4.0 0 (29)(0)2.9 9.2 0 4.6 (0)(50)29.8 161.2 41.6 1.4 26.g 0 (5)(17)(0)6.0 0-9 55.3 0 0 0 (0)(0)(0)3.4 24-6 13.7 3.9 4.6 (0)(16)(34)38.1 8.5 (22)17.6 2.4 (14)4.4 0 (0)47.1 0 (0)33.0 39.9 3.0 15.0 (9)(38)5.0 3.6 0 0 (0)(0)6.7 2.7 (40)2.4 2.4 (100)tlA'l4.8 0 (0)55.9 12.4 (22)23.1 0'(0)21.1 10.6 (50).7.6 0'0)71.1 30.1 (42)32.0 16.0 (50)82.1 155.8 21.3 49.9 (26)(32)7.6 55.7 0 15.2.(0)(27)4.7 45.7 0 13.0 (0)(28)22.6 11.3 (50)a O ob15que;S~surface;8 bottom."Total" and"damaged" are expressed as number per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

Data not ava51able.

TABLE E-22 DAMAGE To APPENOICULARIAN POPULATION ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-NOVEMBER 1976 ta on an e th 2 3 4 a uant$t S B S 8 S B S 8 S 8 S 8 26 PAR 21 APR Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 47.0 0.5-~('I)1.3 0 (0)2.2 41.3 0 0 (0)(0)10.1 65.8 29.6 0 12.4 0<O)<<9)<o)53.7 4.6 (9)380.0 213.2 28.0 19.4<7)(9)1.2 30.0 28.8 0 0 0 (o).(o)(o)5.2 35.7.1.7 0 (33)(0)113.7 475.8 5.6 48.4 (5)(10)7.7 70.1 0 5.2 (o)(7)12 PAY Total 0.4 Damaged 0 Percent (0)0.8 17.1 0.8 7.6 (loo)(44)1.9 32.9 0 2.8 (o)(9)10.5 0 (o)87.3 65.4 7.3.'3.1 (8)(20)167.3 7.5 20.0 0 (12)(0)4.2 0 1.6 0 (38)(o)8 JUN Total.0.7 Damaged 0 Percent (0)2.4-6.8 0 2.7 (o)(4o)ll AUG Total 4 5 Damaged Percent 18.7 0 (0)14 JUL Total~3.0 2.3 41.9 62.2 Damaged 1.4 1.7 6.0 6.9 Percent (47)(74)(14)(11)e.4 4.e 0 1 5 0<o)(33)<o)35.2 180.5 18.1 14.1 11.3 3.0 (40)(6}(17)8.5 0<o)118.7 26.4 (22)10.8 9.4 5.8 71.5 0 4.7 0 23.8 (0)(33)(0)(33)149.9 85:4 1~9 10.7 (1)(13)12.7 31.4 1.6 3.1 (13)(10)256.6.424.8 23.3 14.6 (9)(3)13.1'4.0 0 4.8 (0)(20)13.6 6.8 (eo)87.3 87.3 13.1 0 (15)(o)5.3 26.9 1.1 3.6 (2'I)(13)2.8 50.7 1.4 0 (50)(0)21.2 8.7 0.2.3 (o)(26)14 SEP 15 OCT 10 NOV Total Damaged Percent'Total Damaged Percent Total Damaged Percent 0.8 0.4 (so)3.6 25.7 2.7 1.8 4.5 0.9 (50)(18)(33)18.2 10.2 36.1 9.1 0 6.5 (50)(0)(18)58.2 16.7 22.7 304.5 0 0 0 0 (0).(0)(0)(0)4.6 8.5 15.7 23 0 0 (so)(o)(o}27.7 17.6 54.0 0 4.2 12.0 (0)(24)(22)36.6 23.3'5.0 4.6 1.1 5.0 (13)(5)(33)39.9 10.0 (25)18.5 2.1 (11)3.0 155.3 0 31.1 (0)(20)173.8 67.6 4.0 24.'6 (2)(36)7.3 9.1 1.2 1.5 (16)(17)33.5 205.7 6.1~12.5 (18)(6)172.5 13.7 1.9 0 (1)(0)34.7 48.0 0 12.8 (o)(27)7.6 65.7 3.8 0 (eo)(o)18.7 26.0 4.7 13.0 (25)(50)6.5 2.8 (43)B~oblfque;S~surface;8 bottom."Total" and"damaged" are expressed as number per cubic meter and represent the mean of three subsamples.

Data not available.

I I TABLE E-23 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONTHLY MEAN ZOOPLANKTON COUNTS ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-'NOVEMBER 1976 Month Mean)-APR MAY.JUN 1306.8 442.7 1151.5 JUL.AUG SEP 2486.9 3606.5 7706.5 OCT.NOV 2389..1 2163.6 MAR (i618.5)APR (1306.8),.

MAY (442.7)JUN (1151.5)'JUL (2486.9)AUG (3606.5)SEP~(7706.5)OCT (2389.1)864.1 155.3 1180.1 2299.7 6399.7*917.7 856.8 708.8 2044;2 3163.8*7263.8*1946.4 1720.9 1335.4 2455.0 6555.0*1237.6 1012.1 1119.6 5219.6*-2097.8 323.3 4100.0*1217.4 1442.9 5317.4*5542.9*225.5 311.7 1175.8.476.0 868.4 1988.0 6088.0*770.6 545.1*Significant at a=.05, Tukey's HSD=2703.5.

TABLE E-24 RESULTS OF ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS ANALYSIS ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCK-NOVEMBER 1976 Date 26 MAR ,21 APR 12 MAY 8 JUN 14 JUL 11 AUG 14 SEP 15 OCT 10 NOV Station x Stat on an e t S 8 S 8 5 8 5 8 S 8 S 8 0.390 0.093 0.218 0.089 0.111 0.827 3.559 0.187'4 0.145 0.096 N.A c 0.612 0.618 0.053 0.279 1.079 0.591" 0.795 0.004-1.122 0.137 0.485 0.169 1.724 0.093 1.697 1.454 1.849 0.744 0.015 0.484 0.453 0.183 2.686 1.230 1.139 0.864 0.185 0.963 0.378 5.983 1.151 0.533~.1.903 0.894 0.175 NAc 1.045 0.110 8.696 0.828 0.121 1.525 0.672 1.335 16.752 0.432 1.465 0.319 0.118 0.157 0.661 0.380 2.734 0.813 7.006 0.779 3.103 1.049-0.601 0.290 0.304 0.887 1.048 1.560 0.466 0.217 6.119 1.523 0.669 0.446 0.760 6.633 4.793 0.771 1.167 2.026 4.410 2.942 0.974 6.496',700 0.405 1.699 0.682 0.127 0.167 0.447 0.178 5.913 0.891=-4.984 0.998 2.390 0.449 0.922 0.391 3.473 3.282 N.A 0.169 0.173 0.414 1.113 2.296 0.759=0.171 1.223 1.665 1.274 0.207 1.059 1.482 4.106 2.507 0.926 0.624 0.515 0.499 1.241 1.428 1.646 0.617 3.638 1.437 2.719 1.184 2.280 1.047 1.605 Ash-free dry weight expressed in g/ms x 10 b II=Oblique;S=Surface;8=Bottom.Data not available.

TABLE E-25 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS ST.LUCIE PLANT MARCH-NOVEMBER 1976 Source Stations Months Error Degree of freedom 7 Sum of s uares 21.878266 27.358464 126.987391 Mean s uares'values 3.125466571 1.206008414 3.908352 1.508096564 2.591579408 TOTAL 63 176.224121 Critical F value for analysis of variance at a=.05 with 7 df=2.25.April data not included in analysis.E-61 P.AIIUATIC MACRCPAYTRR INTRODUCT ION The offshore aquatic macrophytes were sampled to determine if P the operation of the St.Lucie Plant was affecting this community.

The term"aquatic macrophytes" refers.to aquatic plants large enough to be seen with the unaided eye.In the marine environment this includes the seaweeds and seagrasses.

Marine plants grow in many habitats, but their distribution is limited by the availability of light, substrate and oxygen.Most marine plants are found from the intertidal zone to depths of 30 to 40 meters.Beyond this depth there is usually insufficient light for photosynthesis due to the light-absorbing properties of seawater (Dawson, 1966).Red algae, however, are adapted to low light levels and'have been dredged from depths of 170 meters in clear tropical water (McConnaughey, 1970).Marine macrophytes usually require a hard substrate for attach-ment and therefore seaweed is rarely found growing in shifting sands or soft mud.Along the east coast of Florida, seaweed is found on rock outcroppings, worm reefs, shell rubble, and artificial substrates.

Algae are usually sparse on and near coral reefs due to grazing by herbivorous reef fish.

1"I I Water temperature may limit the growth of marine plants directly by affecting the rate of photosynthesis and indirectly by altering the solubility of oxygen in the water.As a result, many marine plants tolerate only a narrow temperature range (Dawson, 1966).MATERIALS AND METHODS Aquatic macrophytes were collected quarterly at each of the six offshore stations during 1976 (Figure F-.l).Samples were collected by towing a box-type dredge (46 cm x 46 cm x 25 cm)along the ocean bottom.The tow duration and speed were recorded with each tow and used to compute the surface area sampled.Duplicate samples were taken at each station and preserved with a buffered 5X formalin-seawater solution in labeled containers.

The preserved samples were sorted in the laboratory, and attached macrophytes were scraped from shell and rubble surfaces.Macrophytes were identified to the lowest possible taxon, and all material was retained as voucher specimens.

Species identification was according to Taylor (1960).RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Less than 1 gram wet weight of algae was collected during any macrophyte dredge sampling in 1976.Algae collected were insufficient for quantitative analysis, even when the area sampled was increased from 13 m~to 580 m~.F-2 The offshore stations, 0 to 5 (Figure F-l), are open areas of shell hash with very little hard substrate for algal attachment.

All of the algae col'lected were found on rubble and shell fragments.

The algae were often tom or stunted, probably.due to mechanical damage from the dredge, ocean currents, or the unstable substrate.

Twenty-three species of algae were collected during 1976 (Table F-1).Most of the species were red and brown algae.Green algal species comprised only 175 of those collected.

This distribu-tion is normal since the Chlorophyta, or green algae, is primarily a freshwater group.The Rhodophyta, or red-algae, is the largest and most diverse group of marine plants.With the exception of one species, all red algae are benthic, attached forms (Dawson, 1966).The dredge method of collecting.macrophytes selects for attached algae.The bushy red alga;Agardhiella tenera has a strong disklike holdfast as a young plant and was often found attached to shells and rocks.Subtropical and tropical algal associations typically show seasonal variations.

Species diversity and abundance'are usually greatest in late summer and fall.Hutchinson Island is located in the subtropical zone (Phillips, 1961)and the algae reflect the characteristic seasonal trends of this latitude.Small amounts of algae wer e found at only two stations in March (Table F-2).Four stations in June (Table F-3)had one or two algal species, but in F-3 September (Table F-4)algae were collected at all stations.In December the diversity was slightly less than in September and no algae were collected at Station 2.Reproductive algae were collected in September and December.No trends in diversity and abundance besides seasonal changes were noted between stations.Algal growth at all stations is limited primarily by the lack of substrate.

Benthic algae in this offshore area are not important primary producers.

The open shifting ocean floor off Hutchinson Island is not a productive area for algae, and material collected was therefore insufficient to make a quantitative evaluation of the benthic macrophyte community.

F-4 LITERATURE CITED Dawson, E.Y.Inc., McConnaughey, Mosby 1966.Marine botany.Hol t, Rinehart and Winston, New York." 371 pp.B.H.1970.Introduction to marine biology.C.V.Co., St.Louis.449 pp.'Phillips, R.C.1961.Seasonal aspects of the marine algal flora of the St.Lucie inlet and adjacent Indian River, Florida.quart.Jour.Fla.Acad.Sci.24(2).Taylor, W.R.'960.Marine algae of the eastern tropical and sub-tropical coasts of the Americas.Univ.of Michigan Press.870 pp.F-5 I a l ATL ANTIC OCE AN INDI AN RIVER 05 ST.LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 0 270 20 3000 0000 0000 I f000 SCALE BI PEST INDIAN R IVER HUT,CHINSON ISLAND 800 IO FLORIDA POWER 4 LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT LOCATIONS OF MACROPHYTE SAMPLING STATIONS 1976 APPLIED BIOLOGY, INC.PIGuBE F-1 TABLE F-1 MACROPHYTE SPECIES COLLECTED BY DREDGE AT OFFSHORE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 CHLOROPHYTA (green algae)Batophora oerstedi Cladophora Sp.Enteromorpha Sp..Rhi zocloni um SP.PHAEOPHYTA (brown'algae)Dictyota linearis Dictyota SP.Ectocar pus subcorymbosus Sargassum Spp.Sphacelari a furci gera S.tri buloi des Sphacelaria Sp,.RHODOPHYTA (red algae)Agardhi ella tenera Agardhi ella SPP.Botryocladi a pyri formi s Cerami um fastigi atum Ceramium Sp.Laurencia SP.Graci llaria Sp.Polysiphonia denudata P.sphaerocarpa P.subtilissima Porphyra umb'i li cali s Spermothamni on i nvesti ens F-7

TABLE F-2 MACROPHYTE SAMPLING RESULTS ST.LUCIE PLANT 12 MARCH 1976 Station 0 S ecies Agcu'dhieZZa tenez'acelcuia sp.Average area sampled was 13 m~.F-8 TABLE F-3 MACROPHYTE SAMPLING RESULTS ST.LUCIE PLANT 10 JUNE 1976 Station S ecies Dictpota line~s Agcudhiella tenera Cermnium fastigiat um Cladophoza sp.Cladophoza sp.a Average area sampled was 145 m~.F-9 TABLE F-4 MACROPHYTE SAMPLING RESULTS ST.LUCIE PLANT 10 SEPTEMBER)976a Station S ecies Rhisoclonium sp.Sphacel~a tz ibuloidee Agar'dhieZZa sp.Bot~cladia pyzi formic Lauz encia sp.Agar dhiella tenez'a Agar'dhieZZa sp.Batophoz a oez stedi Dictyota Sp.Polysi phonia denudata SphaceZ~a fuz cigez'a S.tmbuloides 4., Porphyz a umbiZicaZie Agar dhieZZa sp.Batophora oezstedi Dictyota sp.GzaciZZavia sp.Agar dhieZla sp.Batophont oez stedi C'ez amium sp.Dictyota sp.Ectocarpus eubcozpmbosue Enteromozpha sp.Polyei phonia deriudata Polyeiphonia sp.Average area sampled was 170 m.F-10 I

TABLE F-5 MACROPHYTE SAMPLING RESULTS ST.L'UCIE PLANT 12 DECEMBER 1976a Station S ecies Agaz'dhiella sp.Ehtemmozpha spp.Polysiphonia sphaez ocarina Zntezomozpha compz eesa Zntezomozpha sp.Polyei phonia subtilissima Polyei phonia sp.Sazgaesum spp.Agaz'dhiella teneza Agaz dhiella teneza Spermothamnion inueetiens Sazgaeeum sp.a Average area sampled was 580 m~.

G.~ATER IAUALITY INTRODUCTION This study was designed to monitor the physical and chemical parameters of the aquatic habitat at the St.Lucie Plant.The study of physical and chemical parameters provides a measure of water quality and potential productivity.

Hater quality measure-ments integrated with biological data provide a unified view of the ecosystem and facilitate the examination of the relationship between the environment and the marine fauna.The presence of biologically important micronutrients such as inorganic nitrogen species, silicates, phosphates, and total organic carbon is essential for the growth of phytoplankton popula-tions (Yentsch, 1962).Salinity and temperature are also important to the stabili.ty and growth of, sedentary and motile fauna.Varia-I tions in these parameters may cause changes in the metabolism of organisms.

Thus, temperature, salinity, and nutrients often have a synergistic effect on the physiological state of marine fauna.PHYSICAL PARAMETERS Materials and Methods Physicaloceanographic parameters, including water tempera-Cure, salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and percent transmittance I a of light, were measured at designated offshore stations at surface, middle, and bottom depths.Stations located within the canals were sampled for temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and turbidity at surface and.bottom depths.Station locations are indicated on Figure G-l, and parameters measured at each station are given in Table G-l.Water Tem erature Monitorin continuous Ryan-Peabody thermographs were calibrated by comparing meter readings with mercury-in-glass thermometers..

Calibrations were made at the beginning and end of a one-month recording period.Thermographs were placed in the water adjacent to the, offshore intake and discharge structures, at subsurface depths.Data were recorded in'F.Water Tem erature Monitorin in situ Water temperatures were recorded in situ at biological samp'ling stations with a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI)model 33 salinity, conductivity, and temperature meter.Data-were recorded" in'C.~Salinit.Salinity was measured by one of two methods: l.A YSI,salinity-conductivity-temperature meter model 33 with a 50-foot cable and probe was calibrated prior to use by immersion in water containing known amounts of G-2 l I commercial artificial sea salts.Salinity data were recorded in the field as parts per thousand ('/).2.An American Optical refractometer (model 10419 Goldberg, Temperature Compensating) was calibrated from stock solutions of known sea-salt concentrations.

Data were recorded in'/in the laboratory.

I~0i 1 d0 A YSI model 54 or 51B meter with a 50-foot cable and probe was calibrated by readings taken from oxygen-saturated sea water.Data were recorded from readings zn situ, at designated depths, in ppm (mg/1).~Turbi di t Water turbidity was measured with either an Interocean model 515 TR turbidity meter or a Hellige Turbidimeter.

Accuracy of the Interocean meter was determined by calibrating the probe which was immersed in distilled water.The Hellige meter was precalibrated by the manufacturer.

Offshore turbidity was measured~n szf:u, whereas canal samples were returned to the laboratory for analysis.Turbidity was measured as a function of light attentuation over a fixed path length as recommended by EPA (1974).Data were expressed as percent transmittance of light.G-3

~~~~~~4~~lg~

Conventional units of turbidity are based upon FTU (Formazine Turbidity Units)and may be related to percent transmittance values by the following:

where:/Transmittance

=ae bx a=99.69 b=-0.0254, and x=FTU (Formazine Turbidity Units).Luminosit Li ht Transmittance Luminosity (light transmittance through the water column)was recorded with an Interocean Marine Illuminance meter model 510 at offshore stations.Comparisons between incident solar radiation at the surface and at various depths were recorded as luminosity in foot-candles and expressed as percent transmittance of light.Data were taken at surface, middle,'nd bottom depths at all offshore stations.Curr ent Velocit Surface current speed and direction were measured at offshore stations with a General Oceanics model 2030 digital flowmeter lowered to 0.5 m depth.Surface currents were recorded in cm/sec.After a one-minute reading, direction was estimated with a magnetic marine compass.G-4 i 4 a Wind Direction, Wind Velocit, and Cloud Cover Wind direction and velocity were estimated at the same time biological samples were taken.Cloud cover was estimated and expressed as clear, partly cloudy, rainy, or similar descriptors.

Results and Discussion Salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity data were taken to provide supplementary information to the biological aspects of the program.In the event of unusual or extraordinary observations made of the biotic communities, physical parameter data could delineate plant-related causes versus natural phenomena.

Physical oceanographic data were ancillary and not a study objective per ae.Therefore, only maximum and minimum parameter values have been presented (Tables G-2 through G-4).Current velocity data have been limited to a brief summary,"Current Velocity," below.I With the exception of water temperatures immediately adjacent to the discharge structure, statistical analyses indicated no signifi-cant difference (P.05)in the distribution of physical parameter values at the surface, middle, or bottom depths.No significant vertical stratification was observed in temperature, salinity, or*dissolved oxygen.Analysis of physical oceanographic data indicated that the nearshore ocean water is generally well-mixed and homogeneous.

G-5 8 8 l~4'l g I 1~

Water Tem erature Monitorin continuous

+an-Peabody.

thermograph readings at the ocean intake structure showed nearshore ocean temperatures ranging seasonally from about a 65 to 86'F (18.4 to 30.2'C).Maximum surface temperatures normally occurred in September, when ocean temperatures remained above 80'F.Surface temperatures rapidly fell from 77'F (25.2'C)to 65'F (18.5'C)beginning on 2 August and remained depressed until 6 August.These cool ocean temperatures were presumed to be the result of cold water intrusion caused by Gulf Stream eddies that often affect local water conditions (Lee, 1971, 1972;Jossi, 1971).Daily temperature fluctuations were greatest during April through July (Appendix Figure H-1).Daily ocean temperature varia-tions were from 3 to 5'F (1.7 to 2.8'C).Temperature fluctuations in September and October were less than 2'F.Heated water was discharged into the ocean on 59 days during April through July (Appendix Figure H-2).Recorded discharge temperatures ranged from about 71 to 83'F (21.8 to 28.6'C).Thermograph records for 25 June indicated maximum discharge temperatures exceeded 5.5'F (3.1'C)above ambient for a short period (Figure G-2).The power plant remained inoperative from August to December and operation was resumed in December.Discharge thermograph data were unavailable from August through December.The Ryan-Peabody thermographs located at the discharge structures suffered loss by boat propellers, vandalism (?), theft (7)or destruction due to storm surge during these months.G-6 I~l Water Tem erature Monitorin in situ The greatest difference in surface temperatures between stations was observed on 22 and 23 June 1976.Temperatures at the'ischarge (Station 1)were 2.9'F (1.6'C)and 4.3'F (2.4'C)higher,, respectively, than surface temperatures at Station 2 on these dates.Surface temperature variation between Stations 2 through 5 and the control Station (0)-was less than 1'F;(0.5'C).The mid-depth temperature at Station 1 was 3.5'F (l.9'C)above ambient as compared to 2.8'F (l.5'C)above ambient at Station 2.Bottom temperatures on 23 June remained 3.1'F (1.9'C)higher at Station 1 than at Station 2, but no appreciable difference in bottom temperatures was observed on 22 June (Table G-5).~Sa'linit-Sa'linity values ranged fram 33.8'/to 36.3'/>>at offshore stations during the study (Table G-2).No significant difference was observed between stations.Salinity value ranges indicated some freshwater influence typical of nearshore Atlantic coastal areas.Dissolved Ox en-Dissolved oxygen values ranged from 4.4 ppm to 7.7 ppm during the study at the offshore stations (Table G-3).Surface, mid-depth, and bottom readings showed no stratification of dissol ved oxygen.G-7 l

~Turbidit-Station turbidity values ranged from 54%to 1005 transmittance.

Although turbidity differences between stations (Table G-4)were not significant, higher turbidities were associated with Station 1 near the discharge structure.

Physical turbulence.

and the suspension of particulate matter from the discharge canal probably contributed to the higher turbidity values observed at Station 1.Li ht Transmittance

-Offshore percent transmittance data (Table G-6)indicate less than 505 of the solar radiation penetrated the surface at offshore stations.Average percent transmittance values were similar in magnitude; however, light transmittance at the control (Station 0)was slightly greater than that at the experimental stations (1 through 5).Mid-depth and bottom readings were highest at Station 3, the, shallowest station.Current Velocit-Surface current velocities ranged from 10.0 to 46.0 cm/sec.The, highest current velocities were observed in the fall, and occurred concurrently with maximum wind velocities.

These observations are typical of a surface wind stress system.Surface cur rent flow was observed to be generally in a northerly direction.

Average surface current velocities were lowest at Station 0 and highest at Station 5.Currents were most variable at Station 1 as a result of turbulence due to plant operation.

Turbulence boils were observed only in the immediate vicinity of the discharge.

G-8

CHEMICAL PARAMETERS Materials and Methods Samples of water for nutrient analyses were, collected monthly at designated stations.Station locations are indicated, on Figure G-1 and parameters measured are giv'en in Table G-1.The methods used in nutrient analyses are listed in Table G-7.Duplicate samples were taken from surface, middle, and bottom depths.'ur'face samples were collected by dipping, and subsurface.

samples were either pumped or sampled with a Niskin bottle.Samples were treated as follows: Inor anic Nitro en (NOB-N, NO(-N, NH3-N): cid-washed 1-liter polyethylene bottles were char'ged with 40 mg mercuric chloride (HgClq), filled with water samples and immediately stored on ice.Dissolved Silica (SiOq-Si): Treated as in Inorganic Nitrogen, above.Ortho-Phos hate Phos horous (PO<-P): Treated as in Inorganic Nitrogen.above.Total Or anic Carbon (TOC): Acid-washed 250-ml polyethylene bottles were spikedwith 5 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid (HzSO>), filled with samples, and immediately stored on ice.Chemical samples were shipped to the laboratory by air on the day of collection.

Methods of analysis used to measure these selected water parameters were from APHA (1976), EPA (1974), and, Strickland and Parsons (1972).

~~jj l Results and Discussion The distribution of nutrients in the marine environment is a function of diffusion, currents and biological turnover.Near-shore nutrients are generally considered to be well-mixed and homogeneous as a result of turbulence induced by winds or currents (Bowden, 1970).High concentrations of ocean nutrients are spatially limited and usually associated with upwelling (Spencer, 1975), a river-ocean interface (Stefanson and Richards, 1963), or ocean waste disposal outfalls (EPA, 1971).Micronutrient analyses for ortho-phosphate (POq-P), total silicates (Si0q), nitrate (NOs-,N), nitrite (NOg-N), ammonia nitrogen (NHq-N), and total organic, carbon (TOC)from monthly collections of seawater are presented in Appendix Tables H-160 through H-169.Nitrate and silicate values reported from March through July 1976 were unusually high for seawater collections.

Concentrations ranged from 0.15 to 0.56 ppm NOs and 0.02 to 11.20 ppm Si0z during this period.Changes in methodology and analyses for NOq, Si0q, and POq made in August resulted in lower values.Procedures for analysis of NHq.were revised in October and the results reflect lower concentra-tions.Nutrient analyses following analytical changes were within the expected ranges of concentrations of nearshore Atlantic environ-ments (Armstrong,'965; Spencer, 1975;Haines, 1973).6-10 il jl l l l Comparison of results from October through December indicated minimal increases of silicates attributable to power plant operation.

Plant circulating pump operation was intermittent during these months.Intake (Station ll)and discharge (Station 12)canal waters had slightly higher concentrations of silicates, probably as a result of the suspension of terrigenous material from canal berm erosion (Appendix Tables H-160 through H-169).Ortho-phosphate (POq)concentrations were similar at the offshore and canal stations.Nitrite (NOq)values remained<0.01 ppm throughout the year and reflected normal ranges found in marine environments (Spencer, 1975).Ammonia (NH3)qoncentrations were only slightly higher in canal water samples than in offshore station samples.Total organic carbon (TOC)is a quantitative measurement which includes both the dissolved organic carbon (DOC)and particu-late organic carbon (POC)present in a given system.Offshore concentrations of TOC at Stations 0 through 5 were not significantly different (P=.05;Table G-8).Bottom TOC concentrations were generally higher than mid-depth or surface values.There were no apparent seasonal fluctuations in TOC: high concentrations were observed in April, September and December while low concentrations were observed in May, June, August and October.

I l sp TOC can also be used as a relative indicator of suspended organic matter which may contribute to turbidity.

Linear regression analysis, however, indicated TOC accounted for only 14.2X of the vari-ation in surface turbidity, 7.9$of mid-depth, and 2.8X of bottom turbidity.

G-12 LITERATURE CITED APHA.1976.Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 14th ed.American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.874 pp.Armstrong, F.A.'.1965.Nutrient distributions.

Pages 409-432 in J.P;Riley and G.Skirrow, eds.Chemical oceanography, Vol.1.'cademic Press, New York.Bowden, K.F.'970.Turbulence II.Oceanogr.Mar.Biol.Ann.Rev.8:11-32.Environmental Protection Agency.1974.Proceedings of seminar on methodology for monitoring the marine environment.

Office of Monitoring Systems Program Element No.-1HA326.Washington, D.C.1971.Limitations and effects of waste disposal on an ocean shelf.Grant 16070EFG.Water'Pollution Control Res.Ser.Haines, E.B.1973.Nutrient inputs to the coastal zone: 2.The Georgia and South Carolina shelf (unpublished manu-script).'uke University Marine Laboratory, Beaufort, N.C.Jossi, J.W.1971.Oceanography:

Central Florida's Atlantic continental shelf.NOAA Trop.Atl.Inf.Rep.No.19.13 pp.Lee, T.N.1972.Florida current spinoff eddies.Ph.D.Dissertation.

Florida State University.

98 pp.1971., Oceanographic features of nearshore waters on a narrow'continental shelf.Pages 105-170 in Environmental Protection Agency.Limitations and.effects of waste disposal on an ocean shelf.Grant 16070EFG.Water Pollution Control Res.Ser.Spencer, C.P.1975.Nutrient distributions.

Pages 245-300 in J.P.Riley and G.Skirrow, eds..Chemical oceanography, Vol.2.Academic Press, New York.Stefansson, 0., and F.A.Richardson.

1963.Processes contributing to the nutrient distributions of the Colombia River and Strait of Juan de Fuca.Limnol.and Ocean.8(4):394-410.

G-13

~~Ij I'R LITERATURE CITED continued Strickland, J.D;, and T.R.,Parsons.

1972.A practical handbook of seawater analysis.Fish.Res.Bd.Canad.Ottawa, Bulletin No.167.310 pp.Yentsch, C.S.1962.Marine plankton.in R.A.Lewin, ed.Physiology and biochemistry of algae.Academic Press, New York.'-14

INDI AN RIVER ATLANTIC OCEAN OE, ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIOA 274Rd IO 3000 0000 0000 I5000 5CALE NI FEET INOIAN R IVER HUT,CHINSON I'SL>NO Oo 8O IO FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT LOCATION OF WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS 1976 MARCH ISTT APP LIED BIOLOGY'HC.

FIGURE G-15 5

o 5 4 LLJ U A 2 l5 l6 l7.IS I 9 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28.29 30 APRIL Figure G-2.Surface temperature difference between intake and discharge structures, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.

I l I 5 5 7 9 I l l3 l5 l7 19 2 l 25 RS 27 29 R 4 8 8 lQ l2 l4 lS l8 RQ RR 24 28 28.30 NAY Figure G-2{continued).

Surface temperature difference between intake and discharge structures, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.(Points below"0" indicate water is cooler at discharge than at intake.)

I'5 5 7 9 I I 15 15 17 19 21 25 25 27 29 31 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 JUNE Figure G-2 (continued).

Surface temperature difference between intake and discharge structures, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.(Points below"0" indicate water is cooler at discharge than at intake.)

I 3 5 7 9 I I I 3 I 5 I 7 I 9 2 I 23 25 27 29 3 I 2 4 6 8 IO l2 14 l6 I8 20 22 24 26 28 30 JULY Figure G-2 (continued).

Surface temperature difference between intake and discharge structures, St.Lucie Plant, 1976.(Points below"0" indicate water is cooler at discha)ge than at intake.)

TABLE G-1 STATION NUMBER AND PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PARAMETERS Parameter water temperature (continuous) water temperature (in situ)salinity dissolved oxygen turbidity luminosity current velocity wind direction, velocity, cloud coverb tidal cycle, lunar phases N-N03 N-N02 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X-X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X'X X X X X X X X X X=X X X X X X X X X X Offshore Offshore 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9a 10a 11 12 13 14 15 16.intake dischar e N-NH3 Si-Si0g P-POg, TOC X'X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Stations 9 and 10 are part of another study being conducted by.FPImL.Data records maintained in the laboratory and are not included in this report.

ll' TABLE G-2 ANALYSIS OF SALINITY DATA FROM OFFSHORE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 De th Surface Middle Bottom"Range of salinit 33.8-36.3 33.0-36.0 33.8-36.0 Calculated 2 4.372 2.383 1.179 Critical~at 0.05 35.172 28.869 30.144 G-21

TABLE G-3 ANALYSIS OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN DATA FROM OFFSHORE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 De th Surface Middle Bottom , Range of dissolved ox en m 4.6-7.7 4.5-7.7 4.4-7.5 Calculated 2.2.564 10.307 25.306 Critical~at 0.05 55.758 54.572 56.942 G-22

TABLE G-4 ANALYSIS OF TURBIDITY DATA FROM OFFSHORE STATIONS, ST.LUCI E PLANT 1976 De th Surface Middle Bottom , Range of transmission 71-100 60-100 54-100 Calculated 2 16.958 12.758 14.016 Critical~at 0.05 38.885 37.652 38.885 G-23

TABLE G-5 ANALYSIS OF TEMPERATURE VARIATION BETWEEN OFFSHORE'STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 De th Surface Middle Bottom.Range of tern erature'C 20.0-30.8 20.1-30.2'20.0-29.2 Cal cul ated 2 10.447 7.590 10.261 Critical~at 0.05 61.656 61.656 61.656 G-24 I

TABLE G-6 AVERAGE PERCENT LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE (LUMINOSITY)

AT OFFSHORE STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 De th Value Station 0 1 2 3 4 5 Sur face x sd 49.6 41.8 38.1 32.7 38.6 40.8 33.2 23.4 18.2 10.8 16.5 20.5 33.0 31.0 29.0 28.0 30.0 27.0 Middle x', 20.1 17.9 16.6 22.3 18.2 20.1 sd.14 0 n 31.0 12.2, 31'.0 9.2 9.3 10.9 9.3 29.0 28.0 30.0 27.0 Bottom x 9.7 9.7 8.5 14.9 9.2 9.0 sd 8.3 8.2 6.2 8.8 8.2 7.5 33.0 31.0 29.0 30.0 30.0 29.0 x=mean of all station values for year sd=standard deviation n=number of values treated G-25

TABLE G-7 METHODS OF ANALYSIS USED TO MEASURE SELECTED WATER PARAMETERS Parameter Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N)Silicates (SiOz-Si)Nitrate nitrogen (N03-N)Nitrite nitrogen (NO>-N)Ortho-phosphate (PO>-P)Total organic carbon (TOC)Method Indophenol Heteropoly blue Brucine Diazotization Ascorbic acid Combustion-infrared G-26 ll TABLE G-8 AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF TOC (ppm)IN SEA WATER SAMPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL STATIONS ST.LUCIE PLANT 1976 Station De th Value 0 1'3 4 5 ll 12 Surface x 8.16 8.64 7.67 8.09 9.87 8.93 9.80 8.43 sd 3.58 3.75 2.99 3.07 6.15 5.80 3.90 2.50 10 10.10 10 10 10 10 10 Middle x sd 7.96 8.58 8.04 8.13 8.81 8.79 3.02 4.10 2.67 2.54 5.00 3.10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bottom x 10.01 8.68.8.31 7.97 10.96 10.09 8.22 9.02 sd 7.17 3.35" 3.51 3.24 8.96 4.65 2.51 3.01 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 x=mean of all station value for year sd=standard deviation n=number of values treated Station depth insufficient for mid-depth sample.G-27 I I