Revision as of 21:25, 27 April 2019

Text

Florida Power & Light Company - Biological Plan of Study Implementation for St. Lucie Plant EPU Final Report - August 2011 - February 2015
	ML15140A391
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	04/30/2015
From:	; Ecological Associates
To:	; Florida Power & Light Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15140A392	List: L-2015-146, Florida Power & Light Company - Biological Plan of Study Implementation for St. Lucie Plant EPU Final Report - August 2011 - February 2015; L-2015-146, St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 - Environmental Protection Plan Report Iww Permit No. FL0002208, Biological Plan of Study; ML15140A390;
References
	L-2015-146
	Download: ML15140A391 (173)
	v • d • e

ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATESINC.

Bioogca Plno Std Imlmntto for0 Auus 211- Ferur 201 Florida Power & Light Company Biological Plan of Study Implementation for St. Lucie Plant EPU Final Report August 2011 -February 2015 Submitted to Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Blvd.Juno Beach, FL 33408 April 2015 Prepared by Ecological Associates, Inc.Post Office Box 405 Jensen Beach, Florida/

ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.

FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIV E SUM M ARY ..........................................................................................................

INTRODU CTIO N .........................................................................................................................

M ETH ODS ....................................................................................................................................

2 Sampling Period .........................................................................................................................

2 General Sampling Areas ....................................................................................................

2 Specific Sampling Locations

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

2 W ater Quality .............................................................................................................................

3 Trawling.

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

3 Gill N etting .................................................................................................................................

4 Beach Seining ............................................................................................................................

4 Plankton N etting ........................................................................................................................

5 Nearshore H ardbottom Utilization by Sea Turtles ...............................................................

5 Representative Important Species .........................................................................................

6 Statistical Analysis .....................................................................................................................

8 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................

8 W ater Quality .............................................................................................................................

8 D issolved Oxygen ...................................................................................................................

9 p H ............................................................................................................................................

9 Salinity ....................................................................................................................................

9 Specific Conductivity

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

10 Tem perature ..........................................................................................................................

10 Trawling ...................................................................................................................................

I I Gill Netting ...............................................................................................................................

15 Beach Seining ..........................................................................................................................

17 Plankton Netting ......................................................................................................................

19 Nearshore H ardbottom Utilization by Sea Turtles .............................................................

21 DISCUSSIO N ..............................................................................................................................

21 RE FERE NCES ............................................................................................................................

23 ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORMA i FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

An Extended Power Uprate (EPU) was undertaken to increase the generating capacity and improve operating efficiency of Units 1 and 2 at Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL's) St.Lucie Plant on Hutchinson Island, St. Lucie County, Florida. The EPU was expected to result in a slight increase (2.0°F; 1.1 V°C) in the temperature of cooling water discharges into the Atlantic Ocean. A Biological Plan of Study (POS) was developed to assess the extent, if any, to which these elevated temperatures may affect the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the receiving water body. The Biological POS was formally approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on August 18, 2011, and study implementation began soon thereafter.

This report summarizes results of 8 baseline (pre-uprate) and 12 post-uprate monitoring events conducted from August 2011 through February 2015. All sampling was conducted under a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Special Activities License (most recently SAL-14-0071-SR) issued to Ecological Associates, Inc.Sampling consisted of water quality monitoring, collection of fish and shellfish by trawl, gill net, and beach seine, and monitoring of sea turtle utilization of nearshore hardbottom habitat.Monitoring was performed approximately every other month. Three discrete study sites, one centered around the plant within the zone of thermal influence (SL2) and two reference/control sites located north (SL I) and south (SL3) of the plant, were used throughout the study.Water quality data were collected during each sampling event, and resultant Event Reports were previously provided to FPL. These data represented only a snapshot of water quality conditions over a period of just a few days during each event, with only six sampling events per year conducted at each study site. Thus, no analyses could be performed that would allow meaningful inferences regarding the effect of the EPU on water quality.Clupeiform fish (anchovies, herrings, and sardines), a Representative Important Species (RIS), accounted for over 38% of the total catch from trawl sampling.

The species comprising this group provide forage food for a large variety of predatory fish, many of which are commercially and recreationally important.

Sixteen (16) Commercially/Recreationally Important (CRI)decapod crustacean taxa were also collected by trawl during pre- and post-uprate sampling.There were no statistically significant differences in the mean number of fish, RIS, or CRI decapod crustacean taxa among study sites either before or after the uprate. Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences among areas during baseline monitoring with respect to the mean Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) for any of these groups or for individual RIS taxa.Although, CPUEs for fish and RIS captured by trawl during post-uprate sampling at the discharge site were significantly lower than comparable values at the northern control, they did not differ significantly from the southern control. There were no statistically significant ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA ii differences between the discharge site and either control site with respect to the mean biomass of RIS captured before or after the uprate. Finally, none of the biological variables analyzed from trawl data at the discharge site differed significantly between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods. Thus, there is no indication that the uprate affected the benthic fish, RIS, or CRI invertebrate communities in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant.Gill-net sampling primarily targeted fish, including many RIS. Atlantic sharpnose shark, Atlantic bumper, bonnethead shark, and spot collectively accounted for over half of all captures.

The most abundant RIS were spot, Atlantic croaker, and Atlantic Spanish mackerel.

As with trawl sampling, there was considerable variability in the number of taxa and CPUE per sampling event. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the mean number of fish taxa, RIS taxa, fish CPUE, RIS CPUE, CPUE for individual RIS taxa, or RIS biomass among study sites during either pre- or post-uprate sampling periods. Furthermore, none of the biological variables analyzed from gill net data at the discharge site differed significantly between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods. Thus, there is no indication that the EPU had an effect on water column fish assemblages in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant.As for other sampling methods, there was considerable variability among sampling events with respect to the number of taxa and, in particular, the number of individuals captured by beach seine. This was due mainly to a large catch of scaled sardines at the southern control site during two sampling events. Throughout the entire study period, that species accounted for 68% of all specimens collected by seine. Sand drum, Atlantic bumper, tidewater mojarra, and Spanish sardine also occurred in relatively high numbers.There were no statistically significant differences among study sites in the mean number of fish taxa, RIS taxa, number of fish captured per event, number of RIS captured per event, number of each RIS taxa, or RIS biomass collected by beach seine either before or after the uprate. These results persisted regardless of whether scaled sardines were included or excluded from the analyses.

Furthermore, none of the biological variables analyzed from beach seine samples at the discharge site differed significantly between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods.Collectively these results give no indication of an uprate affect on surf zone fish in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant.Numerous taxa of fish and CRI crustacean larvae and large quantities of fish eggs were collected during plankton sampling.

The family Clupeidae dominated the larval fish collections, accounting for 39% of all fish larvae captured.

Mole crabs in the genus Albunea dominated CRI crustacean larvae, accounting for 30% of all specimens captured during plankton sampling.

As with other biological sampling, there was considerable variability among sampling events.However, none of the differences among study sites in the mean number of fish larvae taxa, fish egg taxa, CRI crustacean taxa, fish larvae CPUE, fish egg CPUE, and CRI crustacean larvae CPUE from plankton samples were statistically significant either before or after the uprate. Nor were there any significant differences in these variables at the discharge site between pre- and ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA iii post-uprate sampling periods. These results provide no indication of an uprate effect on planktonic stages of fish and CRI invertebrate larvae in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant.The mean number of green turtles sighted within the discharge site was significantly greater than the means in either control during pre-uprate events, but only significantly higher than the southern control during post-uprate events. This change in the relationship among study sites appeared to be due to a slight increase in sightings at SLI following the uprate and a small corresponding decrease at the discharge site. However, none of these changes were statistically significant within any study area, including the discharge, indicating that the EPU had no effect on the number of small green sea turtles utilizing nearshore hardbottom habitat in the vicinity of the plant.Data collected during the St. Lucie Plant Biological POS characterize a diverse and abundant fish and shellfish community in nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean offshore the St. Lucie Plant. These communities are extremely dynamic in terms of spatial and temporal variability.

Although there were occasional statistically significant differences in faunal conditions between the discharge site and one of the controls, SL2 never differed significantly from both controls.The lack of significant differences among sites for most variables, and the lack of significant differences between pre- and post-uprate sampling at the discharge site indicate the absence of a measureable EPU effect on local fish and wildlife populations in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant. Given the huge capacity of the receiving water body (Atlantic Ocean) to dissipate heat, the effectiveness of the offshore discharge pipes in diffusing heated cooling water, the limited spatial area historically affected by thermal discharges, and the small change in discharge temperatures resulting from the uprate, these findings are not unexpected.

ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA iv FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY INTRODUCTION Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for a revision to its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (FL0002208), which authorizes thermal discharges into the Atlantic Ocean from the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on Hutchinson Island, St. Lucie County, Florida. The revision, which became effective on December 23, 2010, allows for a minor increase in effluent temperatures, approximately 2.0'F (1.1 °0 C) under normal operating conditions, resulting from an extended power uprate (EPU) for Units I and 2 at the plant.Administrative Order (AO) AO022TL authorizes the above-referenced St. Lucie Plant EPU with conditions.

Paragraph 20 of the AO stipulates that no later than 90 days after the effective date of the AO, FPL shall prepare and submit for the Department's review and approval a Biological Plan of Study (POS). The AO further identifies specific elements to be incorporated into the design of the POS. These elements were derived from historical Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance addressing the regulation of thermal effects associated with nuclear plants.A draft Biological POS was prepared in early 2011 and discussions with FDEP ensued shortly thereafter.

Following receipt of review comments in May 2011, a final Plan was submitted to the Department on June 1, 2011; it was formally approved on August 18, 2011.The Biological POS for the St. Lucie Plant EPU was intended to characterize the fish and shellfish fauna in the vicinity of the plant, and assess the extent, if any, to which the EPU affected those communities.

As described below, the Plan consisted of trawling, gill netting, beach seining, plankton netting, and monitoring of sea turtle utilization of nearshore hardbottom.

Sampling techniques largely replicated those used in prior 316(a) demonstration studies at the St.Lucie Plant to provide comparable contemporary data.The Biological POS called for baseline monitoring prior to completion of the EPU, and two years of post-uprate monitoring.

Results of all individual pre- and post-uprate sampling events were previously reported to FPL. This final report, as required by the AO, compiles and summarizes those results and compares pre- and post-uprate data between seasons and among study sites to assess EPU effects.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY METHODS Sampling Period Baseline monitoring commenced in August 2011 following FDEP approval of the Biological POS and continued through October 2012. The EPU was completed in December 2012 and the first post-uprate sampling event was conducted in January 2013. Post-EPU monitoring continued through February 2015. Sampling was perfonned every other month for a total of 8 baseline sampling events and 12 post-uprate events. All sampling was conducted under a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Special Activities License (most recently SAL-14-0071-SR) issued to Ecological Associates, Inc.General Sampling Areas Three separate sampling sites were established within the study area, each measuring approximately 2.0 mi (3.2 km) on a side (Figure 1). Within the near and far field area surrounding St. Lucie Plant's discharge structures, the first site (SL2) extends from shore along the axis of the Unit 2 multi-port diffuser.

The north and south boundaries of the discharge site are located 1 mi (1.6 km) from the discharge structure and parallel the center line. Within this bounded area, three unique habitat types are present, each with a unique benthic and fish fauna: the beach terrace (shallow sandy areas near shore in depths less than about 20 ft (6.1 m), an offshore trough (a relatively homogenous shell hash substrate in 35-40 ft (11-12 m), and an offshore shoal (sandy substrate that rises to a depth of approximately 20 ft (6.1 m; EAI, 2001).Two additional sites of equivalent size to SL2 and positioned similarly served as reference/control sites to document "natural" background conditions in areas unaffected by thermal discharges.

One of these was located approximately midway between the discharge site and the Ft. Pierce Inlet (SLI) and the other midway between the discharge site and the St. Lucie Inlet (SL3; Figure 1).Precise sampling locations within each area were established during the initial baseline sampling event. A Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to capture sampling points and transect end points, as applicable.

Following the initial sampling event, all sampling locations remained fixed for the duration of the study period.Specific Sampling Locations Within each of the three study sites, three transects progressively distant from shore were established for gill net and trawl sampling.

The transects were located approximately 600 ft (183 ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 2 FINAL REPORT, ST. LuCwe PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY m) from shore on the beach terrace in water depths of 8-32 ft (2.4-9.8 m; Transect A), approximately 4,000 ft. (1.2 km) from shore in water depths of 34-45 ft (10.4-13.7 in; Transect B), and approximately 8,000 ft. (2.4 kin) from shore in water depths of 31-47 ft (9.4-14.3 m: Transect C). A schematic of transect locations within the discharge area is shown in Figure 2.Plankton samples were collected concurrently with trawl samples in all three areas but only on Transects A and C.Beach seining was conducted at three stations within each of the three sampling sites. Station A was located approximately 0.5 mi. (0.8 km) north of the center of each site, Station B was located at the center of the site, and Station C was located approximately 0.5 mi. south of the center of the site (Figure 2). Final station locations were adjusted, as necessary, to avoid potential bottom obstructions.

For the purpose of boat-based sea turtle surveys, a 0.6 mi- (1 kin-) long transect was established in the vicinity of nearshore hardbottom in each of the three study sites. The approximate location of these transects was based on recent aerial photography and then adjusted in the field using towed underwater video cameras.Water Quality Water quality data were recorded at three locations (middle and both end points) and three depths (approximately 30 cm below the surface, mid-depth and 30 cm above the bottom) along each of the nine transects established for trawl and gill net sampling.

A Hach Quanta water quality meter was used to document water quality at each sampling point. Monitored variables included:

specific conductivity (mS/cm), temperature (fC), salinity as a function of conductance (practical salinity units [PSU]), dissolved oxygen (DO), and pH. The meter was calibrated prior to the start of daily sampling activities and again at the completion of sampling.Trawling Trawling was conducted along each of the three shore-parallel transects established within each study site, yielding a total of 72 baseline and 108 post-uprate samples. Sampling was conducted with a 16-ft (4.9-m) by 3-ft (0.9 m) semi-balloon bottom trawl, having a 0.5-in (12.7 rmm) stretch mesh in the bag and 0.25-in (6.4-mm) stretch mesh in the cod end. The net was towed on the bottom at speeds of 2-3 knots for 15 minutes along each transect.

The tows typically intersected the approximate midpoint of each of the three gill net transects (Figure 2). Trawl sampling at all sites was performed at night.All fish captured by trawl were identified to species and counted. Additionally, a maximum of 25 representative specimens of each Representative Important Species (RIS; see below) captured ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEAcn, FLORIDA 3 FINAL REPORT, ST. LuciE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY were measured (standard length and total length) and a batch weight for those specimens obtained.

Trawl data are presented as total number of individuals captured, number of individuals captured per kilometer of bottom trawled (Catch per Unit Effort; CPUE), and average length and weight of RIS. CPUE is used to account for differences in tow distances resulting from varying boat speeds and currents.

Biomass for RIS was determined by dividing the batch weight of each taxon by the number of specimens weighed and then multiplying the average weight by the total number of specimens in the sample.All invertebrates captured by trawl were counted and identified to major taxonomic group (e.g., spider crab, swimming crab, squid, etc.). Additionally, any Commercially/Recreationally Important Species (CRI; e.g., blue crabs, penaeid shrimp, lobster, etc.) in the catch were identified to the lowest practicable taxon.Gill Netting Gill net sampling was conducted along three shore-perpendicular transects established within each study site, yielding a total of 72 baseline and 108 post-uprate samples. Within the discharge site, the transects were sited either north or south of the multi-port diffuser, depending on predominant current flow at the time of sampling, to ensure the net fished within the thermal plume, if present (Figure 2). The gill net was 600 ft (183 m) in length and 12 ft (3.7 m) in depth, and consisted of 5 monofilament mesh panels, each 120 ft (66.6 m) long. Mesh sizes (stretch length) of the five panels are as follows: 2.5 in (64 mm), 2.9 in (74 mm), 3.3 in (84 mm), 3.8 in (97 mm), and 4.6 in (117 mm). The variable mesh allowed the capture of numerous fish species of different size classes. The bottom line of the gill net was weighted such that it rested on the bottom, and floats on the top line kept the net suspended in the water column. Gill net sampling at all sites was conducted during daylight hours.Gill nets remained in the water a minimum of 30 minutes, with total soak time calculated from the time the lead end of the net entered the water until the time the terminal end was back onboard the vessel. All fish captured by gill net were identified to species and counted.Additionally, a maximum of 25 representative specimens of each RIS captured were measured (total length) and a batch weight obtained for those specimens.

Gill net data is presented as described above for trawl samples with the exception that CPUE represents the number of individuals captured per hour of soak time. Soak times often varied considerably in relation to sea conditions and/or the number of fish captured.Beach Seining Beach seining was conducted at three locations within each of the three study sites, yielding a total of 72 baseline and 108 post-uprate samples. The seine consisted of a 100-ft (30.5-m) long ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 4 FINAL REPORT, ST. LuCE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY by 6.0 ft (1.8-m) deep net having a stretch mesh of I inch (25 mm). The net was heavily weighted along the bottom and had extra floatation on the top so it maintained a vertical hanging position in the water column under surf conditions.

The rolled net was carried out to a depth of approximately 4 ft (1.2 m), deployed parallel to shore and then pulled onto the beach with the ends roughly perpendicular to shore. This created a horseshoe-shaped barrier, with fish funneled to the central part of the net as it was brought on shore. Beach seining was performed during daylight hours.Fish and invertebrates captured by seine were processed, as described above for gill netting and trawling.

Data are presented as total number of individuals captured, with average length and weight also reported for RIS. Insofar as the exact area of bottom sampled by the seine could not be accurately determined, no CPUE data are presented.

Plankton Netting Nighttime sub-surface plankton tows were made concurrently with trawling along Transects A and C within each study site (Figure 2), yielding a total of 48 baseline and 96 post-uprate samples. Sampling was conducted using paired bongo nets with a mouth opening of 7.9-in (20-cm) diameter, and fitted with a 0.02 in (500 micron) mesh. Each net was equipped with flow meters to allow determination of volume of water filtered.

The nets were towed for 15 minutes, unless clogging required shorter tow times. Once the nets were retrieved aboard the vessel, the contents from both cod ends were combined into a single sample and preserved in 10% buffered formalin for laboratory identification.

In addition to quantifying ichthyoplankton, any captured CRI decapod crustacean larvae were identified and enumerated.

CR1 target species included, but were not limited to, penaeid shrimp, blue crabs, stone crabs, lobster, and mole crabs. Plankton data are presented as total number of individuals captured and number of individuals captured per 100 cubic meters of water filtered (CPUE).Nearshore Hardbottom Utilization by Sea Turtles A single 0.62-mi (1-kim) shore-parallel transect was monitored in each of the three study sites.Each transect was traversed two times during each sampling event with at least a 30 minute separation between the two passes. A total of 48 baseline event observations and 96 post-uprate observations were made. Sea turtle surveys were performed from a boat equipped with an elevated platforn capable of holding two observers.

As the boat traversed each transect at a slow and constant speed (4.0 knots or less), one observer would look to port side and the other to starboard side. Observers would record and identify to species, when possible, any turtle observed surfacing within approximately 100 ft (30 m) of the transect centerline.

Monitoring days were selected for optimal viewing capabilities (e.g., sunny with calm seas).ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 5 ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 5 FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Representative Important Species Section 4.0 of the Interagency 316(a) Guidance Manual (EPA, 1977) defines Representative Important Species as having one or more of the following traits: commercially or recreationally valuable; threatened or endangered; critical to the structure and function of the ecosystem; and/or a necessary component of the food chain for the preceding species. RIS for the Biological POS were selected based on results of prior 316(a) demonstration studies at the St. Lucie Plant and included 11 fish taxa and one species of sea turtle, as follows: 1. Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulalus)

-This bottom associated species, which is part of the recreational fishery, was one of the most abundant species captured in both gill nets and trawls during prior studies at the plant. It spawns offshore and gravid females have been found throughout the year.2. Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)

-This bottom associated species is a common species along the Atlantic coast and was one of the most abundant species captured in both gill nets and trawls during prior studies at the plant. Spawning occurs offshore during the late fall, winter, and early spring and peaks in December and January.3. Sand Drum (Umbrina coroides)

-This bottom associated species is a common species along the Atlantic coast and was one of the most abundant species captured in both gill nets and trawls during prior studies at the plant. Spawning occurs offshore during the late fall, winter, and early spring and peaks in December and January.4. Pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera)

-This bottom associated species is a common recreational species along the Atlantic coast and accounted for a large percentage of biomass for all species captured by trawl during prior studies at the plant. Spawning occurs offshore during the fall, winter, and spring.5. Bluefish (Pomatonius saltairix)

-This commercially and recreationally important schooling predator regularly occurs in coastal waters of east Florida, although it is present in greatest numbers during the fall and winter. It was captured in large numbers by gill net during prior studies at the plant. Gravid females were present throughout the year, although spawning within the south Atlantic fisheries stock occurs primarily in early summer along the continental shelf between northern Florida and Cape Hatteras.6. Silver Seatrout (Cynoscion nothus) -This important recreational species, occurs in the vicinity of the plant and was relatively common in gill net and trawl collections during prior studies at the plant. Seatrout are bottom associated species that spawn offshore, and gravid females have been found throughout the year.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 6 FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY 7. Kingfish/Whiting (Menticirrhus spp.) -Both the Gulf (M. littoralis) and southern (M.americanus) kingfish occur in coastal waters over sandy bottom and were routinely captured in ocean beach seines during previous studies at the plant. Both species are taken in the recreational fishery. They typically spawn in the ocean during spring, summer and fall.8. Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus)

-This species is a commercially important and recreationally popular coastal species often found in small to large schools along sandy beaches. Florida pompano were often captured in beach seines during previous studies at the plant. This species primarily spawns in the spring and summer.9. Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus)

-This schooling coastal species is both commercially and recreationally important in eastern Florida waters and was one of the most frequently caught species in gill netting operations conducted during previous studies at the plant. Although it occurs throughout much of the year, largest concentrations occur during the fall and winter, with gravid females being present primarily during the spring, summer, and fall. Spanish mackerel feed on a variety of Clupeiform fish (herrings and sardines) which are extremely abundant in the nearshore waters off Hutchinson Island.10. Clupeiformes

-This group includes a variety of anchovies, herrings and sardines, the primary source of food for most of the commercially important piscivorous fish species that migrate through the area. Clupeiformes were numerically prevalent in both trawl and gill net sampling previously conducted at the plant.11. Leopard Searobin (Prionotus scitulus)

-The leopard searobin is a benthic oriented fish that is common over sandy substrates.

It was one of the most frequently captured species in trawl sampling during previous studies at the plant. Individuals in spawning condition were captured in winter and spring.12. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) -The green sea turtle is federally listed as endangered.

Juveniles are found in inland estuaries where they occupy and feed on submerged aquatic vegetation.

They are also regularly found in the ocean where they feed on algae that colonize exposed hardbottom and worm reef. Large numbers of juvenile green turtles occur in the ocean in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant, as evidenced by their routine entrapment in the plant's cooling water intake system.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 7 FINAL REPORT, ST. LucRE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Statistical Analysis All variables were statistically analyzed using STATISTICA 64, Version 11 software (Statsoft, Inc.). Data were first tested to determine if they met requisite requirements for parametric testing, including normality (Shapiro-Wilks Test) and homogeneity of variance (Levene's Test).Water quality data was not statistically analyzed due to the time spans between sampling and the natural short term variability of the measured parameters.

Faunal data did not meet the conditions for parametric testing and therefore non-parametric tests were used for all analyses.Separate analyses were done for each type of faunal sampling:

trawls, gill nets, beach seines, plankton tows, and sea turtle surveys. Data were analyzed separately for: all fish, RIS, fish larvae, fish eggs, CRI decapod crustaceans, and CRI decapod crustacean larvae, as applicable.

Each group was analyzed for differences in the number of taxa collected, total number of individuals captured, and/or CPUE. Biomass was also analyzed for RIS fish only. All data were analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance by Ranks Test (ANOVA) to determine if statistically significant differences (p<0.0500) existed among sites, season, or pre- and post-uprate events. If significant differences were detected, the Multiple Comparisons of Mean Ranks Post-hoc Test was used to determine which paired values were significantly different.

In certain instances, the ANOVA and the Multiple Comparisons Tests produced conflicting results (i.e. the ANOVA indicated the presence of significant differences, but the Multiple Comparisons Test did not indicate any significant differences for any of the pair-wise comparisons).

In these cases, a Mann-Whitney U Test was perfonned to determine which areas (SL1 vs. SL2, SL2 vs. SL3 and SLI vs. SL3) differed significantly from each other.Seasonal changes and/or long-term temporal patterns were assessed by analyzing for differences among seasonal sampling events. For the purpose or these analyses the sampling events were grouped into either summer (May through October) or winter seasons (November through April).During the study period, an abnormally large number of individuals of a single taxon were occasionally captured during a sampling event at one or more stations.

For these events, the data were statistically analyzed both including and excluding the anomalous catch to assess its effect on a test outcome.RESULTS Water Quality Differences in time of day, tidal stage, and weather conditions both between and during each sampling event created considerable spatial and temporal variability in water quality parameters and precluded any meaningful statistical analyses.

Nevertheless, a few general characterizations ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH., FLORIDA 8 FINAL REPORT, ST. LucIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY can be made regarding seasonal differences in measured variables among study sites pre- and post-uprate.

Data are presented in relation to the associated sampling method: daytime bottom and surface values for gill netting and nighttime bottom and surface values for trawling/plankton tows.Dissolved Oxygen Gill Netting -Mean bottom DO during daytime sampling ranged from 5.89 to 6.51 mg/L and averaged 6.29 mg/L for all areas and seasons combined (Table 1). During the summer, mean bottom DO declined within all three study areas following the EPU, and differences among study sites were minor. Similar patterns were detected for mean surface DO, which ranged from 5.94 to 6.74 mg/L and averaged 6.40 mg/L for all areas and seasons combined (Table 2).Trawt'ling

-Mean bottom DO during nighttime sampling ranged from 6.09 to 6.68 mg/L and averaged 6.36 mg/L for all areas and seasons combined (Table 3). Mean surface DO ranged from 6.11 to 6.69 mg/L and averaged 6.40 mg/L for all areas and seasons (Table 4). As for gill netting stations, mean DO was higher in the winter than during the summer, but differences among study sites or pre- and post-uprate seasonal events were minor.pH Gill Netting -During daytime sampling, mean bottom pH ranged from 7.87 to 8.20, with a mean value of 8.08 for all areas and seasons combined (Table 5). Mean surface pH ranged from 7.87 to 8.17 and averaged 8.06 for all areas and seasons combined (Table 6). Mean values for daytime surface and bottom pH showed little variation among sites, seasons, or pre- and post-uprate sampling.Tracling -During nighttime sampling, mean bottom pH ranged from 8.00 to 8.16, with a mean value of 8.10 for all areas and seasons combined (Table 7). Mean surface pH for trawls ranged from 7.99 to 8.14 and averaged 8.09 for all areas and seasons combined (Table 8). pH data collected during trawling were very similar to those reported for gill netting.Salinity Gill Netting- Mean bottom salinity during daytime sampling ranged from 35.51 to 36.37 PSU, with a mean value of 36.05 PSU for all areas and seasons combined (Table 9). Mean surface salinity ranged from 35.50 to 36.31 PSU and averaged 36.01 PSU for all areas and seasons combined (Table 10).ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 9 FINAL REPORT, ST. LuciE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Trawling -Mean bottom salinity during nighttime sampling ranged from 35.64 to 36.51 PSU, with a mean value of 36.01 PSU for all areas and seasons combined (Table 11). Mean surface salinity ranged from 35.60 to 36.55 PSU with a mean of 36.00 PSU for all areas and seasons (Table 12). Mean salinity values showed little variation among sites, either pre- or post-uprate and were typical of oceanic conditions..

Specific Conductivity Gill Netting -Mean bottom specific conductivity during daytime sampling ranged from 53.68 to 54.99 mS/cm, with a mean value of 54.58 mS/cm for all areas and seasons combined (Table 13). Mean surface specific conductivity ranged from 53.65 to 54.95 mS/cm and averaged 54.46 mS/cm for all areas and seasons (Table 14).Travling -Mean bottom specific conductivity during nighttime sampling ranged from 53.81 to 55.29 mS/cm and averaged 54.51 mS/cm for all areas and seasons combined (Table 15).Mean surface specific conductivity ranged from 53.75 to 55.30 mS/cm and averaged 54.44 mS/cm for all areas and seasons (Table 16). Mean specific conductivity values mirrored salinity data presented above, with little variation among sites, either pre- or post-uprate.

Temperature Gill Netting -Mean bottom water temperatures during daytime sampling ranged from 70.7 to 79.1°F (21.50 to 26.15 0 C) with a mean of 75.4 0 F (24.10 0 C) for all areas and seasons combined (Table 17). Mean surface water temperatures for daytime sampling ranged from 71.3 to 81.2 0 F (21.84 to 27.35 0 C) with a mean temperature of 77.0°F (24.98°C) for all areas and seasons combined (Table 18).

-Mean bottom water temperature during nighttime sampling ranged from 70.9 to 79.8°F (21.63 to 26.56°C) and averaged 75.6 0 F (24.21°C) for all areas and seasons combined (Table 19). Mean surface water temperature during nighttime sampling ranged from 71.8 to 80.7 0 F (22.09 to 27.05'C) and averaged 76.7 0 F (24.85°C) for all areas and seasons combined (Table 20).Mean summer surface water temperatures increased at all study sites post-EPU, including a 2.3°F (1.30°C) increase at the discharge site. However, surface water temperatures at Control SLI to the north experienced similar increases:

2.2°F (1.22°C) during daytime gill net sampling and 2.4°F (1.35°C) during nighttime trawl sampling.

The greatest increase in mean summer bottom water temperatures between pre- and post-uprate sampling events (3.0'F; 1.66°C)occurred during trawl sampling at the northern control, and the smallest increase (0.5°F; 0.28 0 C)was found at the southern control, also during trawl sampling.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 10 FINAL REPORT, ST. Lucwe PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY During winter sampling, mean surface water temperatures also increased at all sites during post-uprate gill net sampling, with the largest increase (2.7°F; 1.48°C) occurring at Control SLI, while the smallest change (0.9°F; 0.53°C;) was found at the discharge site. During winter trawl sampling, mean surface and bottom water temperatures were lower after the EPU, with the greatest decrease found at the bottom during nighttime trawling at the discharge site (-2.5°F; -1.41-C).Trawling Table 21 provides the common and scientific names of all organisms captured for all sampling methods combined during pre- and post-uprate monitoring.

One hundred eighty four (184) taxa, representing 93 fish, 76 crustaceans, 10 echinoderms, and 5 molluscs, were captured by trawl (Table 22). A total of 7,530 organisms were identified and enumerated from the collections (2,078 fish, 3,803 crustaceans, 1,527 echinoderms, and 122 molluscs).

Nine (9) of the 11 RIS were represented in the catch, and collectively they accounted for 60% of all fish captured by trawl. Clupeiformes (anchovies, herrings, and sardines), represented primarily by unidentified Engraulids and the Cuban anchovy (Anchoa cubana), accounted for 38% of the total number of fish caught. The species comprising this taxon provide forage food for a large variety of predatory fish, many of which are commercially and recreationally important.

The sand drum, unidentified anchovy (Anchoa sp.), star drum (Steifer lanceolatus), and Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus) were also caught in relatively high numbers. Collectively, these six taxa accounted for approximately 62% of the total catch.There were no statistically significant differences among study sites with respect to the number of fish, RIS, or CRI invertebrate taxa collected by trawl during pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling, or when all sampling events were combined (Table 23). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the number of fish, RIS, or CRI invertebrate taxa collected between pre- and post-uprate sampling events within any study site, including the discharge (Table 24).Of the fish taxa collected by trawl, sand drum, Engraulidae, and Cuban anchovy had the greatest CPUE (2.39/km, 2.02/km and 2.01/km, respectively), while the vast majority (>76%) of the other fish taxa captured had a CPUE of 0.10 or less (Table 25). The mean CPUE for all fish taxa combined ranged from 1.63/kmn in the southern control during pre-uprate winter events to 74.43/km in the northern control during pre-uprate summer events (Table 26). The considerably higher mean CPUE for all areas during pre-uprate summer sampling is attributable to relatively high numbers of Clupeiform fish and sand drum captured during two events.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA I1I FINAL REPORT, ST. LucIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Overall, catches of fish during trawl sampling was higher during the summer than during the winter, and pre-uprate summer sampling yielded considerably higher CPUE for fish than post-uprate sampling, particularly at the discharge site (9.4 times higher; Table 26). In contrast, post-uprate CPUE for fish during the winter was higher than comparable pre-uprate values at all study sites.When the mean CPUE values for all fish taxa combined were compared among study sites, there were no significant differences during pre-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 23). However, CPUE at Control SLI was significantly higher than CPUE at the discharge site (SL2) during post-uprate monitoring, but SL2 was not significantly different from the southern control (Table 23). Large catches of anchovies (Engraulidae) were responsible for a substantial amount of variation in the data. However, even after excluding anchovies from the statistical analyses, CPUE during post-uprate monitoring remained significantly higher at the northern control than at the discharge site, and the discharge site did not differ significantly from Control SL3 (Table 23). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in fish CPUE between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods, either including or excluding Engraulidae, within any study site, including the discharge (Table24).

Insofar as Clupeiformes, an RIS taxon, accounted for a large percentage of the total fish catch, seasonal patterns for RIS CPUE were similar to those for all fish species combined (Table 27).The anchovies, herrings and sardines comprising the Clupeiformes occur in large schools that are common throughout the study area. However, their chance occurrence at the time of sampling can skew catch numbers. For example, Clupeiform fish accounted for 82% of all RIS captured during pre-uprate trawl sampling (Table 27), and all but one of those individuals was captured during a single sampling event (October 2012). Sixty-eight (68) percent and 23%, respectively, of all Clupeiformes captured during all pre- and post-uprate sampling events combined were caught in SLI and SL2, while only 9% were captured in SL3. Thus, it is not surprising that Control SLI had the greatest number of all RIS specimens captured (820), and Control SL3 had the fewest (207; Table 27). As mentioned earlier, sand drum, Engraulidae, and Anchoa cubana had the greatest CPUE (2.39/km, 2.02/km and 2.01/km, respectively; Table 28). The mean CPUE for all RIS taxa combined was 8.78/km.The mean CPUE for each RIS species was compared statistically among study sites and seasons.Due largely, to the high degree of spatial and temporal variability in the data, CPUE for Clueiformes did not differ significantly among any study sites pre- or post uprate, seasonally, or for all events combined (Table 29).The only significant differences in CPUE for RIS taxa were found for sand drum and leopard searobin.

The CPUE for sand drum during post-uprate trawl sampling was found to be significantly higher at Control SL1 than at the discharge site, but SL2 did not differ significantly from Control SL3. This same outcome was found for all events combined (Table 29).ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 12 FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCiE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Furthermore, there were no significant differences in CPUE for sand dram between pre- and post-uprate events within any study site, including the discharge (Table 30).ANOVA of CPUE for leopard searobin indicated a significant difference among study sites during post-uprate monitoring.

However, neither the Multiple Comparisons of Mean Ranks Post-hoc Test nor the Mann-Whitney U Test were able to determine which sites were significantly different from one another (Table 29). Within-area comparisons revealed that this species was significantly more abundant before the uprate than after, but only at Control SL3 (Table 30).When captures were adjusted to account for variable tow distances, CPUE for all RIS taxa combined ranged from 54.24/km in Control SLI during pre-uprate summer events to 0.76/km at the discharge site (SL2) during post-uprate summer events (Table 31). Prior to the uprate, regardless of season, mean RIS CPUE at the discharge site was intermediate between comparable values at the two control sites. Prior to the uprate, CPUE for RIS during summer events was anywhere from 6 (SL3) to 34 times (SLI) higher than corresponding winter values at all study sites. Following the uprate, summer CPUE for RIS at the two control sites remained higher that corresponding winter values, although the differences were only about twofold. By comparison, winter CPUE values at the discharge site were double corresponding summer values.Mean CPUE for RIS during the summer decreased at both SLI and SL2 after the uprate, with the greatest decrease occurring at the discharge site. At SL3, post-uprate CPUE during the summer was slightly larger than the comparable pre-uprate value. During the winter, mean CPUE after the uprate increased at all study sites.When CPUE for RIS, all species combined, were compared statistically, Control SLI was found to have significantly higher RIS CPUE than the discharge site during post-uprate monitoring, but SL2 did not differ significantly from the southern control (Table 23). The difference between SLI and SL2 was largely attributable to differences in the number of Engraulidae in the catches, as its removal from the analysis resulted in no significant differences in RIS CPUE between those two sites (Table 23). There were no significant differences found in RIS CPUE, either including or excluding Engraulidae, among study sites during pre-uprate, summer, or winter sampling events, or when all events were combined (Table 23). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences found within any study site when RIS CPUE was compared pre- and post-uprate (Tables 24).The mean total length (TL) for each taxon of RIS collected by trawl during pre- and post-uprate sampling is presented in Table 32. The species with the largest mean TL included the Atlantic croaker (234.27 rmm), pigfish (233.00 mm), and silver seatrout (225.00 mm). The Clupeiforms, such as anchovies, were the smallest.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 13 FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Mean weights and total biomass for RIS collected within each study site during trawl sampling are presented in Tables 33 and 34, respectively.

Despite representing the greatest number of specimens captured by trawl during baseline sampling, Clupeifonnes represented only 17% of the RIS biomass.Many of the RIS taxa were not captured during all of the various sampling periods. For example, during the summer, 10 of the 13 taxa collected at Control SLI were only captured during pre- or post-uprate trawling, but not both. Similarly six of the nine RIS taxa collected during winter sampling at the northern control were only represented in pre- or post-uprate events, but not both. In other cases, an RIS taxon may have been captured during both pre- and post-uprate sampling periods, but only during one season. For example, Gulf kingfish were only captured during the summer at the southern contol, while Atlantic croaker were only captured during the winter at the northern control.During the winter, the mean weight for all RIS taxa combined was much lower during post-uprate trawl sampling than during pre-uprate monitoring at all study sites (Table 33). During the summer, mean weight decreased slightly at SLI following the uprate, while increasing slightly at the discharge site. At Control SL3, mean weight during pre-uprate summer sampling was nearly 24 times greater than during the comparable post-uprate sampling period.Total biomass reflects the total number of fish collected and the corresponding mean biomass for each RIS taxon captured.

Since there were unequal numbers of pre- (8) and post-uprate (12)sampling events, total biomass will yield biased results when assessing the effects of the EPU.Comparison of mean biomass removes that bias. The discharge site had a lower mean biomass than either control site during pre-uprate summer sampling, but was intermediate to the two controls during pre-uprate winter sampling.

During post-uprate sampling, mean biomass at SL2 was intermediate to the two control sites during the summer, but lower than both during the winter (Table 34). However, none of these differences were statistically significant.

Regardless of whether Engraulidae was included or excluded from the analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in mean RIS biomass among study sites during pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 23). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in mean RIS biomass, inclusive of Engraulidae, between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods within any study site (Table 24). The only significant within-area difference was found at SL3 when Engraulidae were excluded from the analysis; mean biomass was significantly greater during pre-uprate sampling than during post-uprate monitoring (Table 24).A total of 5,452 invertebrates represented by 91 taxa were collected by trawl during pre- and post-uprate sampling (Table 22). The largest total number of invertebrates were captured in SLI ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 14 FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY (2,695) and the fewest in SL3 (695; Table 35). Mean CPUE for all invertebrate taxa combined ranged from 6.34/km in SL3 during post-uprate winter sampling to 149.50/kin at the discharge site during pre-uprate summer sampling.

Means for SL2 and SL3 were higher during pre-uprate summer sampling than during the comparable post-uprate period, while the opposite was true for SLI. Pre- and post-uprate mean values were quite similar during both winter and summer sampling periods. The discharge site had a higher mean CPUE than the two control sites during the pre-uprate summer period, but it was intermediate to both controls during the comparable post-uprate period. For winter sampling events, the mean CPUE at the discharge site was intermediate to the means for the two controls during both pre- and post-uprate sampling periods.Eighteen (18) CRI decapod crustacean taxa were collected during trawl sampling.

Four of those, roughneck shrimp (Riniapenaeus constriclus), unidentified roughneck shrimp (Rimapenaeus sp.), pink shrimp (Fatfantepenaeus duorarum), and speckled swimming crabs (Arenaeus cribrarius) made up 77% of all CRI crustaceans captured (Table 22).Mean CPUE for CRI invertebrates ranged from 1.28/kim at SL1 during pre-uprate winter sampling to 7.48/km, also at SL1, during post-uprate summer events (Table 36). Mean CPUE for CRI decapod crustaceans captured by trawl at the discharge site was slightly lower than the means for the two controls during pre-uprate summer events, but intermediate to the controls during post-uprate sampling.

Mean CPUE for CRI invertebrates at SL2 was also intermediate to the two controls during both pre- and post-uprate winter sampling periods. However, none of these differences among study sites were statistically significant whether considering pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 23).Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of invertebrate taxa or CPUE for all taxa combined between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods within any study site (Table 24).Gill Netting One hundred (100) taxa, representing 84 fish, 8 crustaceans, 7 echinoderms, and I mollusc were collected during gill net sampling (Table 37). A total of 5,993 organisms were identified and enumerated from the collection (5,831 fish, 62 crustaceans, 99 echinoderns, and 1 mnollusc).

The 10 most abundant species accounted for 78% of the catch, with four species, Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae; 15.7%), Atlantic bumper (15.7%), bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo; 14.0 %), and spot (6.6%) accounting for over half of all captures.

All 11 RIS of fish were captured by gill net, and collectively they accounted for 28.7% of all fish collected.

Spot and Atlantic croaker were the most abundant.The number of fish taxa, all species combined, captured by gill net during the summer was significantly higher at Control SL1 than at the discharge site, although SL2 was not significantly ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 15 FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCrE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY different from the southern control (Table 38). Similar results were obtained for all sampling events combined.

When, looking at RIS only, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of taxa captured among areas during pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 38). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of fish taxa or RIS fish taxa captured between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods within any study site (Table 39).Atlantic sharpnose sharks had the highest CPUE for all fishes (6.08/hr) followed by Atlantic bumper (6.06/hr) and bonnethead sharks (5.40/hr; Table 40). The mean CPUE for all fishes caught by gill net in pre-uprate events ranged from 36.10/hour in SLI during the winter to 63.73/hour in SL3, also during the winter (Table 41). Mean CPUE during post-uprate sampling was lower than comparable pre-uprate values within all three study sites regardless of season.During the pre-uprate summer sampling, the discharge site had a lower mean CPUE for fish captured by gill net than either of the two controls, but it was intermediate to SLI and SL3 during pre-uprate winter sampling.

Following the EPU, the mean CPUE for fish captured by gill net at the discharge site was intermediate to the two controls during summer sampling and greater than both controls during winter sampling.None of the differences in mean fish CPUE among study sites were statistically significant whether considering pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 38). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in fish CPUE between pre- and post-uprate events within any study site (Table 39).There was considerable fluctuation in the number of RIS specimens captured by gill net between pre- and post-uprate events in all areas, particularly during the summer (Table 42). The discharge site was intermediate to the two control sites during pre-uprate summer sampling.During post-uprate summer events, all sites saw a decrease in the number of RIS captured, although the number caught at SL2 was greater than at either of the two controls.

During the winter, the number of RIS specimens captured at the discharge site was lower than at either of the control sites prior to the uprate, but higher than both during post-uprate sampling.The relationships among study sites described above for the number of RIS specimens captured by gill net are the same as those based on mean CPUE (Table 43). There were no statistically significant differences in RIS CPUE among areas during pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling events, or when all events were combined (Table 38). With-area comparisons indicated that there were no significant differences in RIS CPUE between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods at the discharge site or Control SL3. However, RIS CPUE at Control SLI was significantly higher during pre-uprate monitoring than during post-uprate monitoring (Table 39).ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 16 FINAL REPORT, ST. LucwE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY No statistically significant differences were found among study sites with regard to mean CPUE of individual RIS taxa during pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 44). The only difference in mean CPUE for any RIS taxa within a study site was at SLI, where bluefish were significantly more abundant during pre-uprate sampling (Table 45).The mean total lengths (TL) for each taxon of RIS collected in gill net sampling are presented in Table 46. The largest species captured included Atlantic Spanish mackerel (470.0 mm), bluefish (409.9 mm), and Gulf kingfish (371.4 mm).Mean weights and total biomass for RIS collected within each study site during gill netting are presented in Tables 47 and 48, respectively.

Atlantic Spanish mackerel accounted for 42%(233.5 kg) of the total biomass for all RIS collected, with Atlantic croaker (80.4 kg), blue fish (80.0 kg), and spot (57.4 kg) accounting for another 39%. Mean MjS biomass at the discharge site was lower than at the two control sites during both summer and winter pre-uprate sampling periods (Table 49). Following the uprate, mean RIS biomass at SL2 was higher than either control. However, as for other variables when these data were analyzed statistically, none of the differences among study sites were significant whether considering pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling events, or when all events were combined (Table 38). Likewise RIS biomass did not differ significantly between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods within any study site (Table 39).The only CRI invertebrate captured during gill net sampling was the speckled swimming crab, which was represented by 16 specimens (Table 37). Too few were captured to allow for meaningful statistical analyses.Beach Seining Seventy-six (76) taxa, representing 64 fish and 12 crustaceans, were collected during pre- and post-uprate beach seine sampling (Table 50). A total of 42,289 organisms were identified and enumerated from the collection (42,105 fish and 184 crustaceans).

The scaled sardine (Harengulajaguana) was by far the most abundant species (31,455 individuals), accounting for 75% of all specimens collected.

Four additional taxa, sand drum, Atlantic bumper, tidewater mojarra (Eucinoslomus harengulus), and Spanish sardine (Sardinella aurita), were each represented by more than 1,000 individuals, and collectively these five taxa accounted for 89%of all fish caught. In the absence of a reliable method of normalizing beach seine data, such as CPUE, and given the unequal numbers of pre- and post-uprate sampling events, the only metric available for assessing the effect of the EPU based on beach seining data was the mean number of individuals captured per event (Table 51).ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 17 FINAL REPORT, ST. LuCaE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Fewer individuals, all species combined, were captured per beach seine event at the discharge site than at either control site during both pre- and post-uprate summer sampling periods (Table 52). During winter events, the mean number of fish captured per event was higher in SL2 than either control during pre-uprate sampling and intermediate between the two controls during post-uprate sampling.

By far, Control SL3 had the highest number of captures per event during summer sampling, both pre- and post-uprate, and that was attributable to the large numbers of scaled sardines caught at that location.Despite large spatial and temporal differences in the absolute numbers of fish captured during beach seining, when analyzed statistically no significant differences were detected among study sites in the mean number of fish per event whether analyzing pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or all events combined (Table 53). These results were unaffected by the exclusion of scaled sardines from the analysis.

Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences in mean numbers of fish captured between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods within any study site (Table 54). Similar results were obtained when the number of fish taxa collected during beach seining was compared both among and within study sites (Tables 53 and 54).Twenty taxa of RIS were among the fish captured by beach seine. Of these, Clupeiformes (represented by 11 species of sardines, herrings, and anchovies) was the most abundant, accounting for 91% of the total catch (Table 55). There were no statistically significant differences in the number of RIS taxa captured among or within study sites whether considering pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Tables 53 and 54).A large proportion of total RIS captures (83%) occurred during two events (August 2012 at Control SL3 and August 2014 at both SLI and SL3) due primarily to large numbers of scaled sardines.

Because of the high degree of temporal and spatial variability in the data, there were no statistically significant differences in the mean numbers of RIS captured per event either among or within study sites during pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all were events combined (Table 53 and 54). The same results were obtained whether scaled sardines were included or excluded from the analysis.

When numbers of individuals of each RIS taxa were compared, no statistically significant differences were found either among or within study sites during pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 56 and 57).The mean total lengths (TL) for each taxon of RIS collected by beach seine are presented in Table 58. The species with the greatest mean TL included Spanish mackerel (255.33 mm), spot (236.00 mm), Atlantic croaker (199.25 mm), and Gulf kingfish (103.78 mm).ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 18 FINAL REPORT, ST. LuciE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Mean weight and total biomass for RIS taxa collected by beach seine within each study site are presented in Tables 59 and 60, respectively.

Scaled sardines accounted for 77% (286.4 kg) of the total RIS biomass. The addition of sand drum (45.0 kg), Gulf kingfish (23.9 kg), Florida pompano (5.9 kg), and Spanish sardine (5.1 kg) elevate the combined percentage of total RIS biomass to 98%. Mean biomass for all RIS taxa combined ranged from 0.003 kg at the discharge site during pre-uprate winter sampling to 7.8 kg during at Control SL3 during pre-uprate summer sampling (Table 60).When scaled sardines were included in the statistical analysis, no significant differences were detected in RIS biomass either among or within study sites during pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 53 and 54).However, when that species was excluded from the analysis, mean biomass of all RIS taxa combined was significantly higher at the southern control than at the discharge site during winter sampling, while the discharge and Control SLI did not significantly from each other (Table 53).Seven taxa of CR1 decapod crustaceans were captured during baseline beach seine sampling, the speckled swimming crab, three taxa of mole crabs (Albuneidae, Emerita sp., and Emerita talpoida), the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), swimming crabs (Callinectes sp.), and pink shrimp, which collectively accounted for 178 specimens (Table 50). Mole crabs, which burrow into the sand, are considered to be an opportunistic capture and the number captured does not accurately represent their relative abundance.

Speckled swimming crabs were collected in all areas. There were too few specimens of CRI decapod crustaceans captured by seine to allow for meaningful statistical analyses.Plankton Netting One hundred ninety one (191) taxa of different life stages of fish (162), crustaceans (19), and fish eggs (10), were collected by plankton nets (Table 61). A total of 80,908 organisms were identified and enumerated from the collection (6,874 fish, 11,517 crustaceans, and 62,517 fish eggs). Not all fish and fish eggs could be identified to species level, so differences in abundances of individual RIS taxa could not be statistically analyzed.

However, 51% (3,504) of all fish larvae were identified as members of the Clupeiformes.

Collectively, 10 taxa comprised over 75% of the ichthyoplankton captured during plankton tows, including members of the families Clupeidae, Gobiidae, Sciaenidae, Engraulidae, and Blennidae.

All species of Clupeidae, as well as some taxa within the Sciaenidae, are RIS.The total number of larval fish captured for all pre-and post uprate events combined was highest at Control SL 1 (2,990) and lowest at Control SL3 (1,217), with intermediate numbers (2,667)caught at the discharge site Table 62). The number of larval fish collected at the discharge site was higher than either control site during both pre- and post-uprate summer sampling periods, ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 19 FINAL REPORT, ST. LuciE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY but intermediate to the two controls during winter sampling.

The large number of larval fish captured at Control SLI during pre-uprate winter sampling (1,260) was attributable primarily to the presence of large numbers of Clupeidae (Table 61).The mean CPUE for each taxon collected by plankton nets is presented in Table 63. For summer events, mean CPUE for all taxa combined (fish larvae, fish eggs, and CRI crustacean larvae)collected at the discharge site was intermediate to the means for the two controls prior to the uprate and greater than both after the uprate (Table 64). During winter sampling, mean CPUEs at the discharge site were lower than both controls both before and after the uprate.When examining only fish larvae contained in the plankton samples, CPUEs were higher at the discharge site than at either control during the summer both before and after the uprate (Table 65). During winter sampling, fish larvae CPUE at the discharge was lower than the comparable values for the two controls prior to the uprate, but intermediate to the controls after the uprate.However, none of the differences among or within study sites were statistically significant whether considering pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 66 and 67).Mean CPUJE for fish eggs, all events combined, was greater at the discharge site than at either control (Table 68). However, neither number of fish egg taxa nor CPUE differed significantly among study sites during pre-uprate, post-uprate, summer, or winter sampling periods, or when all events were combined (Table 66). The only within-area difference for fish egg CPUE between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods was found at Control SL3, where significantly higher numbers were collected prior to the uprate (Table 67).A relatively large number of CRI decapod crustacean larvae were captured during plankton collections, with five taxa comprising over 78% of the crustaceans captured:

two mole crab taxa (Albunea sp. and Emerita talpoida), stone crabs (Menippe mercenaria), blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), and different life stages of unidentified swimming crabs (Callinecles spp; Table 61).The mean CPUE for each CRI crustacean taxa captured by plankton nets is presented in Table 63. For all taxa combined, greater numbers were captured at the discharge site than at either control during both pre- and post-uprate summer sampling, as well as during pre-uprate winter sampling (Table 69). However, SL2 was intermediate to the two controls during post-uprate winter sampling.With one exception, no statistically significant differences were detected in the number of CRI crustacean larval taxa or corresponding CPUE either among or within study sites during any sampling period (Table 66 and 67). That exception occurred when the ANOVA indicated a significant difference among sites during summer sampling events. However, neither the ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 20 FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Multiple Comparisons of Mean Ranks Post-hoc Test nor the Mann-Whitney U Test was able to determine which sites were significantly different from one another (Table 66).Nearshore Hardbottom Utilization by Sea Turtles The mean number of green turtle sightings was consistently higher at the discharge site than at either control during both pre- and post-uprate sampling periods (Table 70). When data from all pre- and post-uprate events were combined, the average number of green turtle sightings per one-kilometer-long transect ranged from 0.03 at Control SL3 to 2.32 at SL2.Statistical comparisons indicated the mean numbers of green turtle sightings at both the discharge site and Control SLI were significantly higher than Control SL3 during post-uprate, summer, and winter sampling periods and when all events were combined (Table 71). During pre-uprate monitoring, the mean number of green turtle sightings at SL2 was significantly higher than at either control. However, mean numbers of green turtle sightings did not differ significantly between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods within any study site (Table 72).DISCUSSION The purpose of Biological POS baseline monitoring was to establish background conditions against which to assess the effects of the St. Lucie Plant EPU. Monitoring was not intended to determine the overall effect of plant operations, as previous 316(a) studies demonstrated that thermal effluents from the St. Lucie Plant were not jeopardizing the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in receiving waters of the Atlantic Ocean (ABI, 1979). Rather, the Biological POS was intended solely to assess the effects of a minor elevation in discharge water temperatures resulting from the Units 1 and 2 EPU.Collectively, data collected during the Biological POS indicate a diverse assemblage of fish and shellfish in nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean offshore the St. Lucie Plant. These faunal communities as well as the monitored water quality parameters exhibit considerable spatial and temporal variability.

Water quality within the study area is naturally affected by a number of variables including proximity to inlets, currents, tides, prevailing weather conditions, and occasional upwelling events. Given the high degree of spatial and temporal variability within this dynamic system, it would be virtually impossible to isolate natural variability in water quality from changes resulting from the EPU based on the infrequent data collected during this study.There were no statistically significant differences among the three study sites in the number of fish taxa, RIS taxa, or CRI invertebrate taxa collected by trawl either before or after the uprate.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 21 FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY There were no statistically significant differences among sites before the uprate with respect to CPUE for fish (all taxa combined), RIS (all taxa combined), individual RIS taxa, or CRI invertebrates.

Following the uprate, the discharge site had significantly lower fish CPUE and RIS CPUE than the northern control, but it did not differ significantly from the southern control.There were no statistically significant differences in mean RIS fish biomass among any of the three study sites prior to or following the uprate. Finally, none of the biological variables analyzed from trawl sampling at the discharge site differed significantly between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods. Based on these results, there is no indication that the uprate affected the benthic fish, RIS, or CRI invertebrate communities in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant.With respect to gill net sampling, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of fish taxa or RIS taxa among study sites either prior to or following the uprate. The mean CPUE for fish (all species combined) and RIS captured by gill net were not significantly different among study sites pre- or post-uprate, nor were there any statistically significant differences among study sites in the mean CPUE for individual RIS taxa. There were no statistically significant differences in mean RIS biomass among study sites either before or after the uprate. Finally, none of the biological variables analyzed from gill net sampling at the discharge site differed significantly between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods. Thus, as with the analysis of trawl data, there is no indication of an uprate effect on water column fish assemblages in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant. Too few CRI invertebrates were collected by gill net for any meaningful comparisons.

There were no statistically significant differences in numbers of fish or RIS taxa collected by beach seine among study sites before or after the uprate. Furthernmre, differences in the mean numbers of fish (all species combined), RIS (all species combined), and individual RIS taxa collected by beach seine did not differ significantly among study sites prior to or after the uprate, regardless of whether scaled sardines, the numerically dominant taxa, were included or excluded from the analysis.

Similar results were obtained when RIS biomass was statistically compared among study sites. None of the biological variables analyzed from beach seine data collected at the discharge site differed significantly between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods.Collectively these results give no indication of an uprate affect on surf zone fish in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant. Too few specimens of CRI invertebrates were collected by beach seine for any meaningful comparisons.

None of the differences among study sites in the mean number of fish larvae taxa, fish egg taxa, CRI invertebrate taxa, fish larvae CPUE, fish egg CPUE, and CRI invertebrate CPUE from plankton samples were statistically significant, either before or after the uprate. Nor were there any significant differences in these variables between pre- and post-uprate sampling periods at the discharge site. These results provide no indication of an uprate effect on planktonic stages of fish and CRI invertebrate larvae in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 22 FINAL REPORT, ST. LUCIE PLANT EPU BIOLOGICAL PLAN OF STUDY Statistical comparisons among areas indicated that the mean number of green turtle sightings at the power plant site was significantly greater than the means at both control sites during pre-uprate sampling, but only significantly different from the south control during post-uprate events.This change in the relationship among areas appeared to be due to slight increases in the number of turtles sighted at the north control and a small decrease at the discharge site following the uprate. However, none of these changes differed significantly between pre- and post-uprate events within any of the three study sties. These results indicate that there is no discernable uprate effect on small green sea turtles utilizing nearshore hardbottom habitat in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant.It should be emphasized that the number of individuals and taxonomic composition of faunal communities sampled, regardless of method, varied greatly over time as evidenced by high standard deviations about the means. Consequently, large differences in the absolute numeric means were often found not to be significantly different.

Even with best efforts to reduce variation by removing outlier catches and segregating results by season, very few significant differences were detected, either within or among study sites. Similar to the results of the 316(a)monitoring effort at the St. Lucie Plant in the 1970's (ABI, 1979), data collected during the current Biological POS provide no evidence that the recent plant uprate has affected the abundance or composition of faunal communities in the vicinity of the plant. Based on the huge capacity of the receiving water body (Atlantic Ocean) to dissipate heat, the effectiveness of the offshore discharge pipes in diffusing heated cooling water, the limited spatial area historically affected by thermal discharges, and the small change in discharge temperatures resulting from the uprate, the absence of any detectable EPU effects on faunal communities is not unexpected.

REFERENCES ABI (Applied Biology, Inc.). 1979. Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Plant Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report, Volumes I and II. Applied Biology, Inc., Decator, Georgia.EAI (Ecological Associates, Inc.). 2001. Survey of Aquatic Environments Potentially Affected by the Operation of the St. Lucie Power Plant, Hutchinson Island, Florida. Prepared by Ecological Associates, Inc., Jensen Beach, Florida, for Florida Power & Light Company.41 pp.EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1977. Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance Manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, D.C. 79 pp.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 23 0 2.5 5 10 I I I I I I I I I Kilometers 0 Atlantic Ocean St. Lucie Inlet i Figure 1. Location of Three Study Sites for the Biological Plan of Study, FPL St. Lucie Plant EPU.ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIAT INC.

Table 1.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall AreaT Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 6.07 5.97 6.51 6.50 6.23 SL2 6.37 5.89 6.46 6.48 6.27 SL3 6.44 6.29 6.37 6.42 6.38 Mean 6.29 6.05 6.45 6.47 6.29 Table 2.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Area Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 6.27 5.95 6.64 6.62 6.33 SL2 6.56 5.94 6.50 6.59 6.37 SL3 6.74 6.14 6.43 6.69 6.50 Mean 6.52 6.01 6.52 6.64 F 6.40 Table 3.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.A Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 6.34 6.13 6.54 6.59 6.38 SL2 6.30 6.15 6.51 6.68 6.40 SL3 6.20 6.09 6.50 6.46 6.29 Mean 6.28 6.12 6.52 6.58 6.36 Table 4.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Area Summer (N=297) Winter (N243) J Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLU 6.53 6.13 6.56 6.61 6.44 SL2 6.47 6.14 6.48 6.69 6.44 SL3 6.34 6.11 6.45 6.50 6.33 Mean 6.45 6.12 6.49 6.60 6.40 Table 5.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom pH Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 8.00 8.13 8.02 8.20 8.10 SL2 7.99 8.08 8.00 8.14 8.06 SL3 8.05 8.15 7.87 8.16 8.09 Mean 8.01 8.12 7.96 8.17 8.08 Table 6.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface pH Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Area Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 7.96 8.10 8.01 8.17 8.07 SL2 7.96 8.05 7.99 8.11 8.04 SL3 8.01 8.12 7.87 8.15 8.06 Mean 7.98 8.09 7.95 8.14 8.06 Table 7.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom pH Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre-and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Area Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Area Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 8.03 8.13 8.00 8.12 8.08 SL2 8.05 8.13 8.01 8.16 8.11 SL3 8.09 8.14 8.00 8.14 8.11 Mean 8.06 8.13 8.00 8.14 F 8.10 Table 8.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface pH Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre-and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Area Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 8.01 8.11 7.99 8.11 8.07 SL2 8.05 8.12 8.01 8.14 8.09 SL3 8.09 8.13 8.00 8.13 8.10 Mean 8.05 8.12 8.00 8.13 8.09 Table 9.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom Salinity (PSU) Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 36.37 35.51 36.19 36.18 36.03 SL2 36.37 35.74 36.12 36.19 36.09 SL3 36.32 35.63 36.09 36.19 36.04 Mean 36.36 35.63 36.14 36.19 36.05 Table 10.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface Salinity (PSU) Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SL1 36.31 35.50 36.21 36.21 36.02 SL2 36.30 35.65 36.17 36.15 36.04 SL3 36.20 35.63 36.11 36.06 35.97 Mean 36.27 35.60 36.16 36.14 36.01 Table 11.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom Salinity (PSU) Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 36.40 35.64 36.41 35.78 35.99 SL2 36.44 35.66 36.45 35.79 36.01 SL3 36.29 35.75 36.51 35.88 36.04 Mean 36.38 35.68 36.45 35.82 36.01 Table 12.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface Salinity (PSU) Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 36.38 35.60 36.45 35.79 35.98 SL2 36.36 35.65 36.50 35.85 36.01 SL3 36.18 35.68 36.55 35.91 36.00 Mean [ 36.30 35.64 36.50 35.85 36.00 Table 13.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom Specific Conductivity (mS/cm) Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 54.96 53.68 54.99 54.84 54.54 SL2 54.93 54.01 54.84 54.86 54.62 SL3 54.88 53.91 54.77 54.87 54.5 Mean 54.92 53.87 54.87 54.86 54.58 Table 14.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface Specific Conductivity (mS/cm) Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 54.80 53.65 54.95 54.85 54.49 SL2 54.76 53.82 54.83 54.80 54.50 SL3 54.60 53.79 54.76 54.64 54.39 Mean 54.72 53.75 54.85 54.76 54.46 Table 15.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom Specific Conductivity (mS/cm) Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Area T Summer (N=297) Winter (N243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLU 54.98 53.81 55.14 54.33 54.46 SL2 55.03 53.90 55.20 54.40 54.53 SL3 54.78 54.04 55.29 54.44 54.53 Mean 54.93 53.92 55.21 54.39 54.51 Table 16.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface Specific Conductivity (mS/cm) Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Area Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 54.87 53.75 55.19 54.34 54.42 SL2 54.87 53.80 55.23 54.42 54.47 SL3 54.54 53.84 55.30 54.47 54.42 Mean 54.76 53.80 55.24 54.41 54.44 Table 17.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom Temperature

(°C) Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 24.60 26.15 21.50 22.89 24.08 SL2 25.08 25.92 22.00 22.67 24.15 SL3 24.88 25.50 22.30 22.80 24.06 Mean 24.85 25.86 21.93 22.79 24.10 Table 18.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface Temperature

(°C) Levels Among Areas at Gill Net Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 25.53 26.75 21.84 23.32 24.68 SL2 26.05 27.35 22.70 23.23 25.09 SL3 26.28 27.09 22.74 23.54 25.17 Mean 25.95 27.06 22.43 23.37 24.98 Table 19.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Bottom Temperature

(*C) Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Arear N23 Pre Post Pre Post Mean SLI 24.90 26.56 22.82 22.17 24.27 SL2 24.94 26.10 23.04 21.63 24.01 SL3 25.59 25.87 22.90 22.53 24.35 Mean 25.15 26.17 22.92 22.11 24.21 Table 20.Comparison of Mean Seasonal Surface Temperature

(*C) Levels Among Areas at Trawl Sampling Stations, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Summer (N=297) Winter (N=243) Overall Pre Post Pre Post Mean SL1 25.66 27.01 22.91 22.52 24.71 SL2 25.72 27.02 23.21 22.09 24.64 SL3 26.52 27.05 23.27 23.19 25.19 Mean 25.96 27.03 23.13 22.60 24.85 Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa I Common Name Molluscs Cephalopoda squid Gastropoda gastropods/snails Idiosepiidae pygmy cuttlefish Loliginidae squid Myopsida myopsid squids Opisthobranchia seahares Crustaceans Acetes amnericanus aviu shrimp Albunea sp.* mole crabs Albuneidae*

mole crabs Alpheus sp. snapping shrimp Arenaeus cribrarius*

speckled swimming crab Automate sp. snapping shrimp Calappaflammea flame box crab Calappoidea box crabs Callinectes ornalus* shellig Callinectes sapidus* blue crab Callinectes sinilis* lesser blue crab Callinectes sp.* swimming crabs Caridea caridean shrimp Chlanmydopleon dissinmile opossum shrimp Cuape/es americanus American grass shrimp Decapoda decapod crustaceans Emerila sp.* mole crab Emerita talpoida*

Atlantic sand crab Farfantepenaeus aztecus* brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum

pink shrimp Fatfantepenaeus sp.* penaeid shrimp Hepatus epheliticus calico box crab Hexapanopeus angustifrons smooth mud crab Hippidae sand crabs Hippoidea mole crab Hippolytidae brokenback shrimp Latreutesficorum slender sargassum shrimp Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa l Common Name Latreutes parvulus sargassum shrimp Latreutes sp. sargassum shrimp Leander cf. tenuicornis brown grass shrimp Lepidopa sp.* mole crab Lepidopa websteri*

Webster's mole crab Leptochela carinata carinate glass shrimp Leptochela serratorbita combclaw shrimp Leucosioidea purse crabs Libinia dubia longnose spider crab Lysmata rathbunae pathbun cleaner shrimp Lysmnata sp. cleaner shrimp Majidae spider crab Majoidea spider crabs Menippe mercenaria*

Florida stone crab Menippe sp.* stone crab Mysida opposum shrimp Ogyrides hayi sand longeye shrimp Ovalipes ocellatus lady crab Ovalipes sp. lady crab Paguridae right-handed hermit crabs Paguroidea hermit crab Palaemonidae grass shrimps Pandalidae pandalid shrimp Panulirus argus* Caribbean spiny lobster Penaeidae*

penaeid shrimp Periclimenes longicaudatus longtail grass shrimp Periclimenes sp. anemone shrimp Persephona nmediterranea mottled purse crab Petrochirus diogenes giant hermit crab Phycomenes siankaanensis iridescent shrimp Pilumnus sp. hairy crab Pitho sp. urn crabs Plagusia depressa tidal spray crab Podochela sp. spider crab Portunidae swimming crabs Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa J Common Name Portunus anceps delicate swimming crab Portunus depressifrons flatfaced swimming crab Portunus gibbesii iridescent swimming crab Portunus savi sargassum swimming crab Portuelus sp. portunid crab Portunus spinimanus blotched swimming crab Processa hemphilli night shrimp Processa sp. night shrimp Processidae night shrimp Rimapenaeus

/Xphopenaeus complex* roughneck shrimp/seabob complex Rimapenaeus constriclus*

roughneck shrimp Rirnapenaeus sp.* roughneck shrimp Scyllaridae slipper lobsters Scyllarus americanus*

American slipper lobster Sicyonia brevirostris*

brown rock shrimp Sicyonia laevigala*

coral shrimp Sicyoniaparri*

rock shrimp Sicyonia sp.* rock shrimp Sicyonia typica* kinglet rock shrimp Sicyoniidae*

rock shrimps Squilla sp. mantis shrimp Stomatopoda mantis shrimp Synalpheus sp. snapping shrimp Trackypenaeopsis richtersii Richter sand shrimp Upogebiidae mud shrimps Xanthidae mud crabs Xanthoidea crabs Xiphopenaeus kroyeri* seabob Echinoderms Arbaciapunctulata purple-spined sea urchin Arbaciidae sea urchin Arbacioida sea urchin Asteroidea sea stars-Astropecten sp. sea star Clypeasteroida sand dollars Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa Common Name Echinodermata green sea urchin Echinoidea sea urchins and sand dollars Mellitidae sand dollars Ophiuroidea brittle stars Temnopleuroida sea urchins Toxopneustidae sea urchin Fish Albulidae bananafishes/ladyfishes Ginglvynostoma cirralum nurse shark Abudefdufsaxatilis sergeant major Acanthostracion quadricornis scrawled cowfish Acanthurus chirurgus doctorfish Acanthurus sp. surgeonfish Achiridae American/scrawled soles Achirus lineatus lined sole Acropomatidae temperate ocean-basses Aetobatus narinari spotted eagle ray Albula sp. bonefishes Albula vulpes bonefish Alosa sp.** herring Aluterus monoceros unicorn filefish Aluterus schoepfii orange filefish Anchoa cubana** Cuban anchovy Anchoa hepsetus *

striped anchovy Anchoa lyolepis**

dusky anchovy Anchoa mitchilli**

bay anchovy Anchoa sp.** anchovy Ancylopsetta ommala oscellated flounder Anguilloidei eels Anisotrennis surinamensis black margate Anisotremus virginicus porkfish Apogon binotatus barred cardinalfish Apogonidae cardinalfish ,A rchosargus probatocephalus sheepshead

[4rchosargus rhoniboidalis sea bream Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa Common Name Ariopsisfelis hardhead catfish Astrapogon puncticulatus blackfin cardinalfish Atheriniformes silversides Atherinopsidae New World silversides Bagre marinus gafftopsail catfish Bairdiella chrysoura silver perch Balistidae triggerfishes Bathygobius soporalor frillfin goby Blenniidae combtooth blennies Blennioidei blennies Bothidae lefteyed flounders Bothus robinsi twospot flounder Bothus sp. Lefteye flounder Bramidae pomfrets Bregmacerotidae codlets Brevoortia smithi** yellowfin menhaden Brevoortia sp.** menhadens Brevoortia tyrannus**

Atlantic menhaden Calamus arctifrons grass porgy Calamus penna sheepshead porgy Carangidae jacks Carangidae/Labridae/Sciaenidae egg complex egg complex: jacks/wrasses/drums Carangoides bartholomaei yellow jack Caranx ctysos blue runner Caranx hippos crevalle jack Caranx latus horse-eye jack Caranx sp. jack Carcharhinus acronotus blacknose shark Carcharhinus brevipinna spinner shark Carcharhinus limbalus blacktip shark Centropomus sp. snook Centropomus undecinalis common snook Centroprislis philadelphica rock sea bass Centropristis striata black sea bass Cerdalefloridana Pugjaw wormfish Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa ICommon Name Chaetodipterusfaber Atlantic spadefish Chasmodes saburrae Florida blenny Chloroscombrus chrisurus Atlantic bumper Citharichthys arctifrons Gulf Stream flounder Citharichthys macrops spotted whiff Citharichthys sp. whiff Citharichthys spilopterus bay whiff Clupeidae**

herrings and sardines Clupeiformes*

herring-like fishes Congridae conger eels Corvula sanctaeluciae striped croaker Coiyphaena hippurus dolphin, mahi mahi, dorado Ctenogobius boleosoma darter goby Ctenogobius sp. goby Cyelothone sp. bristlefish Cynoscion nebulosus spotted sea trout Cynoscion nothus** silver seatrout Cynoscion regalis gray trout Cynoscion sp. seatrouts Dacvlopterus volitans flying gurnard Dactyloscopidae sand stargazers Dactyloscopus crossolus bigeye stargazer Decapterus macarellus mackerel scad Decapterus punctatus round scad Diapterus auralus Irish pompano Diodon holocanthus balloonfish Diodon sp. porcupinefish Diodontidae burrfishes Diogenichthys ailanticus Atlantic lantern fish Diplectrumformosumn sand perch Diplectrum sp. sand perch Diplodus holbrookii spottail pinfish Diplogrammus pauciradiatus spotted dragonet Diplospinus multistriatus striped escolar Dormitator maculatus fat sleeper Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa Common Name Dorosoma petenense

threadfin shad Echeneis naucrates sharksucker Eleotridae sleepers Eleotris pisonis spinycheek sleeper Elops saurus ladyfish Engraulidae**

anchovies Engraulis eurystole

- silver anchovy Ephippidae spadefishes Epinephelus sp. groupers Etrumeus leres** round herring Eucinostonius argenteus spotfin mojarra Eucinosiomus gula silver jenny Eucinostomus harengulus tidewater mojarra Eucinostomusjonesii slender mojarra Eucinostomus sp. mojarra Euthynnus alletteralus little tuinny Gempylidae snake mackerels Gerreidae mojarra Gerres cinereus yellowfin mojarra Gobiesox strumosus skilletfish Gobiidae gobies Gobionellus oceanicus highfin goby Gobionellus sp. darter goby Gobiosoina bosc naked goby Gobiosoma parri naked gobie Gobiosoma robustum code goby Gobiosomna sp. goby Gonostomatidae lightfishes Gymnachirus melas naked sole Haernulidae grunts Haemnulon aurolineatum tomtate Haemulon carbonarium Caesar grunt Haemnulon mnacroslomum spanish grunt Haemulon sciurus bluestriped grunt Haemulon sp. grunt Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa ] Common Name Halichoeres bivi'taius slippery dick Halichoeres caudalis painted wrasse Harengula humeralis**

redear sardine, redear herring Harengulajaguana**

scaled sardine Hemiramiphus brasiliensis ballyhoo Hippocampus erectus spotted seahorse Histrio histrio sargassumfish Hygophum reinhardtii lanternfishes HIvporhamphus meeki false silverstripe halfbeak Hyporhainphus unifasciatus Atlantic silverstripe halfbeak Labridae wrasses Labrisomidae labrisomid blennies Labrisomius nuchipinnis hairy blenny Lachnolairnus maximus hogfish Lagodon rhomboides pinfish Larimusfascialus banded drum Leiostonmus xanthurus*

spot Lupinoblennius nicholsi highfin blenny Lutjanidae snappers Lutjanus analis mutton snapper Lutjanus griseus gray snapper Lutjanus sp. snapper Lutjanus synagris lane snapper Melamphaidae bigscale fishes Melanocetidae deepsea anglerfishes Menibras martinica rough silverside Menticirrhus americanus**

southern kingfish Menticirrhus littoralis**

Gulf kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis*

northern kingfish Menticirrhus sp.** kingfishes/weakfishes Merlucciidae hakes Microdesmidae wormfishes Microdesmus sp. wormfishes Microgobius gulosus clown goby Microgobius thalassinus green goby Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa Common Name Micropogoniasfurnieri whitemouth croaker Micropogonias undulatus*

Atlantic croaker Monacanthidae filefishes Monacanthus ciliatus fringed filefish Mugil cephalus striped mullet Mugil curenma white mullet Mugilidae mullets Mullidae goatfishes Muraenidae moray eels Mustelus canis smooth dogfish Myctophidae lanternfishes Myliobatidae eagle rays/manta rays Myliobatis goodei southern eagle ray Narcine bancroftii lesser electric ray Nes longus orangespotted goby Ogeocephalus sp. batfish Oligoplites saurus leatherjacket Ophidiidae cusk eels Ophidiiformes pearlfishes/cusk-eels Ophidion grayi blotched cusk-eel Ophidion holbrookii bank cusk eel Ophidion sp. cusk-eel Opisthonerna oglinun ** Atlantic thread herring Opistognathidae jawfishes Opistognathus robinsi spotfin jawfish Opsanus beta Gulf toadfish Orthopristis chrysoptera*

pigfish Ostraciidae boxfishes/truckfishes Parablennius marmoreus seaweed blenny Paralepididae barracudinas Paralichthyidae sand flounders Paralichthys albigutta Gulf flounder Pareques acuininatus high-hat Pareques sp. drum Peprilus burti gulf butterfish Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa Common Name Peprilus paru harvestfish Peprilus triacanthus butterfish Perciformes perch-like fishes Percophidae Duckbills Phaeoptyx conklini freckled cardinalfish Phosichthyidae lightfishes Pleuronectidae righteyed flounders Pleuronectiformes flounders Polydactylus oligodon littlescale threadfin Polydaclylus virginicus barbu Pomacanthidae angelfishes Pomacentridae damselfishes Pomatomus saltatrix**

bluefish Prionotus carolinus northern searobin Prionotus rubio blackwing searobin Prionotus scitulus**

leopard searobin Prionolus sp. North American searobins Prionolus tribulus bighead searobin Pseudocaranx dentex white trevally Rachycentron canadum cobia Raja eglanteria clearnose skate Rhinobatos lentiginosus Atlantic guitarfish Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Atlantic sharpnose shark Sardinella aurita** Spanish sardine Saurida brasiliensis largescale lizardfish Scaridae parrotfishes Scarus sp. parrotfish Sciaenidae drums and croakers Sciaenops ocellatus red drum Scomberomorus maculatus**

Atlantic Spanish mackerel Scombridae mackerels Scorpaena brasiliensis barbfish Scorpaena grandicornis plumed scorpionfish Scorpaena inermis mushroom scorpionfish Scorpaenaplurnieri spotted scorpionfish Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa J Common Name Scorpaenidae scorpionfishes Scorpaeniformes scorpionfishes Selar crunnenophihalmus bigeyed scads Selene setapinnis Atlantic moonfish Selene vomer lookdown Serranidae sea basses and groupers Sparidae porgies Sparisoma sp. parrotfishes Sphoeroides sp. puffer Sphyraena guachancho guaguanche Sphyraenidae barracuda Sphyrna tiburo bonnethead shark Stegasles sp. damselfish Stellifer lanceolatus star drum Stephanoberycifonnes stephanoberyciforms Stephanolepis hispida planehead filefish Stomiiformes stomiiforms Syacium micrurum channel flounder Symphurus diomedeanus spottedfin tonguefish Symphurus sp. straightmouth tonguefishes Syngnathidae pipefishes Syngnaihusfuscus northern pipefish Syngnalhus louisianae chain pipefish Syngnathus sp. pipefishes Synodontidae lizard fish Svnodzsfoetens inshore lizardfish Tetragonuridae squaretails Tetraodontidae puffers Tetraodontiformes puffers Trachinocephalus myops bluntnose lizardfish Trachinolus carolinus**

Florida pompano Trachinotusfalcatus penn it Trachinotus goodei palometa Trichiurus lepturus cutlassfish Triglidae searobins Table 21.Common and Scientific Names of Invertebrates and Fish Identified During All Sampling Events (August 2011 -February 2015), St. Lucie Plant EPU.Taxa ] Common Name Trinectes maculatus hogchoker Tripterygiidae triplefins Unibrina coroides**

sand drum Unidentified fish unidentified fish Unidentified fragment unidentified fragment Uranoscopidae stargazers Reptiles Care//a caret/a Jloggerhead sea turtle Chelonia mydas** jgreen sea turtle*Commercially and recreationally important (CRI) decapod crustaceans

- Representative Important Species (RIS)

Table 22.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post NumberofSamples 15 18 i I 9J IZ I 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 180 Molluscs Opisthobranchia 62 3 1 66 Gastropoda 27 27 Loliginidae 6 12 _ 7 1 27[diosepiidae I I-Myopsida I I Total Molluscs i 68 0 0I 27 115 I I 0 2 8 0 I 1 122 Crustaceans Aceles americanus 92 16 17 1,304 3 7 15 2 1,456 Paguroidea 101 426 3 9 34 2 22 12 47 4 I 661 Rimapenaeus constrictus*

38 38 40 15 7 34 25 197 Portunusg ibbesn 23 14 24 17 4 2 31 23 3 12 23 176 Porlunus spininianus 14 6 51 1 94 4 3 173 Riniapenaeus sp.* 22 3 5 13 12 24 10 12 38 7 12 2 160 Portunus sp. 9 32 5 2 36 4 4 52 2 146 Palaemonidae 99 3 1 103 Farfantepenaeus duorarun*

10 23 2 2 I 1 2 13 9 63 drenaeus cribrarnus*

15 1 9 8 1 9 7 11 61 Latreutesfucorunz 42 16 58 Leander cf lenuicornis 50 50 Hepatus epheliticus 3 5 2 5 2 1 1 2 13 3 4 4 45 Portunus anceps 1 8 27 1 1 1 39 Penaeidae*

8 3 3 8 2 2 4 3 33 Alpheus sp. 29 2 31 Majoidea 5 12 1 4 11 6 1 28 Farfantepenaeus sp.* 6 17 2 25 Paguridae 22 22 Sicyonta Alptca 8 1 11 20 Table 22.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer J Winter Total Pre I Post Pre I Post Pre JPost Pre [Post Pre ]Post Pre [Post Hippolytidae 19 19 Calappoidea 14 1 3 18 Portunadae 15 2 17 Processa hemphilli I 5 1 1 5 4 17 Panulirus argus* 13 1 14 Portunus sapi 13 1 14 Callinectes sp* 3 2 1 4 I 1 12 Sic'onia brevirostris*

6 2 2 10 Persephona mediterranea 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 Sicyonia parri* 5 2 1 8 Libinia dubia 4 3 7 Podochela sp. 3 4 7 Cuapeles americanus 1 5 6 Decapoda S _ 6 Calappa flammea I 1 1 2 5 Callmectes ornatus

2 3 5 Farfantepenaeus a:tecus* 2 3 5 Shiconia sp.

4 1 5 Caridea 3 1 4 Ovalipes ocellatus 2 1 1 4 Periclimenes longicaudaius 3 1 4 Processa sp. 3 1 4 ulonmale sp. I 1 1 3 Callinec'tes similis* 2 1 1 3 Chlanvdopleon dissinile 1 1 1 3 Ogyrides hawi 1 1 3 Svnalpheus sp. 1 2 3 Xanthidae 2 1 3 Table 22.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre [Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre I Post Pre Post Callinectes sapidus* 2 2 Laireutes parvulus 2 2 Perichmenes sp. 1 1 2 Phvconienes siankaanensis I I 2 Pilunnus sp. 1 1 2 Processidae 2 2 Sicvonia laevlgata*

2 2 Squilla sp. 1 1 2 Stomatopoda 1 1 2 Xanthoidea 2 2 Xiphopenaeus kroveri* 1 1 2 Hexapanopeus angustifrons I 1 Latreutes sp. I 1 Leplochela carinata 1 1 Leptochela serralorbila 1 1 Leucosioidea I 1 Lysmata rathbunae I 1 Lvsmata sp. 1 1 Majidae 1 1 Mysida 1 1 Ovalipes sp. 1 1 Pandalidae 1 1 Petrochirus diogenes _ 1 Pitho sp. I 1 Portunus depressiftons I Sicyoniidae*

1 Trachypenaeopsis richtersi, 1 1 Upogebiidae II Table 22.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Total Crustaceans 359 888 19 148 1,443 264 20 117 240 192 42 71 3,803 Echinoderms Clypeasteroida 124 573 153 9 23 25 76 4 2 10 4 1,003 Mellitidae 155 118 9 11 32 9 334 Tenmopleuroida 19 18 II 3 13 I1 1 32 6 1I 1 126 4rbacia ptunctulata 16 2 3 1 22 Asteroidea 17 2 19 Ophiuroidea 2 5 1 6 13 Echinoidea 1 2 3 7 Arbaciidae I 1 Arbacioida I I Toxopneustidae I 1 Total Echinoderms I144 765 170 133 37 34 89 161 49 40 35 [ 15 1,527 Fish Unibrina coroides*

46 154 4 35 3 4 5 18 41 31 341 Engraulidae**

181 103 4 288 Anchoa cubana* 229 48 10 287 Anchoa sp.** 4 59 13 48 10 134 Ste/lifer lanceolatus 31 72 30 133 Chloroscombrus chrvsurus 23 I 1 1 31 3 34 4 4 112 Haernulon aurohineatum 53 1 20 74 Harengula jaguana**

62 6 -68 Citharichith's macrops 7 1 1 10 2 1 3 21 I1 3 60 Prionolus scitulus*

2 13 2 3 9 5 3 14 8 59 Cor'ula sanctaeluciae 2 38 2 6 4 52 Eucinosiomnus gula 34 3 10 1 48 Lu/janus sinagris 5 11 3 1 7 7 34 Labrisomus nuchipinnis 23 3 26 Table 22.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SLU Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre ] Post Pre I Post Pre Post P Pre Post AIenticirrhus liltoralis**

7 1 1 2 2 1 6 1 21 Scorpaena inernmis 19 2 21 Huaenulon carbonarium 4 14 2 20 Bothus robinsi 10 4 1 2 1 18 Ophidion sp. 5 12 1 18 Ophidion holhrookii 1 1 2 8 1 4 17 Eucmnostounis harenygulus 1 9 2 4 16 Micropogonias undulatus*

1 1 1 4 8 I5 Selene setapinnis 2 1 1 4 5 13 Larimusfasciatus 8 1 1 1 1 12 Synodusobeiens 4 1 2 4 1 12 Civnoscion nothus

1 4 4 1 10 Leiostonus xanthurus*

6 3 1 10 Ophidion grasi 10 10 Stephanolepis hiýpida 4 3 1 1 1 10 Eucinostornus jonesvi 9 9 Selene vomer 4 2 1 2 9 Centropristis striata 1 2 3 2 8 Sardinella auria

I 7 8 Diplectrum forniosumn I 5 1 7 lbula sp. 5 5 Lagodon rhonmboides 2 2 1 5 Caranx cn'sos 2 1 1 4 Opisthonema oglinun**

I 3 4 Cynoscion regalis I 1 1 3 Prionotus rubio 1 2 3 Sciaenidae 1 2 3 Scorpaena brasiliensis 1 3 Table 22.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 S[U Taxa Summer PrWinter Summer W I r inter Summer P Winter Total Pre Post] Pre Post Pre JPost] Pre JPost Prel Post J Pre Post Svnplhurus diomedeanus I I 1 3 Trachinocephalus nivops I 1 1 3 Achirus lineatl us I 1 2 Anchoa hepsetus I 1 2 Anchoa mitchilli*

1 1 2 Caraux hippos 2 2 Cilhakiclthi's spilopferus 1 1 2 Decapterus punctatus 2 2 G mnachirus melas 1 1 2 Hippocampus erectus 2 2 Aloynacanihus ciliatus 2 2 Orthopristis chrsoptera**

1 1 2 Peprilus paru 1 I 2 Trachinotus carolinus**

1 2 Trichiurus hepturus 1 ] 2 Albulidae 1 1 Anchoa lyolepis**

I I Anc',lopsetia omnnzata I Anisotremus surinamensis I Anisotremus virgi,,cus I I Apogon binotatus I 1 Ariopsisftlis I 1 Caranr lotus 1 1 Centropristis philadelphica 1 1 Cvnoscion nebulosus I Dactn'loscopus crossotus 1 I Diapterus auratus I I Elops saurus 1 Table 22.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SU, Taxa [ Summer ] Winter Summer W--"int"r Poste Winter Total Pre Post oPre Post Pre t Pre Post Pre Post Gobiosoma robustum 1 1 Haenru/on macrostomum I 1 Hoaenulon sciurus I 1 Haemulon sp. I I Halichoeres bivittatus I I Ha/ichocres caudalis I I Histrto histrio 1 1 Labridae I 1 Lachnolaimus maxrimus 1 1 A'/ioboans goodei 1 1 Narcine bancrofii 1 1 O1igop/ites saurus 1 1 Opistognathus robinsi I I Phaeopovx conkl/ni I Po/vdacivlus virginicus 11 Prionotus carolinus I 1 Prionolus sp. II Raja eglanteria I I Scorpaena grandicornis 1 1 Serranidae 1 1 Svacium nicrurum 1 1 Syngnathusuidscus I 1 Trinecies maculatus I I Total Fish J 719 [322 J 32 118 337 51t 17 37 241 122 ] 15 67 J2,078 Total All Organisms 1 1,223 2,043 221 399 1,844 364 126 170 532 362 92 154 7,530*Commercially and Recreationally Important Crustaceans

- Representative Important Species (RIS)

Table 23.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass Among Areas for Fish, RIS (All Species Combined), and Invertebrates Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Fish Taxa 6.00 4.70 5.00 All Events 2 60 1.5466 0.4615+/- 4.76 + 4.62 +/- 5.49 I Pre-uprate 7.75 6.50 7.25 2 24 0.0784 0.9615+/- 6.54 + 6.46 +/- 7.63 Post-uprate 4.83 3.50 3.50 2 36 2.0755 0.3542-2.86 +/- 2.54 -2.97 Summer 7.27 5.82 6.27 33 0.8525 0.6529+/- 5.66 +/- 5.78 +/- 6.75 4.44 3.33 3.44 Winter 2 27 1.3489 0.5095+/- 2.96 -2.29 +/- 3.09 Fish CPUE Sapinienniu PrAea+/-S 28.51 10.21 10.02 All Events 2 60 3.8874 0.1432=+/- 59.68 +/- 29.34 +/- 14.03 Pre-uprate 46.66 20.78 14.89 24 0.2450 0.8847+/- 91.66 +45.89 +_18.49 16.41 Post-uprate

+/- 20.14 3.17 6.78 2 36 7.0178 0.0299+/- 3.31 +/- 9.68 Summer 45.92 16.63 15.29 2 33 2.1838 0.3356+/- 77.34 +/-39.15 -17.13 Winter 7.24 2.37 3.59 27 3.4427 0.1788_- 7.52 +-1.43 +/- 3.99 Fish CPUE Excluding Engraulidae 16.65 6.42 8.43 All Events 2 60 3.5285 0.1713+/- 23.26 +/--13.98 +/-_12.34 20.97 12.01 14.08 Pre-uprate 2 24 0.2450 0.8847+/- 28.38 +/-_21.29 +/-_17.42 13.77 Post-uprate

+/- 19.99 2.70 4.65 2 36 6.5763 0.0373_-+3.36 +/--5.59 27.00 10.24 12.76 Summer 2 33 2.3860 0.3033+/- 27.57 +/-_18.29 +/-_15.29 Winter 3.99 1.75 3.13 227 2.7337 0.2549 I +/- 2.79 +/- 1.14 +/- 3.50 Table 23.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass Among Areas for Fish, RIS (All Species Combined), and Invertebrates Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).RIS Fish Taxa All Events 2.25 1.40 1.50 2 60 3.8571 0.1454+/- 1.77 +/- 1.60 +/- 1.73 2.38 2.00 1.88 Pre-uprate 2.28 2.27 2.03 2 24 0.1562 0.9249+/-- 2.20 +/-- 2.27 +/- 2.03 Post-uprate 2.17 1.00 1.25 2 36 4.9487 0.0842+/- 1.53 +/- 0.85 +/- 1.54 2.18 1.64 1.82 Summer 2 33 0.3715 0.8305+/- 2.18 +/-2.01 +/- 1.99 Winter 2.33 1.11 1.11 27 5.6593 0.0590-1.22 +/-0.93 +/- 1.36 = I i RIS CPUE 19.49 5.22 4.48 All Events 2 60 4.6054 0.1000+/- 53.18 +/- 17.96 +/- 7.14 Pre-uprate 33.15 11.37 3.59 2 24 0.1967 0.9063+/- 82.69 + 28.30 +/- 4.69 Post-uprate 10.39 1.12 5.08 2 36 6.5471 0.0379*-17.56 -1.29 -8.55 30.76 8.43 6.38 Summer 2 33 1.3111 0.5192-70.90 +/- 24.21 +/- 9.02 5.72 1.31 2.16 Winter 2 27 4.5684 0.1019+/- 6.82 +/- 1.38 +/- 2.91 RIS Fish CPUE Excluding Engraulidae All Events 7.63 1.37 2.93 2 60 5.2606 0.0721* 14.77 +/- 2.50 +/- 4.06 Pre-uprate 7.46 2.45 2.89 2 24 0.4691 0.7909* 12.11 +/-3.71 +/--3.91 Post-uprate 7.74 0.65 2.95 36 5.9909 0.0500* 16.84 +/- 0.80 +/- 4.34 Summer 11.84 1.94 3.85 2 33 1.9705 0.3734+/-19.19 +/- 3.26 +/- 5.01 Winter 2.47 0.69 1.81 27 3.9224 0.1407+/-- 1.98 +/- 0.82 +/- 2.30 Table 23.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass Among Areas for Fish, RIS (All Species Combined), and Invertebrates Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).jj.j1.. 10'U.07 1 /O.'#O+/- 804.89 + 350.39 +/- 466.82 671.11 347.85 392.32 Pre-uprate 2 24 0.0965 0.9529+ 1219.04 +/- 507.93 +/- 704.82 Post-uprate 106.46 19.08 35.92 2 36 4.5215 0.1043+/- 184.98 +/- 26.84 +/- 69.66 Summer 467.37 166.74 274.65 2 33 0.5973 0.7418+ 1059.33 +/- 377.33 +/-616.68 167.27 130.86 60.94 Preinrter 430 7.6 301 2 24 0.1866 0.91096+/- 283.19 +/- 335.88 +/- 118.02 27 3. 3 023 RIS Fish Biomass Excluding Eugraulidae All Events 109.29 18. 2.52 60 2.1160 0.3472+/- 418.02 +/- 270.96 +/-= 460.06 Pre-uprate 43.5 29.6 301 24 0.1866 0.9109+/- 584.71 +388.99 +/- 692.56 Post-uprate 10.9 1.9 2.7 2 36 4.4241 0.1095+/- 196.26 +/- 27.08 +/- 54.66 298.17 117.07 254.34 Summer 2 33 0.6271 0.7309+/- 508.88 +/- 221.22 +/- 612.31 166.22 129.80 72.72 Preuprter 2 24 0.8207 0.66203+/-283.79 336.30 +/- 116.70 CRI Invertebrate Taxa S m2.60 M e1.05n 1.73 P er A e +/- S D(f_All Events 2.8 2.1 3. 2 60 0.1907 0.9090+/- 2.21 +/- 1.08 +/- 1.79 2.00 1.78 1.11 Pre-uprate 2.0 16 .0 2 24 0.8250 0.6620+/- 1.5 1 +/- 1.06 +/- 1.93 Post-uprate 2.5 225 19 36 1.4173 0.4923+/- 2.60 +/- 1.05 +/- 1.73 Summer 2.2 21 .0 2 33 0.9345 0.6267+/- 2.71 +/- 1.17 +/- 1.90 Winter 2 27 2.9336 0.2307+/- 1.41 +/- 0.97 +/- 0.93 Table 23.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass Among Areas for Fish, RIS (All Species Combined), and Invertebrates Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).CRI Invertebrate CPUE All Events 6.16 4.23 4.02 60 0.2171 0.8972+/- 6.95 +/- 3.83 +/- 3.97 __I Pre-uprate 5.50 3.57 4.90 2 24 0.9817 0.6121+/- 7.79 +/- 4.14 +/-3.73 Post-uprate 6.60 4.67 3.43 36 1.6173 0.4455+/- 6.66 +/- 3.72 +/- 4.18 Summer 7.91 5.67 5.76 33 0.1888 0.9099+/- 8.28 +/- 4.37 +/- 4.51 Winter 4.02 2.47 1.89 27 1.0093 0.6037+/-4.43 +_1.45 +/-_1.68 KrusKal-wallts AINUVA and MUltiple Comparisons o0 Mean KanKs rost-floc Test snoweo conflicting results. Mann-Whitney U Test results showed SLI was significantly higher than SL2, SLI vs SL3 were not significanilty different, and SL2 vs SL3 were not significantly different.

Table 24.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass for Fish, RIS, and Invertebrates Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Fish Taxa SL1 7.75 4.83 1 20 0.4888 0.4845+/- 6.54 +/- 2.86 SL2 6.50 3.50 1 20 1.3639 0.2429+/- 6.46 +/- 2.54 SL3 7.25 3.50 1 20 0.9545 0.3286 S+/-7.63 +/- 2.97 Fish CPUE Fish CPUE Sapln Mea .Val.e Pe ra+/-S SLI 46.66 16.41 1 20 0.5952 0.4404+/- 91.66 +20.14 SL2 20.78 3.17 1 20 0.4821 0.4875+/-- 45.89 A: 3.31 20.897 13.77 SL3 1 20 1.3393 0.2371 18.49 4 .68 Fish CPUE Excluding Engraulidae

,, , ./ n SLI 20.38 2.7 1 20 0.3810 0.5371+/- 28.38 19.99 SL2 2.00 1.00 1 20 0.7202 0.3961+/- 21.29 +/-0 3.36 SL3 1.88 1.25 1 20 1.5238 0.2170_- 17.42 +/--5.59 RIS Fish Taxa SL1 .821 20 0.0062 0.9374+/- 2.20 +/-- 1.53 S L2- .010 20 1.0439 0.3069+/-- 2.27 +/-- 0.85 SL3 181.5120 0.7090 0.3998+/-- 2.03 +/-- 1.54 Table 24.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass for Fish, RIS, and Invertebrates Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).RIS CPUE SLI 33.15 10.39 1 20 1.0090 0.3151+/- 82.69 +/-17.56____

SL2 11.37 1.12 20 0.7932 0.3731 28.30 +/- 1.29 3.59 5.08 SL3 1 20 0.2287 0.6325 S +4.69 +_8.55 1 1 SLI 1 20 0.5970 0.4397+/- 12.11 +/- 16.84 SL2 2.45 0.65 1 20 1.0331 0.3094+/- 3.71 +/- 0.80 SL3 2.90 2.95 1 20 0.5033 0.4780+/-_3.91 +/-_4.34 RIS Fish Biomass SLI 671.11 106.46 1 20 0.5970 0.4397+/- 1219.04 +/-_184.98 SL2 347.85 19.08 1 20 2.1816 0.1397-+/- 507.93 +/- 26.84 SL3 392.32 35.92 1 20 3.0752 0.0795+/- 704.82 +/- 69.66 1 _ __I RIS Fish Biomass Excluding Engraulidae, B I .3 SLI 433.05 109.29 1 20 0.5970 0.4397+/- 584.71 +/-_196.26 SL2 279.56 18.29 1 20 2.4453 0.1179+/-_388.99 +_27.08 390.18 SL3 + 692.56 27.57 1 20 5.5926 0.0180+/- 54.66 Table 24.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass for Fish, RIS, and Invertebrates Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).SL1 2.0.10_2.75 1 20 10.263410.6078

+/-4 1.51 +/- 2.60 SL21.63 2.25 20 1.6504 0.1989+1.06 + 1.05 _SL3 2.50 1.92 1 20 0.5604 0.4541 SL3 +/- 1.93 + 1.73 1 1 1 1 CRI Invertebrate CPUE SLI 5.50 6.60 20 0.7878 0.3748+/- 7.79 +/- 6.66__________

SL2 3.57 4.67 20 0.6567 0.4177+/- 4.14 +3.72 SL3 4.90 3.43 20 1.9344 0.1643 S+/-3 +3.73 +4.18 20 1.9344 0.1643 Table 25.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SDL3 J Taxa Summer F Winter Summer Winter Summer ] Winter Total'Pre [Post Pre ]Post Pre Post Pre Post PreJ Post Pre f Post NumberofSamples J 5 I 1 9 18 1]5 18 ] 9 18 J 15 18 ] 9 f 181 180___ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ -~A Mofliu 1___ "q AW49' A4 Opisthobranchia 4.46 021 0.07 0.46 Gaslropoda 2.68 0.19 Loliginidae 0.43 0.83 0.09 0.49 0.07 0.19 Idiosepiidae 0.09 0.01 Myopsida t .10 0.01 Total Molluscs 0.10 4.89 0.00 0.00 J 2.68 1.04 0.00 0.00 J 0.19 0.56 0.00 f 0.07 J 0.85 Acetesaamericanus 9.52 1.15 1.28 129.36 0.21 0.53 1.42 0.15 10.20 Pagiroidea 10.46 30.62 0.30 0.68 2.36 0.19 1.65 1.14 3.32 0.43 0.07 4.63 Rimapenaeusconstricius*

2.73 2.85 2.78 1.13 0.66 2.40 1.82 1.38 Portunusgibbesiz 2.38 1.01 1.80 1.69 0.28 0.19 2.33 2.18 0.21 1.30 1 68 1.23 Portunus spinimanus 1.45 0.43 5.06 0.07 8.93 0.28 0.33 1.21 Rinmapenaeus sp.* 2.28 0.22 0.49 0.98 1.19 1.67 0.97 0.90 3.61 0.49 1.30 0.15 1.12 Portunus sp. 0.93 2.30 0.38 0.20 2.50 0.30 0.38 3.67 0.15 1.02 Palaemonidae 7.12 0.23 0.07 0.72 Farfantepenaeusduorarum*

1.04 1.65 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.15 1.23 0.64 0.44 Arenaeus cribrarius*

1.55 0.07 0.68 0.79 0.07 0.68 0.66 0.78 0.43 Latreutesfucorutn 3.02 I1.11 0.41 Leander cf. lenuicornis 3.59 0.35 Hepatusepheliticus 0.31 0.36 0.20 0.38 0.20 0.07 0.10 0.15 1.23 0.21 0.43 0.29 0.32 Portunus anceps 0.07 0.79 1.88 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.27 Penaeidae*

0.83 0.22 0.30 0.56 0.15 0.19 0.28 0.33 0.23 Alpheus sp. 2.08 0.14 0.22 Majoidea 0.52 0.86 0.28 0.42 0.11 0.20 Farfantepenaeus sp.* 062 1.69 0.19 0.18 Paguridae 1.53 0.15 Sicvonia tvpicsa 0.58 0 10 0.76 0.14 Table 25.Seasonal Comparison of CPUJE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate.

St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer I Winter Summer Winter SummerV Winter Total 1 Pre Post Pre Post Pre ] Post Pre I Post Pre IPost Pre I Post Hippolylidae 1.37 0.13 Calappoidea 1.45 0.10 0.28 0.13 Portunidae 1.55 0.20 0.12 Processa hemplhilli 0.08 0.50 0.07 0.08 0.35 0.29 0.12 Panulirus argus* 0.93 0.07 0.10 Portunus saw 0.93 0.09 0.10 Callinectes sp.* 0.31 0.14 0.10 0.30 0.07 1 0.07 _ 0.08 Sicyonia brewiroslris*

0.60 0.19 0.22 0.07 Persephona meduierranea 0.21 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.06 Sicyoniaparri*

0.36 0.15 0.07 0.06 Libinia dubia 0.30 0.21 0.05 Podochela sp. 0.22 0.28 0.05 Cuapetes anzericanus 0.07 0.35 1 1 0.04 Decapoda 0.52 0.09 0.04 Calappaflammea 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.15 0.04 Ca/lineeles ornatus

0.20 0.21 0.04 FarIbntepenaeus aztecus* 0.15 0.29 0.04 Sievonia sp.* 0.29 0.07 0.04 Caridea 0.22 0.08 0.03 Ovalipes ocellatus 0.21 0.10 0.09 0.03 Periclimenes longicaudatus 0.31 0. 10 0.03 Processa sp. 0.22 0.08 0.03 Autonmae sp. 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.02 Callinectes simnnlis*

0.14 0.07 0.02 Chlamydopleon dissirnle 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.02 OKyrides haiw 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.02 Sviialpheus sp. .0.07 0.15 002 Xanthidae 0.15 0.07 0.02 Table 25.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer J Winter Total'Pre J Post Pre J Post Pre Post Pre Post Pref Post I Pre [ Post Callinectes sapidus* 0.14 0.01 Laireutes parvulus 0.14 0.01 Periclmenes sp. 0.08 0.08 0.01 Phvcomenes siankaanensis 0.07 0.08 0.01 Pilumnnus sp. 0.08 0.07 0.01 Processidae 0.14 0.01 Siconia laev0gata*

0.14 1 1 0.01 Squilla sp. 0.07 0.08 0.01 Stomatopoda 0.10 0.10 0.01 Xanthoidea 0.14 0.01 XAiphopenaeus kroteri* 0.08 0.07 0.01 Hexapanopeus angustifrons

0. 10 0.01 Latreutes sp. 1 0.10 0.01 Lepiochela carinala 0.07 0.01 Leptochela serratorbita 0.10 0.01 Leucosioidea 0.10 0.01 Lvsmata rathbunae 0.10 0.01 Lvsmata sp. 0. 10 0.01 Majidae 007 0.01 Mysida 0.08 0.01 Ovalipes sp. 0.07 0.01 Pandalidae 0.07 0.01 Petrochirus diogenes 0.07 0.01 Pitho sp. 0.07 0.01 Portunus depressifrons 0.07 0.01 Sicyoniidae*

0.09 0.01 Trachtpenaeopsis richtersii 0.07 0.01 Upogebiidae 0 10 1 1 1 0.01 Table 25.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU. August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total'Pre [Post Pre ] Post Pre Post Pre L Post Pre Post Pre PostJ Total Crustaceans 37.16 [63.83 1.87 I 11.12 J 143.15 18.35 1 1.94 8.79 122.79 13.5 4.455 I 5.18 ] 26.63-. kr-stgl _A:ý,-~W ~__Clypeasteroida 12.84 41.19 15.07 0.68 2.28 1.74 7.37 0.30 0.14 1.08 0.29 7.02 Mellitidae 11.14 8.86 0.63 0.83 2.26 0.66 2.34 Temnopleuroida 1.97 1.29 1.08 0.23 1.29 1.07 0.08 3.04 0.42 1.19 0.07 0.88 Arbaca ounctulata 1.15 0 15 0.33 0.07 0.15 Asteroidea 1.61 0.22 0.13 Ophiuroidea 0.14 0.49 1 0.65 0.09 Echinoidea 0.10 0. 10 0.19 0.33 0.05 Arbaciidae 0.08 0.01 Arbacioida 0.10 0.01 Toxopneustidae 0.07 0.01 Total Echinoderms 14.91 54.99 16.74 9.99 3.67 2.36 8.63 1.20 4.65 2.82 3.79 1.09 10.69 Umbrina coroides*

4.76 11.07 0.39 2.63 0.30 0.28 0.38 1.71 2.89 2.26 2.39 Engraulidae**

18.74 10.22 038 2.02 Anchoa cubana** 23.71 4.76 0.95 2.01 Anchoa sp.** 0.29 4.43 098 3.39 0.73 0.94 Ste/lifer lanceolatus 3.21 7.14 2.85 0.93 Chloroscombrusschri,-surus 2.38 0.79 0.10 0.08 3.08 1 1 0.23 3.23 0.28 1 0.29 0.78 Haemulon aurolineatum 5.49 0.10 1.90 0.52 Harengula jaguana**

6.42 0.60 0.48 Citharichthvs macrops 0.72 0.07 0.08 0.99 0.14 0.10 0.23 1.99 0.78 0.22 0.42 Prionotus scitulus**

0.21 0.93 0.20 0.23 0.89 0.35 0.29 1.33 0.87 0.41 Con'ulasanclaeluciae 0.21 2.73 0.20 0.45 0.38 0.36 Eucinostomnus gula 3.52 0.30 095 0.07 0.34 Lutjanussi.nagris 0.52 0.79 0.23 0.10 0.49 0.66 0.24 Labrisomus nuchipinnis 1.65 0.30 0.18 Table 25.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SLU Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total'Pre Post Pre I Post Pre [ Post Pre I Post Pre I Post I Pre I Post A.-enticirrhus litoralis**

0.50 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.42 0.07 0.15 Scorpeena mermins 1.37 0.14 0.15 Haemnulon carbonariuzn 0.29 0.97 0.14 0.14 Bothus robinsi 0.99 0.28 0.08 0.19 0.11 0.13 Ophidion sp. 0.52 1.14 0.11 0.13 Ophidion holbrookii 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.76 0.07 0.29 0.12 Eucinostonius harengulus 0.10 0.65 0.14 0.28 0.11 Aficropogonias undulaius**

0.10 0.08 0 10 0.39 0.76 0.11 Selene selapinnis 0.21 0.07 0.08 0.40 0.47 0.09 Lartniusfasciatus 0.58 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 Svnoduslfetens 0.39 0.10 0.15 0.43 0.07 0.08 Q,,noscionnolhus**

0.10 0.40 1 0.38 0.07 0.07 Leiosiomusxanthurus**

0.59 0.29 0.08 0.07 Ophidion gravi 0.95 0.07 Stephanolepis hispida 0.41 0.22 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 Eucinostornusjonesii 0.93 0.06 Selene vomer 0.41 1 0.20 0.09 O.15 0.06 Centropristis striata 0.07 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.06 Sardinella aurita** 0.10 0.69 0.06 Diplectrum formosum 0.10 0.36 0.09 0.05 Albula sp. 0.38 0.04 Lagodon rhomboides 0.20 0.19 0.09 0.04 CaraTx csos 1 0.20 0.08 0.09 0.03 Opisihonerna oglinum* 0. 10 0.30 0.03 Cynoscion regalis 0 10 0.10 0.07 0.02 Prionotus rubio 0.10 0.019 0.02 Sciaenidae 0.10 0. 19 0.02 Scorpaena brasiliensis 0.10 0.19 0.02 Table 25.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI I SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer I[ Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total 1 Pre J Post Pre IPost Pre [ Post Pre ] Post Pre[ Post Pre Post Svniphurus dioinedeanus 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.02 Trachnmocephalus invops 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.02 4chirus lineatus 0.10 0.09 0.01 Anchoa hepseus**

0.07 0.08 0.01 Anchoa mitchilli**

0.10 0.07 0.01 Cararic hipos 0.20 0.01 Citharichihvs spilopterus 0.10 0.07 0.01 Decapterus punclalus 0.20 0.01 Gymnachirus melas 0 10 0.07 0.01 Hippocampus erectus 0.14 0.01 Monacanthus cilialus 0 14 0.01 Orthopristis chrvsoptera**

0.07 0.10 0.01 Peprilus paru 0.10 0 10 0.01 Trachinotus carol ius** 0.10 0.07 0.01 Trichiurus lepturus 0.10 0.10 0.01 Albulidae 0.07 0.01 A4nchoa lyolepis*

1 0.07 0.01 Ancl.lopsetta onimata 0 07 0.01 ,nisolremus surinamensis 0.10 0.01.4nisolremnus virginicus 0.10 0.01 4pogon binoiatus 0.09 0.01 Ariopsis felis 0.08 1 1 0.01 CaraLx lawus H 0.07 0.01 Centroprislis philadelphica 0.0 10 0.01 Cvnoscion nebulosus

0. 10 0.01 Dacn,1oscopus crossotus 0.07 0.01 Diapterus auralus 0. 10 0.01 Elops saurus 0 10 0.01 Table 25.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total'Pre I Post Pre Post Pre [Post Pre ]Post Pre IPost IPre Post Gobiosonia robustum 0.07 0.01 Haemulon flacrosionloul 0.07 0.01 Haemulon sciurus 0.07 0.01 Haemulon sp. 0.10 0.01 Halichoeres bivittatus 0.07 0.01 Halichoeres caudalis 0.09 0.01 Histrzo hisirio 0.07 0.01 Labridae 0.10 0.01 Lachnolaimus maximus 0.08 0.01 Alyhobalis goodez 0.08 0.01 Narcine bancrofii 0.09 0.01 Oligopli/es saurus 0.10 0.01 Opislognathus robinsi 0 10 0.01 Phaeop),x conk/li_ _ 0.07 0.01 Polvdactilus virginicus 0.10 0.01 Prionotus carolinus 0.08 0.01 Prionotus sp. 0.11 0.01 Raja eglanteri_

0.10 0.01 Scorpaena grandycornis 0 10 0.01 Serranidae 0.09 0.01 Svacium micrurum 0.07 0.01 Sviwenazhusfuscus 0 10 0.01 Trinecles maculatus 0.09 0.01 Total Fish 74.43 23.15 3.15 8.86 33.43 3.54 [ 1.65 2.78 22.89 8.61 1.63 i 4.88 14.55 ITrawl Total 126.60 146.86 21.76 29.97 182.93 25.30 12.21 1 12.77 50.52 25.54 9.97 1 11.23 52.74 Distance towed all events and areas = 142.5 km*Conrnercially and Recreationally Important Crustaceans

-Representative Important Species (RIS)

Table 26.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for Fish Captured by Trawl, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Pre- or SLI SL2 S13 Mean Season Post- Dis t h _ _ Total Distance T Dis t ance CPUE T F ra Uprate Total Fish Trawled CPE TrawledTrawled Pre- 719 9.7 74.43 337 10.1 33.43 241 10.5 22.89 43.58 Summer _ _I_ _I_ _ _ _I_ _ _Post- 322 13.9 23.15 51 14.4 3.54 122 14.2 8.61 11.77 Pre- 32 10.2 3.15 17 10.3 1.65 15 9.2 1.63 2.14 Winter Post- 118 13.3 8.86 37 13.3 2.78 67 13.7 4.88 5.51 Total 1,19 1 147.0 25.32 14421 48.1 9.19 14451 47.6 9.34 1 Mean J 298 11.8 27.40 111 j 12.0 10.35 111 11.9 j 9.50 1____

Table 27.Seasonal Comparison of Num ber of RIS Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Clupeiformes Presented Separate from Olher RIS.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer J Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre J Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre [Post Number ofSamples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 J 15 [ 18 9[ 18 180 Engraulidae 181 103 4 288 Anchoa cubana 229 48 IC0 287 Anchoa sp. 4 59 13 48 10 134 Harengula jaguana 62 6 68 Sardinella aur/ta 1 7 8 Opisilhonema oglinum 1 3 4 Anchoa hepsetus I 1 2 Anchoa mitch//li 1 I 2 Anchoa lj'olepis li I I Total Clupeiformes 1475 6 0 60 J 167 0 I .0 13L 14 48 ] 0 11 794 Umbrina corozdes 46 154 4 35 3 4 S 18 41 31 341 Prionolus scaulus 2 13 2 3 9 5 3 14 8 59 Menticirrhus litaora/is 7 1 1 2 2 1 6 1 21 Micropogonias undulaius I l I 4 8 15 Cynoscion nothus I 4 4 1 10 Leioslomus xanthurus 6 3 1 10 Orthoapristis chrysoptera 1 1 2 Trachinoaus carolnus I1 1 2 Total OtherRIS 49 175 16 39 18 11 10 8 45 48 8 33 460 Total All RIS 524 181 16 99 185 11 10 21 59 96 8 44 1,254 Table 28.Seasonal Com parison of CPUE (Num ber Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for RIIS Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Clupeiformes Presented Separate from Other RIS.SLI SL2 SPr Taxa Summer I Winter Summer Iinter Summer Winter CPUE'Pre I Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post rPre ePost NumberofSamples 15 18 9 18 15 18 [ 9 18 15 18 9 18 180 Engraulidae 18.74 10.22 0.38 2.02 ,lnchoa cubana 23.71 4.76 0.95 2.01 Anchoa sp. 0.29 4.43 0.98 3.39 0.73 0.94 Harengula.jaguana 6.42 0.60 0.48 Sardinella aurita 0.10 0.69 0.06 Opisthonema oglinum 0.10 0.30 1 1 0.03 Anchoa hepsetus 0.07 0.08 1 0.01 Anchoa mitchilI, 0.10 0.07 0.01 Anchoa Ivolepis 1 0.07 0.01 Total Clupeiformes 49.17 0.43 0.00 4.51 16.57 0.00 0.00 0.98 1.33 3.39 0.00 0.80 5.56 Umbrina coroides 4.76 11.07 0.39 2.63 0.30 0.28 0.38 1.71 2.89 2.26 2.39 Prionolus scitulus 0.21 0.93 0.20 0.23 0.89 0.35 0.29 1.33 0.87 0.41 AMcnticirrhuslittoralis 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.42 0.07 0.15 Micropogonias undulalus 0 10 0.08 0.10 0.39 0.76 0.11 Cynoscion nothus 0.10 0.40 0.38 0.07 0.07 Leiostomus xanthurus 0.59 0.29 0.08 0.07 Orthopristis chrtsoptera 0.07 0 10 0.01 Trachinotus carolinus 0.10 0.07 0.01 Total Other RIS 5.07 12.58 1.58 2.93 1.79 0.76 0.97 0.60 4.27 3.39 0.87 2.41 3.22 Total All RIS 54.24 13.01 1.58 7.44 18.35 0.76 0.97 1.58 5.60 6.77 0.87 3.21 8.78 1 Distance towed all events and areas = 142.5 km Table 29.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Among Areas for RIS Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Cluteiformes All Events 13.47 4.16 1.60 2 60 2.5667 0.2771+ 52.73 +/- 17.32 +/- 3.72 Pre-uprate 29.69 9.70 0.81 2 24 0.5720 0.7512+/- 83.61 -27.45 + 2.29 Post-uprate 2.65 0.47 2.12 2 36 2.5786 0.2755+/- 5.84 + 1.16 + 4.46 Summer 21.82 7.06 2.53 33 1.7159 0.4240+71.24 -23.41 +/- 4.83 Winter 3.25 0.63 0.46 27 1.6284 0.4430+/- 6.70 +/- 1.32 + 1.05 Cyloscion notlius Perio 0.09 0.11S All Events 0.02 0.09 0.11 2 60 1.5467 0.4615-0.11 + 0.42 +/- 0.33 Pre-uprate 0.0 0.23 0.23 2 24 0.4476 0.7995+/--0.18 +/-+0.66 +/--0.49 0.00 0.00 0.03 Post-uprate

... .. .. 2 36 2.0000 0.3679+/- IJuu +/- u.uu +/- U. IZ2 Summer 0.05 0.17 0.17 2 33 0.4596 0.7947+/- 0.15 + 0.56 +/- 0.43 Winter 0.00 0.00 0.05 2 27 2.0000 0.3679+/-0.00 +0.00 +0.14 Leiostomus xanthurus All Events 0.08 0.06 0.00 2 60 2.1040 0.3492+ 0.30 + 0.20 +- 0.00 ____0.30 0.20 0.00 Pre-uprate 0.20 0.10 0.00 2 24 2.1789 0.3364+/- 0.47 + 0.28 +/- 0.00 Post-uprate 0.0 0.04 000 2 36 2.0000 0.3679 4- 0.00 +/- 0.13 + 0.00 Summer 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 33 0.0000 1.0000-0.00 + 0.00 +/- 0.00 Winter 0.18 0.14 0.00 2 27 2.2428 0.3258 i +/- 0.44 +/- 0.29 -0.00 1 Table 29.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Among Areas for RIS Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Alenticirrhus littoralis All Events 0.16 0.12 0.17 2 60 0.2839 0.8677+/- 0.67 +/- 0.30 +/- 0.56 Pre-uprate 0.03 0.09 0.06 2 24 0.0151 0.9925+0.09 +0.25 +0.16 Post-uprate 0.25 0.14 0.25 2 36 0.3114 0.8558-0.87 + 0.34 +/- 0.71 Summer 0.27 0.14 0.27 33 0.3034 0.8592+ 0.90 + 0.30 +/- 0.74 Winter 0.03 0.11 0.05 2 27 0.0118 0.9941+0.09 +0.32 +0.167 Micropogonias undulatus a .D] ' It 0.04 0.09 0.18 All Events 2 60 0.3524 0.8384+0.12 +0.28 +0.81 Pre-uprate 0.04 0.22 0.45 2 24 0.5957 0.7424+/- 0.10 + 0.42 + 1.28 Post-uprate 0.04 0.00 0.00 2 36 2.0000 0.3679+ 0.14 +/- 0.00 +/- 0.00 Summer 0.00 0.06 0.33 33 1.0341 0.5963+/- 0.00 + 0.21 + 1.09 Winter 0.09 0.12 0.00 2 27 2.0098 0.3661+ +0.18 +0.36 +/- 0.00 Orthopristis chrvsovtera df It H n Peio SL I L All Events 0.04 0.00 0.00 2 60 4.0678 0.1308+/- 0.11 + 0.00 + 0.00 Pre-uprate 0.04 0.00 0.00 2 24 2.0000 0.3679+/- 0.10 + 0.00 +/- 0.00 Post-uprate 0.04 0.00 0.00 2 36 2.0000 0.3679+/-0.13 +/-0.00 10.00 Summer 0.04 0.00 0.00 2 33 2.0000 0.3679+/-0.13 +/-0.00 +/-0.00 Winter 0.03 0.00 0.00 2 27 2.0000 0.3679+/-0.10 = 0.00 +/-0.00 Table 29.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Among Areas for RIS Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Prionotus scitulus 0.49 0.38 0.46 Al9vns 04 .8 04 60 0.5487 j0.7601 Pre-uprate Post-uprate Summer Winter 0.30 0.70 1.16 2 24 2.0731 0.3547+/- 0.64 +/- 1.07 +/- 1.67 0.61 0.17 0.00 36 6.5187 0.0384*+/- 0.94 +/- 0.29 +/- 0.00 0.71 0.62 0.62 2 33 0.9537 0.6207+ 1.01 + 0.93 +/- 1.51 0.21 0.10 0.27 2 27 0.0865 0.9577+_0.46 +_0.20 +/- 0.56 Trachintotus carolinus 0.01 0.00 0.02 2 60 1.0178 0.6012+ 0.06 + 0.00 +/- 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 2 24 2.0000 0.3679* 0.09 +/- 0.00 + 0.00 All Events Pre-uprate I I 0.00 0.00 0.03 Post-uprate 1 -0.00 0.0 2 36 2.0000 0.3679 I SJAJl~J V. IL.Summer 0.00 0.00 0.04 2 33 2.0000 0.3679+0.00 +/-0.00 +-0.12 Winter 0.03 0.00 0.00 2 27 2.0000 0.3679_- 0.09 0.00 +/- 0.00 Urnbrina coroides 5.19 1.98 All Events + 13.10 0.25 + 3.02 2 60 8.5521 0.0139+/- 0.51 Pre-uprate 2.76 0.18 1.00 24 2.0943 0.3509+ 7.00 + 0.35 + 1.28 6.80 2.64 Post-uprate

+ 16.06 0.30 + 3.68 2 36 7.7056 0.0212+/- 0.60 Summer 7.87 0.27 2.43 2 33 3.9719 0.1373+/- 17.47 + 0.52 -3.57 Winter 1.90 0.22 1.43 2 27 6.5878 0.0371**+_2.00 +_0.52 +-2.26 tKrUSKaI-WaIIIS -I'4NU VA an umuiupie tompansons o ivlean ItanKs rost-noc lesL snoweu conunctmg resuits. lviann-Whitney U Test results no significant differences between any Areas.**Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Multiple Comparisons of Mean Ranks Post-hoc Test showed conflicting results. Mann-Whitney U Test results showed SLI was significantly higher than SL2, SLI vs SL3 were not significanilty different, and SL2 vs SL3 were not significantly different.

Table 30.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for RIS Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Cluneiformes Sampling Mean Value Per Area SD df n H p Area Pre-uprate Post-uprate SLI 29.69 2.65 1 20 0.7583 0.3839+/- 83.61 +/- 5.84 SL2 SL3 SL1 SL2 SL3 9.70 0.471 920 0.0154 0.9012+27.45 1.16 0.81 2.12 20 1.0281 0.3106+_2.29 +/-_4.46 Cynoscion nothus 000.0120 1.5000 0.2207+/- 0.18 +/- 0.00 020.0120 1.5000 0.2207+/- 0.66 + 0.00 0.23 0.03 0.49 0.12 1 20 1.2476 0.2640+/- 0.49 +/-70.12111 I I Leiostomnus xanth urus SL2 0.20 0.00 1 20 3.1579 0.07112+/- 0.28 +/- 0.13 SL3 0.00 0.00 1 20 0.0000 1.0000 SL3 +/- 0.00 +/- 0.00 Menticirrhus littoralis 0.03 0.25+/- 0.09 +/- 0.87 SL1 20 0.0493 0.8242 SL2 0.09 0.14 1 20 0.1386 0.7097+/- 0.25 +/- 0.34 SL3 0.06 0.25 1 20 0.1386 0.7097 S +0.16 +/-0.71 Table 30.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for RIS Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).1 i Micropao~rnias undulatus I SL1 .400 20 0.0493 0.8242+ 0.10 +/- 0.14 SL2 020.0120 3.1579 0.0756+/- 0.42 + 0.00 SL3 0.4 0.00 1 20 1.5000 0.2207+/- 1.28 +/- 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 U.14 U.M4 SL1 1 20 0.0493 0.8242-4-0.10+/-+0.13 SL2 0.00 0.00 1 2 J .0j0 1.0000+/- 0.00 +/- 0.00 SL3 0.00 0.00 1 20 0.0000 1.0000+ 0.00 -0.00 0 Prionotus scitulus SL1 0.30 0.61 1 20 0.5245 0.4689 1 0.64 +/- 0.94 0.70 0.17 SL2 1 20 0.9175 0.3381+/- 1.07 +/- 0.29 1.16 SL3 +/- 1.67 0.00 1 20 9.2532 0.0024+/-_0.00 Trachinotus carolinus 5I SLI 0.03 0.00 1 20 1.5000 0.2207.200.09 +/-0.00 SL2 0.00 0.00 1 20 0.0000 1.0000+/- 0.00 + 0.00 SL3 0.00 0.03 20 0.6667 0.4142+/- 0.00 +/- 0.12 Table 30.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for RIS Captured by Trawl, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Umbrina coroides SL1 .668 20 2.9588 0.0854+/- 7.00 +16.06 SL2 20 0.0103 0.9192+0.35 +/-0.60 SL3 1.00 2.64 20 0.3330 0.5639+/- 1.28 +/- 3.68 1 Table 31.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for RIS Captured by Trawl, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Pre- or SLI SL2 SLU Mean Season Post- I Distance J Distance CPUE Total RIS Distance CPUE CPUE Uprate Total RIS rawl CPUE Total RIS Trawled Trawled Pre 524 9.7 54.24 185 10.1 18.35 59 10.5 5.60 26.07 Summer Post 181 13.9 13.01 11 14.4 0.76 96 14.2 6.77 6.85 Pre 16 10.2 1.58 10 10.3 0.97 8 9.2 0.87 1.14 Winter____________

Post 99 13.3 7.44 21 13.3 1.58 44 13.7 3.21 4.07 Total 820 47.0 17.43 227 48.1 4.72 207 47.6 4.34 8.78 Mean 205 11.8 19.07 57 12.0 5.42 52 11.9 4.11 Table 32.Seasonal Comparison of Mean Total Length (mm) for RIS Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SL I SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter TL(am)PuerI Post Pre Post Pre st Pre I Post IPre IPost Pre I Pos t L (mm)Number of Samples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 180 Aficropogonias undulatus 248.00 191.00 234.00 241.50 234.38 234.27 Orthoprislis chn'soplera 236.00 230.00 233.00 Cvnoscion nothus 226.00 225.00 225.75 221.00 225.00 Leiostomus xanthurus 190.17 191.50 189.00 190.33 Prionotusscitulus 19.75 106.95 193.50 100.87 83.44 115.98 190.00 155.50 184.25 130.02 Harengulajaguana 126.97 120.33 125.92 Trachmnotus carolmnus 149.00 59.30 104.15 Opisthonenma oglinum 115.00 98.00 102.25 Sardinella aurita 160.00 82.14 91.88 Menticirrhuslittoralis 68.00 227.00 52.45 77.20 171.00 65.70 102.70 81.51 Umbrinacoroides 79.04 65.44 147.00 50.97 55.00 72.10 47.72 90.10 53.20 59.64 64.55 A4nchoa Ivolepis I 1 56.40 56.40 Anchoa cubana 54.69 57.33 42.56 54.47 Anchoa hepsetus 59.20 45.80 52.50 Anchoa nitchilli 50.00 53.10 51.55 Engraulidae 38.68 34.80 34.00 36.07 Anchoa sp. 20.55 32.28 28.07 23.24 30.43 29.71 Mean TL (mm) I73.79 72.15 1185.63f 43.93 J 62.70 88.47 1213.221 47.93 1 131.79 48.56 1 184.251 57.57 I 74.49 Table 33.Seasonal Comparison of Mean Weight (g) for RIS Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate.

St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SL1 SL2 SL3 Total Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Mean Pre [Postost Pre -Pre Ps IFPre t] Post Pre Post Pre ]Post Weight (g)NumberofSamples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 180 Orihopristis chrsoptera 172.1 160.0 166.1 Micropogoniasundulatus 167.0 71.4 150.0 168.5 139.9 145.4 Cvnoscion nothus 137.9 132.5 151.0 117.2 138.9 Leiostomus xanthurus 78.7 79.6 81.8 79.3 Prionotus scitulus 38.0 18.7 53.0 14.6 15.2 19.0 50.9 50.4 55.3 33.9 Trachinotus carolnus 45.3 3.2 24.3 Harengulajaguana 22.3 18.4 18.7 Alenticirrhus littoralis 3.2 113.0 1.5 4.0 54.4 4.3 11.9 Sardinella aurila 31.6 7.9 10.9 Opisthonema ogltnum 14.9 9.4 10.8 Umbrina coroides 10.2 3.9 57.8 2.4 3.6 4.8 2.6 10.9 2.2 3.0 5.5.4nchoa Iyolepis 1.1 1.1 4nchoa cubana 1.1 1.2 0.4 1.1.4nchoa hepsetus 1.5 0.4 1.0 4nchoa mitchilli 0.01 1.1 0.6 Engraulidae 1 0.3 02 0.1 _0.3 ,nchoa sp. 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 r~otal Mean Weight (g) 8.5 I 8.1 I 80.9I 2.4 9.3 10.6 11o6.61 5.8 48.8 2.0 5 55. 3 5.0 1 14.1 Table 34.Seasonal Comparison of Calculated and Mean Biomass (g) for RIS Captured by Trawl Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015._ SLII SL2 s To I Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter BiTotal Pre I Post Pre ] Post Pre [Post Pre [Post Pre IPost J Pre Ieost IBio....(g Number of Samples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 180-ficropogonias undulalus 167.0 71.4 150.0 674.1 1,119.0 2,181.5 PrwonotusscItuIds 76.0 243.5 106.0 43.7 136.5 94.8 152.7 705.6 442.5 2,001.3 Unibrirw coroides 471.1 596.5 231.1 84.0 10.9 19.1 12.9 196.1 89.6 93.9 1,805.2 Cvpnoscion nothus 137.9 530.1 603.8 117.2 1,389.0 Harengulajaguanw 1,269.6 110.1 1,275.3 Lewostomus xanthurus 472.1 238.8 81.8 792.7 Orthopristts chlrsoplera 172.1 160.0 332.1 Achoa cubana 252.7 58.9 315.6 A*enficirrhus jittjralis 22.5 113.0 3.0 7.9 54.4 26.0 226.8 Sardinella anria 31.6 55.2 86.8 Engraulidae 60.1 25.1 0.1 85.3 Trachinotus carohnus 45.3 3.2 48.5 Opisthonema oglinum 14.9 28. I 43.0 4nchoa sp. 0.2 9.2 1.6 0.6 1.4 13.0 4nchoa hepsetus 1.5 0.4 1.9 Anchoa Ivolepis 1.1 1.1 Anchoa nutchilli 0.0 1. I 1.1 Mean Biomass (g) 1 257.1 I 148.2 I 184.9 ] 41.7 1 122.8 39.0 9 355.2 [ 26.0 I 446.51 29.9[ 442.51 53.4 J 623.5 Table 35.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for Invertebrates Captured by Trawl, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Pre- or SLU SL2 SL3 Mean season Post- Number Distance CPE Nme Ditn I Number Disac PE CU Upr Trawled dTrawle CPUE Captured Trawled S Pre 504 9.7 52.17 1,507 10.1 149.50 291 10.5 27.64 76.43 Post 1,721 13.9 123.71 313 14.4 21.76 240 14.2 16.93 54.13 Pre 189 10.2 18.61 109 10.3 10.56 77 9.2 8.34 12.51 Winter ttt-Post 281 13.3 21.11 133 13.3 9.99 87 13.7 6.34 12.48 Total 2,695 47.0 57.29 2,062148.1 142.87 1 695 47.6 14.59 1 38.25 Mean 674 11.8 53.90 516 12.0 47.95 174 11.9 14.81 Table 36.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per Kilometer Trawled) for CR1 Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Trawl, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Pre- or SLI SL2 SL3 Season Post- Number Distance CP Number Distance CPUE Number Distance CPUE CPUE Uprate Captured Trawled I PUE Captured Trawled C Captured Trawled Pre 64 9.7 6.63 45 10.1 4.46 72 10.5 6.84 5.98 Summer _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __Post 104 13.9 7.48 90 14.4 6.26 69 14.2 4.87 6.19 Pre 13 10.2 1.28 14 10.3 1.36 17 9.2 1.84 1.48 Post 70 13.3 5.26 40 13.3 3.00 28 13.7 2.04 3.42 Total J 251 47.0 5.34 189 48.1 3.93 186 47.6 3.90 4.39 Mean 63 j 11.8 5.16 47 12.0 3.77 47 11.9 3.90 Table 37.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU. August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SLW Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre [Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre ] Post Pre Post Pre Post Number of Samples 15 [ 18 [ 9 1 18 15 18 9 ] 18 j 15 18 9 18 J 180 Cephalopoda I I I I III [ ] III I I I i Total Molluscs I 0° 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 0 0 0 0 I~ ~~ x~~ Crustaceafis-

-1 ý1ý _ Ii__ F j Portunidae 8 14 22 Arenaeus cribrarius*

4 2 I I 6 1 1 16 Calappaflanimea 1 1 3 2 1 8 Portunus sp.inbanus 4 2 6 Calappoidea 1 2 1 4 Poriunus sp. 1 3 Paguroidea 1 1 2 Ovalipes sp. 1 1 Total Crustaceans 0 1 0 10 5 9 1 17 9 5 3 2 62 Temnopleutroida 16 I 1 15 11 5 4 7 60 Arbacia punctulala 20 1 2 23 Clypeasteroida 2 I 1 2 6 Asteroidea I 1 1 3 Echinodermata 2 1 3 Echinoidea 3 3 Astropecten sp. I1 I Total Echinoderms 20 21 J 2 0 j 16 u16 6 0 f 2 I f f I 899 Rhizoprionodon terracnovae 46 57 74 79 22 40 51 63 28 81 272 130 943 Chloroscombrus chrysurus 115 24 21 39 77 61 327 41 [ 1 10 84 50 940 Sphyrna tiburo 64 283 70 54 49 1 13 102 102 1 83 15 837 Veiostomis xanthurus6 3 10 74 299 12 1 1 1 396 Micropogonias undulalus*

45 2 5 72 171 83 14 2 394 Table 37.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa S Summer ] Winter Summer Winter Summer ] Winter Total I Pre Post Pre [Post Pre [Post Pre Post Prel Post] Pre Post Scomberomorus maculatus" 37 4 34 19 41 42 1 77 100 2 25 382 Carawr crysos 14 22 10 9 17 58 20 4 26 49 13 27 269 Bagre inarinus 36 2 5 29 5 29 119 I0 235 Larinmusfasciatus 32 46 7 67 1 153 Caranx latus 35 1 3 61 I 17 30 4 152 Pomnatomus sahatrar 31 25 2 4 7 11 27 3 10 120 Caran.ir hippos 1 5 12 54 23 9 4 3 111 Brevoortia srnith** 19 9 6 3 5 2 17 43 104 Cynoscion nothus** 61 33 3 2 99 Carcharhinus brevipinna 25 3 3 18 1 10 3 22 I 4 1 91.Aenticirrhus americanus**

11 3 3 4 26 2 13 I 63 Lui janus s.nagris 1 12 1 35 2 51 Trichiurus lepfw'us 17 1 3 10 4 1 6 4 1 47 Svnodusfoetens 2 2 7 1 1 2 26 3 44 Elops saurus 24 3 5 6 38 Orthoprislis chr?)soptera*

8 3 3 1 1 3 11 1 31 Anisotrenius virginicus 13 9 3 1 26 Trachinotus carolinus" 4 15 3 1 23 A hustelus canis 8 3 10 1 22 Selene seapinnis 17 1 2 1 1 22 Carcharhinus acronotus 1 1 3 6 2 I 2 1 2 19 Prionotus scitulus*

2 1 1 1 6 7 I 19 Centroprislis striata 4 2 6 4 1 1 18 Archosargus probatocephalus I1 2 1 I 1 1 17 Umbrina coroides" 7 9 16 Afenticirrhus sxxatilis**

4 3 2 2 11 Cnoscion re;galis 7 1 1 1 10 Rachycentron canacium 3 2 1 3 1 10 Citharichthys macrops 2 1 1 1 4 9 Table 37.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 7 SLU Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer I Winter Total Pre Post Pre [Post Pre Post Pre JPost Pre IPost] Pre Post Carcharhlius limbalus I 1 4 1 1 8 Menticirrhus iitoralis

2 1 4 7 Calamuspennru 1 1 2 2 6 Diplodus holbrookih 5 1 6 Echeneis naucrates 2 1 1I I 6 R/unoba/os len/iginosus 1 2 I I 5 Calanmus arw;ifrons 2 2 4 Albula vulpes 2 1 3 Brevoortia tvrannus

3 3 Opislhonerna oglinum

I I I 3 Paralichhiys albigutta 1 2 3 Peprilus paru 2 1 3 Prionotus rubio 3 3 Prionotus tribudus 3 3 Scombridae 3 3 A nc.'opsetta ommata 1 1 2 Centropoinus undecimnalis 2 Chaetodipterusfaber 1 1 2 Cornula sanctaeluciae I 1 2 Hippocampuy erectus 1 1 2 goodei 2 2 Stephanolepis hispida 2 2 Trachinotusfalcatus 1 1 2 Acanthostracion quadricornis 1 1 ,4canthurus chirurgus I_1 Aetobatus narinari I1 Aluterus ,nornoceros 1 I 4/uterus schoepfii 1 1.4nisotrernus surmaniensis I I Table 37.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SLU Taxa Summer Winter Summer I Winter Summer I Winter Total Pre [Post Pre Post Pre ] Post Pre I Post Pre[ Post Pre [Post Archosargus rhomboidalis I 1 Citharichtlhvs spilopterus 1 1 COnoscion nebulosus 1 1 Dactylop/erus vohl/ans 1 1 Diapterus aura/us 1 Diplectrun formosumn 1 1 Euth'nnus alletterat us 1 Ginglynlostonla cirratum I I Haemulon aurolineatun 1 1 Lagodon rhomboides 1 I Lu/janus analis 1 Lu/anus griseus I A4embras martinica I 1 Opsanus beta 1 Peprilus burti I I Peprilus triacanthus I 1 Pseudocaratn dentex 1 1 Rcaa eglanteria I 1 Sciaenops ocellatus 1 1 Scorpaena plumieri 1 1 Selene vomer 1 I Total Fish 692 424 287293 60212191451 19658091706 6153 3045, ,831 Total All Organisms 712 446 289 303 623 244 458 1 983 826 177 626 306 5,993* Commercially or Recreationally Important Decapod Crustaceans

- Representative Important Species Table 38.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass Among Areas for Fish and RIS (All Species Combined)Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Fish Taxa Period' f I L SL2l SL (if nI-hi 11.35 All Events +6.95 7.80 8.60 260 7.1057 0.0286+/- 7.57 +/- 6.96 Pre-uprate 14.00 9.63 12.25 2 24 2.4412 0.2951 P 9.80 +/- 8.70 +/- 9.24 Post-uprate 9.58 6.58 6.17 2 36 5.8474 0.0537+ 3.73 +/-_6.84 +/-_3.64 11.27 Summer + 9.25 6.73 8.91 2 33 6.0881 0.0476+/- 8.42 + 8.50 Winter 11.44 9.11 8.22 2 27 3.5730 0.1676+ 2.79 +/- 6.64 +/- 4.94 Fish CPUE All Events 29.62 31.23 29.38 2 60 2.7161 0.2572+/- 23.76 +/- 43.01 +/- 33.47 Pre-uprate 37.05 36.87 47.20 2 24 0.4550 0.7965+/- 24.62 +/- 42.72 +/- 46.54 24.67 27.47 17.50 Post-uprate 2 36 2.5961 0.2731+ 22.85 +/- 44.67 +/- 13.08 Summer 32.59 20.78 27.14 2 33 5.1104 0.0777+/-30.41 +/-31.67 +/-36.62 25.98 40 21 Winter 8 44.01 32.12 2 27 0.1728 0.9172 12.54 +52.97 +/-31.12 RIS Fish Taxa Peio SL I L All2.65 2.40 2.10 2 60 1.0457 0.5928+/- 2.85 +/- 3.10 +/- 3.04 Pre-uprate 4.13 2.88 3.63 2 24 0.8594 0.6507+/- 3.36 +/- 3.64 + 4.24 Post-uprate 1.67 2.08 1.08 2 36 0.4567 0.7959+ 2.06 +/- 2.81 + 1.31 2.09 1.82 2.00 Summer 2 33 1.4362 0.4877+/- 3.30 +/- 3.43 +/- 3.52 Winter 3.33 3.11 2.22 2 27 1.7233 0.4225+/- 2.18 +/- 2.67 +/- 2.54 Table 38.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass Among Areas for Fish and RIS (All Species Combined)Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).+/- 8.28+/- 28.11 + 10.59 11.01 7.33 11.04 Pre-uprate 2 24 1.0827 0.5820+ 10.88 +/- 12.50 +/- 15.17 1.92 13.47 1.81 Post-uprate 2 36 0.3234 0.8507+/-2.64 +/- 35.34 +/- 3.18 Summer 5.00 6.40 6.39 2 33 1.4050 0.4953+/- 9.87 + 11.86 -13.35 6.23 16.66 4.42 Winter 1.03 3.69 1.90 2 27 1.6352 0.4415+ 6.32 + 40.44 + 6.41 RIS Fish Biomass 1.08 22.98 1.247 All Events- 2 60 2.2561 0.3237* 13.38 +54.02 +/- 18.70 Pre-uprate 150 .9 1.0 2 24 2.8252 0.2435* 18.70 +/- 6.23 -+/- 29.52 Post-uprate 10 2.9 147 2 36 0.3010 0.8603+ 1.33 + 69.61 + 3.24 Summer 7.09 3.18 8.01 2 33 3.2335 0.1985+/- 16.14 + 7.08 + 25.19 Winter 6.13 29.58 1.86 2 27 0.6528 0.7215+/- 9.95 +/- 80.24 + 3.69 1 Table 39.Results of Statistical Comparisons (KruskaI-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass for Fish and RIS Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).SLI 140 .8120 0.3859 0.5345+ 9.80 +/- 3.73 SL2 1 20 1.2687 0.2600+/- 8.70 + 6.84 12.25 6.17 SL3 1 20 2.3050 0.1290+9.24 73.64 Fish CPUE SL1 37.05 24.67 1 20 1.7202 0.1897+/- 24.62 +/- 22.85 _ _SL2 36.87 27.47 1 20 0.7202 0.3961+/- 42.72 +/- 44.67 47.20 17.50 SL3 1 20 1.7202 0.1897-46.54 + 13.08 RIS Fish Taxa 4.13 1.67 SLI 1 20 3.3211 0.0684+/- 3.36 +/- 2.06 SL2 2.88 2.08 1 20 0.2785 0.5977+/- 3.64 +/- 2.81 SL3 3.63 1.08 1 20 1.2750 0.2588_-_4.24 -1.31_RIS CPUE 11.01 SL1 +/-- 10.88 1.92 1 20 4.5356 0.0332+/-- 2.64 SL2 13.47 1 20 0.1636 0.6859+/- 12.50 -35.34 SL3 11.04 1.81 1 20 1.0502 0.3055+/-- 15.17 +/- 3.18 _ _1 Table 39.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and Biomass for Fish and RIS Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).RIS Fish Biomass SL1 50 10 20 2.4856 0. 1149+18.70 +/- 1.33 SL2 3.92.8120 0.0082 0.9279+/- 6.23 --69.61 SL3 10.90 1.47 1 20 0.0068 0.9343+/- 29.52 +/- 3.24 Table 40.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected Per Hour of Soak Time) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 W Taxa Summer [ Winter Summer j Winter ISummer Winter CPUE Pre [Post Pre IPost Pre Post Pre [Post Pre I Post Pre J Post NumberofSamples 15 [ 18 [ I9 ..18 L 15 18 9 15 18 9 i1 18 180 Cephalopoda

[ I _ I III I °.°6J I 00I 1 o Total Molluscs 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.001 0.00 3 0.00 J 0.00 0.01 Portunidae 0.58 0.86 0.14.4renaeus cribrarius*

0.25 0.15 0.13 0.06 0.39 0.08 0.10 0.10 Calappaflammea 0.07 0.07 0.23 0.16 0.08 0.05 Portunus spinimanus 0.30 0.16 0.04 Calappoidea 0.06 0.13 0.10 0.03 sp. 0.07 0.12 0.02 Paguroidea 006 0.10 0.01 Oalipes sp. _0.08 0.01 Total Crustaceans 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.72 [ 0.32 0.69 0.13 1.05 0.58 f 0.39 0.31 0.15J 0.40 Tenmnopleuroida 1.01 0.07 0.13 0.95 0.84 0.67 0.26 0.73 0.39 A rbaci punctiulaia 1.47 0.08 0. 16 0.15 Clypeasteroida 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.04 Asteroidea 0.13 0.06 0.10 0.02 Echinodermata 0.13 0.06 0.02 Echinoidea 0.23 0.02 4stropecten sp. 0.08 0.01 Total Echinoderms 1.26 1.55 0.25 0.00 1.01 1.22 0.80 0.00 0.52 0.16 0.83 0.00 J 0.64§ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 44- i'nr_ -_ _ _ _ _ _ __ -1__ _ _ _ __ _ _Rhiioprionodonterraenovae 2.90 4.20 9.31 5.72 1.39 3.05 6.78 3.88 1.81 6.31 28.19 9.86 6.08 C/hloroscombruschrl'surus 7.24 1.77 2.64 2.83 4.86 4.65 43.50 2.53 5.88 0.78 8.70 3.79 6.06 Sphvrnatnburo 4.03 20.83 8.81 3.91 3.09 0.08 1.73 6.29 6.59 0.08 8.60 1.14 5.40 Leioslonusxanthurus*

0.63 4.67 18.44 0.71 0.10 0.08 2.55 IMicropogonias undulatus**

2.83 0.25 0.36 4.54 10.54 5.36 1.45 0.15 2.54 Table 40.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected Per Hour of Soak Time) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 S3 Total Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Pre [Post I Pre I Post Pre I Post Pre [Post Pre I Post Pre I Post Sc'omberomnorusnsac'uluaus**

2.33 0.29 4.28 1.38 2.59 3.20 0.13 4.75 6.46 0.16 1.90 2.46 CaraL crysos 0.88 1.62 1.26 0.65 1.07 4.42 2.66 0.25 1.68 3.82 1.35 2.05 1.73 Bagre marinus 2.27 0.15 0.36 1.83 0.38 1.79 7.69 0.76 1.52 Larimusfascialus 2.01 2.90 0.43 4.33 0.08 0.99 Cara= latus 2.20 0.13 0.22 3.85 0.08 1.05 1.94 0.30 0.98 Pomatornussaltairx**

1.95 3.14 0.14 0.25 0.93 0.68 1.74 0.31 0.76 0.77 Caranx hippos 0.06 0.36 0.76 3.33 1.49 0.70 0.41 0.23 0.72 Brevoortia smithi** 2.39 0.65 0.38 0.23 0.67 0.12 1.10 4.46 0.67 Cynoscion nohus** 3.84 2.08 0.18 0.13 0.64 C'archarhinusbrewipinna 1.57 0.38 0.22 1.14 0.08 1.33 0.18 1.42 0.08 0.41 0.08 0.59 Menicirrhus anericanus*

1.38 0.22 0.19 0.53 1.60 0.13 1.35 0.08 0.41 Lutjanus s3,agris 0.06 0.87 0.06 3.63 0.15 0.33 Trichnirus lepturus 1.07 0.07 0.22 0.63 0.30 0.06 0.39 0.31 0.08 0.30 Svznodusfoelens 0.13 0.15 0.88 0.07 0.06 0.27 2.69 0.23 0.28 Elopssaurus 1.51 0.22 0.32 0.39 0.25 Orthopristis chIrsoptera**

0.50 0.38 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.19 1.14 0.08 0.20 Anisotreius virginicus 0.82 0.66 0.22 0.08 0.17 Trachinotus carolinus"*

0.25 0.92 0.19 0.10 0.15 Alustelus canis 0.58 0.40 0.62 0.08 0.14 Selene setapinnis 1.07 0.06 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.14 Carcharhinusacronotus 006 0.07 0.22 0.38 0.27 0.06 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.12 Prionotus scitulus 0.13 0.07 0.07 006 0.37 0.45 0.08 0.12 Centropristis striala 0.25 0.15 0.75 0.29 0.13 0.06 0.12 4rchosargus probatocephalus 0.69 0.15 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 Lhnbrina coroides 0.44 0.55 0.10 A4enticirrhus saraltihs*

0.25 0.19 0.12 0.13 0.07'vnoscion regalis 0.44 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 Rachvcentron canadum 0.22 0.12 0.06 0.31 0.08 0.06 Citharichthys macrops 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.26 0.06 Table 40.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected Per Hour of Soak Time) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Total Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter CU Pre Post Pre I Post Pre Poos Pre Poos Pre 1 Post (-archarhinus limnbalus 0.06 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.08 0.05 AIenticirrhus liloralis**

0.13 0.10 0.30 0.05 Calanus penna 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.15 0.04 Diplodus holbrookii 0 31 0.08 0.04 Echeneis nucrates 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.04 Rhmobatos lentiginosus 0.07 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.03 Culanmus aritifrons 0.13 0.14 0.03.41bula vulpes 0.16 0.08 0.02 Brevoorlia tvrannus**

0.22 0.02 Opisthonenza oglinum**

0.07 0.08 0.08 0.02 Paralichtlss albigutta 0.07 0.27 0.02 Peprilus paru 0.13 0.07 0.02 Prionotus rubio 0.19 0.02 Prionolus Iribulus 0.23 0.02 Scombridae 0.19 0.02 4ncylopsetta onunata 0.08 0.10 0.01 Centropomnus undecinialis 0.13 0.01 C/haetodipterusfaber 0.06 0.06 0.01 Coarvula sanctaeluciae 0.06 0.06 0.01 Hippocampus erectus 0.07 0.08 0.01 Akhobatis goodei 0.13 0.01 Stephanolepis hispida 0.13 0.01 Trachinolusfiilcatus 0.06 0.06 0.01 4canthostracion quadricornis 0.06 0.01 1eanthurus chirurgus 0.07 0.01 4etobatus narmnari 0.06 0.01 Auterus monoceros 0.08 0.01 4Auterus schoelfi 0.08 0.01 4nisotremus surinaniensis 0.07 0.01 Table 40.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected Per Hour of Soak Time) for Invertebrates and Fish Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SU L3 t Taxa Summer f Winter Summer Winter Summer ] Winter CPUE Pre Post Pre I Post Pre I Post Pre Post Pre J Post Pre [Post Archosargus rhomboidalis 0.06 0.01 CaiharichthIs spiloplerus 0.07 0.01 Cvnoscion nebulosus 0.06 0.01 Dacrvloplerus volitans 0.07 0.01 Diapterus auratus 0.06 0.01 Dipleclrumformosuny 0.13 0.01 Euthownus alletteratus 0.06 0.01 Gingh'niostoma cirralum 0.07 0.00 0.01 Haemulon aurolineatum 0.00 0.06 0.01 Lagodon rhomboides 0.07 0.01 Lutjanus analis 0.06 0.01 Luijanus griseus 0.07 1 1 0.01 Al.embras martinica 0.13 0.01 Opsanus beta 0.07 0.01 Peprilus burti 0.13 0.01 Peprilus iriacanthus 0.06 0.01 ientex 0.06 0.01 Raja eglanteria 0.06 0.01 Sciaenops ocellalus 0.06 0.01 Scorpaena pluinieri 0.13 0.01 Selene yarner 0.06 0.01 Total Fish [ 43.57 31.21 36.10 21.23 J 37.98 [ 16.70 [ 60.00 59.51 152.25 13.25 63.73 [ 23.06 37.60 Total All Organisms 44.83 32.83 36.35 21.96 39.31 18.60 60.93 60.62 53.35 13.79 64.87 23.21 38.65 Commercially or Recreationally Important Decapod Crustaceans

- Representative Important Species Table 41.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected Per Hour of Soak Time) for Fish Captured by Gill Net, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Season Pre- or Post- SLI SL2 SL3 Mean CPUE Uprate Pre 43.57 37.98 52.25 44.54 Summer Post 31.21 16.70 13.25 20.56 Pre 36.10 60.00 63.73 53.87 Winter Post 21.23 59.51 23.06 36.16 Mean CPUE 33.11 42.45 37.11 37.60 Table 42.Seasonal Comparison of Number of RIS Captured by Gill Net, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Pre- or Post-Season [ Pre SLI SL2 SL3 Total Pre 207 242 257 706 Summer*1 Post 6 46 3 55 Winter Pre 94 17 87 198 Post 45 622 45 712 Total 352 927 392 1,671 Table 43.Seasonal Comparison of Mean CPUE (Number Collected Per Hour of Soak Time) for RIS Captured by Gill Net, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Season Pre- or Post- SLI SL2 SL3 Total Uprate IIII Pre 13.03 15.27 16.60 14.95 Summer -______ ____________

____________

Post 0.44 3.51 0.23 1.39 Pre 11.82 2.26 9.02 7.88 Winter -_______ ______________

______________

Post 3.26 38.36 3.41 16.48 Total 6.87 17.59 7.66 10.78 Table 44.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)Among Areas for RIS Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).All Events+ 1.58 +/- 0.56 +/- 2.35 2 60 0.0380 0.98 12 0.89 0.43 1.73 Pre-uprate 2 24 0.2893 0.8653+/- 2.06 +/- 0.67 + 3.35 Post-uprate 0.52 0.18 0.41 2 36 0.3522 0.8385+/- 1.24 + 0.48 +/- 1.28 Sunmmer 0.03 0.30 0.83 33 1.5512 0.4604+ 0.11 +/- 0.66 + 1.74 1.96 1.10 0.06 Winter 2 27 1.3762 0.5025 3.77 +2 .87 +0 .05 Cynioscion nothus 1.43 0.80 0.14 2eio 33 0.038 0.980 All Events 0.12 47 0.27 2 60 0.2985 0.8613+/- 2.49 + 1.82 +/- 0.24 0.30 1.82 0.42 Pre-uprate 2 24 0.7534 0.6861+/- 3.77 +/- 2.87 +/- 0.17 0.0 0.656 4.3 0 .018 ____ ____Post-uprate 0.00 5.56 0.16 2 36 1.0310 0.5972+/- 0.00 +/- 0.19 +/- 0.29 Sunimer 0.22 1.33 0.4 2 33 0.0387 0.9808+/- 3.28 +/- 2.46 +/- 0.32________ +0.50 +_.07 +0.00_____

____Winter 0.00 7.41, .0 2 27 2.0000 0.3679+0.00 0.22 +/- 0.001 Leiostotius xanthurus Perio 4.07 0.273 f 1 All Events 0.2 40 .72 60 1.3369 0.5125+/- 0.42 +/-14.94 +/- 0.71 Pre-uprate 0.0 18 .22 24 0.1627 0.9219+/- 0.65 +/- 4.73 +/- 1.01 Post-uprate 0.0 55 .62 36 2.1831 0.3357+/- 0.00 1 !9.11 +/- 0.44 Sunuier 0.2 13 .22 33 0.2939 0.8634+/- 0.56 +/- 4.05 +/- 0.93 Winter 0.0 74 .8 1 2 27 2.2797 0.3199+/- 0.00 +/- 22.06 +/- 0.161 Table 44.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)Among Areas for RIS Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).All Events Pre-uprate 0.36 S0.7 0.70 0.48+/- 1.3ý0.38 0.69+ 1.76 2 60 0.1314 0.9364 0.53+/- 1.27 + 0.48 +/- 1.04 2 24 0.0742 0.9636 Post-uprate

+ 0.13 0.55 0.81 2 36 0.3994 0.8190+/- 0.32 +/- 1.77 +/- 2.15 Sunumer 0.14 0.13 0.78 33 0.9319 0.6275+ 0.36 +/- 0.29 +/- 2.22 Winter 0.62 0.91 0.59 2 27 0.1636 0.9215_ +_1.20 +/-2.01 +1.11 Micropogonias undulatus 0.76 2.62 1.46 All Events 2 60 1.1533 0.5618+/- 1.55 +/- 8.74 +/- 3.46 Pre-uprate 1.59 1.79 3.10 2 24 1.2083 0.5465+ 2.23 +/- 4.53 + 5.08 0.20 3.18 0.37 Post-uprate 2 36 0.2358 0.8888+/- 0.40 +/- 10.87 +/- 1.01 Sunmer 1.09 1.30 2.29 2 33 0.4023 0.8178+/- 2.04 +/- 3.88 +/- 4.50 Winter 0.35 4.24 0.44 2 27 1.6574 0.4366"+0.41 +12.55 + 1.03 Orthopristis chrysoptera m All Events 0.25 0.04 0.41 2 60 3.7946 0.1500+-0.39 +/--0.13 + 1.10 0.44 0.02 0.40 Pre-uprate 2 24 3.3133 0.1908+/- 0.51 +/- 0.07 +/- 0.84 Post-uprate 0.12 0.05 0.41 2 36 0.9146 0.6330+ 0.22 +/- 0.16 + 1.28 Sum. 0.22 0.02 0.48 Sunmer 02 33 1.7841 0.4098+/- 0.40 + 0.06 -1.33 0.28 0.06 0.32 Winter 2 27 2.1421 0.3426 1- +/-0.39 +/- 0.18 + 0.80 1 _ 1 Table 44.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)Among Areas for RIS Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).+ 1.84 + 0.81 + 1.67 2.10 0.54 0.98 Pre-uprate 2 24 2.6196 0.2699 P 2.50 + 1.14 +/- 1.63 Post-uprate 0.09 0.26 0.79 2 36 1.4811 0.4768+ 0.30 + 0.52 +/- 1.76 Sunmmer 0.67 0.09 1.10 33 0.6058 0.7387+/- 1.87 + 0.25 + 1.92 Winter 0.11 0. 2 27 0.6043 0.8391 01.87 +1.12 + 1.35 Prionotus scitulus 0.07 0.16 0.50 All Events- 2 60 0.3510 0.8391+/-+0.15 +/-0.225 +/- 1.27 Pre-uprate 0.6 00 .3 2 24 1.6006 0.4492+/-+0.12 + 0.10 +/-+0.72 Post-uprate 0.7 01 .0 2 36 0.5126 0.7739 S+0.17 +/-0.31 + 1.57 Sunmer 0.08 0.02 0.73 2 33 2.6237 0.2693+/- 0.15 + 0.08 + 1.68 Winter 0.5 02 .6 2 27 2.3111 0.3149+0.16 +0.34 +/- 0.17111 Scomberonwrus maculatus Peio LII SL2 SL3 dfI n H 1.57 2.26 2.24 All Events 2 60 0.4980 0.7796+/- 2.21 +/-4.92 +/-4.34 2.76 1.12 3.35 Pre-uprate 2 24 1.6097 0.4472+/- 2.67 +/- 2.30 +/- 6.24 Post-uprate 0.78 3.02 1.50 2 36 0.3130 0.8552+/- 1.48 +/- 6.07 +/- 2.51 Sunmier 0.97 2.34 3.05 2 33 0.4320 0.8058+/- 1.91 +/- 5.33 +/- 5.44 Winter 231 2.17 126 2 27 3.2935 0.1927+/-_2.44 + 4.68 + 2.40 Table 44.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)Among Areas for RIS Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).f All Events Pre-uprate 0.00+/- 0.0(0.00 0.22 0.37 S +0.79 +/- 1.44 2 60 4.0835 0.1298 0.11 0.13 2 24 3.2220 0.1997+/- 0.00 + 0.21 +/- 0.21 0.00 0.30 0.54 Post-uprate 2 36 1.0310 0.5972+ 0.00 +/- 1.02 +/- 1.86 Smnmer 0.00 0.08 0.66 2 33 3.2599 0.1959 S+0.00 + 0.19 +/- 1.93 Winter 0.00 0.39 0.02 2 27 1.0427 0.5937+ 0.00 +/-1.18 +/- 0.07 Umbrina coroides 0.08 0.10 0.35 All Events 2 60 0.0023 0.9989_______ J 0.36 0.45 + 1.55 ___ ____I0.20 0.00 0.00 Pre-uprate 2 24 2.0000 0.3679+/- 0.57 + 0.00 +/- 0.00 Post-uprate 0.00 0.17 0.58 2 36 1.0310 0.5972+/- 0.00 + 0.58 +/- 2.00 Summer 0.15 0.00 0.63 2 33 1.0341 0.5963+/- 0.49 +/- 0.00 +/- 2.09 Winter 0.00 0.22 0.00 2 27 2.0000 0.3679 I +/-_0.00 + 0.67 +/- 0.00 Table 45.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for RIS Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).CluDeiformes SL3 1.73 0.41 1 20 0.0103 0.9192+/- 2.06 +/- 1.24 SL2 040.8120 0.8328 0.3615+/- 0.67 +/- 0.48 SL3 170.1120 1.0281 0.3106+/-4 3.35 +12 Cvnoscion nothus SLI 1.96 0.006 0 3159 005 SL2 20 0.9857 0.3208+/- 2.87 +/- 0.19 SL3 0.06 0.08 1 20 0.0493 0.8242 L +/-0.17 +/- 0.29 1 1 1 SLI+/- 0.65+ 0.00 1 20 3.1579 0.0756 SL2 1.82 5.56 1 20 0.1949 0.6589+/- 4.73 = 19.11 SL3 0.42 0.16 1 20 0.8328 0.3615++/-1.01 +/-0.44 F -Menticirrhus spp.SLI 0.70 0.13 1 20 2.3162 0.1280+/-1.27 +/-_0.32 SL2 0.38 0.55 1 20 2.0357 0.1536+/- 0.48 +/- 1.77 SL3 0.53 0.81 20 0.6638 0.4152+/- 1.04 +/- 2.15 _ _ 1 Table 45.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for RIS Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Microvo~onias undulatus SL3 1.59 0.20 1 20 2.8862 0.0893+/- 2.23 +/- 0.40 _SL2 173.8 20 0.1949 0.6589+/- 4.53 +10.87 SL3 3.10 0.37 120 1.4805 0.2237+/- 5.08 + 1.01 Orthopristis chrysoptera 0.44 0.12+/- 0.51 +/- 0.22 SLI 20 2.0980 0. 1475_______} 0.02 0.05120. j SL2 +/-0.07 +/- 20 0.0493 0.8242+/- 0.07 +/- 0.16 SL3 0.40 0.41 1 20 0.8328 0.3615+/-0.84 +/- 1.28 Pomatomus saltatr&+/- 0.30 SL2 1 20 0.2737 0.6009+/- 1.14 +/- 0.52 SL3 0.98 0.79 1 20 0.1832 0.6686+/- 1.63 +/- 1.76 1 1 1 l Prionotus scitulus SLI 000.7120 0.0487 0.8253+/- 0.12 +/- 0.17 SL2 20 0.6851 0.4078+/- 0.10 +/- 0.31 SL3 0.33 0.50 1 20 0.6580 0.4173+/- 0.72 +/- 1.57 Table 45.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for RIS Captured by Gill Net, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).SL1 .607 20 2.5840 0.1080+/- 2.67 +/- 1.48 SL2 1 20 0.4565 0.4993+/- 2.30 +/- 6.07 SL3 3.35 1.50 1 20 0.0738 0.7859+6.24 +/-2.51 Trachinotus carolinus SLI 0.00 0.00 1 20 0.0000 1.0000+/- 0.00 +/- 0.00 SL2 0.11 0.30 1 20 0.7547 0.3850+/- 0.21 + 1.02 0.13 0.54 SL3 0.1 0.54 1 20 1.9030 0.1677+/-+0.21 +/- 1.86___ _____Umbrina coroides SLI 0.20 0.00 1 20 1.5000 0.2207+/- 0.57 +/- 0.00 SL2 0.00 0.17 1 20 0.6667 0.4142+ 0.00 +/- 0.58_0.00 _0.58__________

SL3 0.00 0.58 1 20 0.6667 0.4142+/- 0.00 +/-_2.00 I Table 46.Seasonal Comparison of Mean Total Length (mm) for RIS Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 SI ' S2S Mean Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter TL (mm Pre rPostt Pre Post Pe PPost Pre Post Pre [Post IPmm)Number of Samples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 180 Scomberomorus maculalus 4800 528.0 446.5 511.4 493.3 447.7 415.0 428.5 469.9 502.0 507.2 470.0 Poniatomnussallatrix 429.2 420.1 393.5 363.8 387.9 370.2 396.3 379.3 451.3 409.9 Af.enticirrhus litoralis 378.0 377.0 366.8 371.4 Brevoortia smithi 337.6 341.7 334.2 344.0 343.6 367.5 359.6 333.3 341.7 Xfenticirrhusaamericanus 361.7 346.0 332.3 376.8 314.3 239.5 344.0 319.0 332.1 Menlicirrhussaxatilis 326.3 306.7 328.5 320.5 320.3 Ah.hropogonias undulalus 266.9 293.5 263.4 261.2 247.3 271.8 247.2 315.0 263.4 Cvvnoscion nothus 257.8 259.8 310.3 305.0 261.0 Trachiotus carohnus 270.0 242.9 250.7 277.0 250.1 Umbrina coroides 216.4 272.2 247.8 Orthopristis ch/rsoptera 233.4 240.7 230.3 201.0 256.0 250.0 247.7 260.0 240.8 Opisthonenia oglnum 237.0 238.0 237.0 237.3 Leioslomus xanthurus 236.1 208.8 230.6 233.8 258.0 236.0 224.0 Brevoortza tvrannus 218.3 218.3 Prionotusscitulus 184.0 174.0 177.0 156.0 188.7 223.6 190.0 198.0 Mean TL (mm) ( 323.8 420.5 408.8 1385.1 310.0 [ 432.4 373.8 [ 305.7 J 364.6 413.7 309.1 [ 451.01 344.6 Table 47.Seasonal Comparison of Mean Weight (g) for RIS Captured by Gill Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Mean Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Weight Pre [Post Pre Post Pre I Post Pre J Post Pre J Post Pre I Post (g)Number of Samples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 180 PonmatomniussallatrLr 776.5 702.4 480.0 400.0 555.7 516.8 618.1 515.0 841.5 670.1 Scomberonorusrmaculatus 677.8 893.0 471.8 677.5 787.4 513.5 380.0 403.6 709.2 7750 726.4 631.9 Brevoortia smithi 455.6 421.7 545.8 502.3 460.0 476.0 570.0 415.2 466.8 A.Ienticirrhus litoralis 435.0 545.0 458.8 464.3 A.enticirrhusantericanus 505.0 423.3 356.7 585.0 322.1 315.0 441.3 304.0 398.9 Meniicirrhus satalils 355.0 310.0 350.5 360.0 342.8 A.licropogoniasundulatus 241.6 315.0 219.4 207.8 168.6 248.8 162.2 360.0 221.0 Un2brina coroides 147.1 262.8 212.2 Trachinolus carolius 277.5 184.7 210.0 266.0 207.7 Orlhopristischrvsoptera 201.9 216.7 152.7 120.0 220.0 246.7 213.7 280.0 207.3 Cynoscion nothus 181.5 162.6 292.0 200.0 178.9 Leiostonmusxanthurus 195.0 124.2 147.0 184.5 192.0 90.0 148.7 Brevoortia i,rannus 97.3 97.3 Prionotusscitulus 45.0 37.0 40.0 10.0 57.8 151.4 50.0 86.0 Opisihonenza oglinumn 125.0 115.0 15.0 85.0 Mean Weight (g) 1 377.1 ] 622.3 I 534.3 I 457.0 I 335.3 I 500.8 524.1 272.6 [ 485.81 521.7 [ 348.7 1 663.4 [ 407.3 Table 48.Seasonal Comparison of Total Calculated Biomass (kg) for RIS Captured by Gill Net Among A reas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI I _ SL2 SL3 Total Taxa Summer I Winter Sr e Pr nter Summer Winter Biomass Pre P Post Pre Post Pre P [ost Pre Post (kg)Number of Samples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 180 Scomberornorus maculatus 25.1 3.6 16.0 12.9 32.3 21.6 0.4 31.1 70.9 1.6 18.2 233.5 A4icropogonias undulatus 10.9 0.6 1.1 150 28.8 20.6 2.3 0.7 80.4 Pomatonmnssaltalrix 24.1 17.6 1.0 1.6 3.9 5.7 16.7 1.5 8.4 80.0 Leiostomus xanthurus 2.0 9.2 43.9 2.0 0.2 0.1 57.4 Brevoorha smith, 5.0 3.8 3.3 1.5 2.3 1.0 9.7 17.9 44.4 Atfenticirrhus americanus 5.1 1.3 1.1 2.3 8.4 0.6 5.7 0.3 24.8 Ctnosc'on nowhus 11.1 5.4 0.9 0.4 17.7 Orthopristis chrysoptera 1.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.7 2.4 0.3 6.4 Trachinotus carolinus 1.1 2.8 0.6 0.3 4.8 A.lenticirrhus saratilhs 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 3.8 Umnbrina coroides 1.0 2.4 3.4 Me,,ticirrhus littoralis 0.9 0.5 1.8 3.3 Prionotus sci/ulus 0.1 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.3 1.1 0.1 1.6 Brevoortia tyrannus 0.3 0.3 Opisthonema oglinum 0. I 0.1 0.0 0.3 Total Biomass (kgl 178.1 3.7 44.9 1 20.8 1 69.9 23.2 8.9 [126.1 124.2 1.6 30.8 [ 29.9 562.0 Table 49.Seasonal Comparisons of Mean Calculated Biomass (g) from the Mean Weight for RIS Captured by Gill Net, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Pre- or Post- Area Mean Biomass Season pa Uprate SLI SL2 SL3 (kg)Pre 7.8 6.4 11.3 8.5 Summer Post 1.2 7.7 0.8 3.3 Pre 7.5 2.2 3.8 4.5 Post 2.6 10.5 3.7 5.6 Mean Biomass (kg) 4.8 6.7 J 4.9 J 5.5 Table 50.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Crustaceans and Fish Captured by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SI3 Taxa SummerWinter j Sum Winter Summer Winter Total-Pre Post Pre Post Pre I Post Pre Post Pre J Post Pre [Post Number of Samples [ 15 1i I I .uis [ 9 [ 18 180 Arenaeus cribrarius*

12 1 2 41 1 1 2 82 142 Albuneidae*

3 9 12 Emerita talpoa*a 5 7 12 Emerita sp.* 1 6 1 8 Majoidea 2 2 Panuirus argus* 1 1 2 Callinectes sp.* I I Farfantepenaeus duorarum*

I I Libinia dubia I I Paguroidea 1 1 Plagusia depressa 1 1 Portunidae I 1 Total Crustaceans 112 7 0 1 2 54 1 5 1 I 84 6 1[ 184 Harengulajaguana*

5 2,417 6 5 1 195 1 3 18,382 10,418 22 31,455 Umbrinacoroides**

195 221 5 69 133 386 2 122 336 595 11 112 2,187 Chloroscombrus chrysurus 960 149 1 9 18 47 118 21 6 1,329 Eucinostomus harengulus 28 15 I I 1 1,123 1,178 Sardinella aurita ** 155 185 3 701 72 1,116 Menticirrhuslittoralis*

68 99 2 64 65 134 5 43 142 117 31 30 800 Eucinostoinus gpila 23 3 367 11 1 185 12 2 604 Anchoa Ivolepis 1 2 570 5 53 Engraulis eurystole*

498 498 Opisthonema ogimnum* 4 2 18 397 3 424 Selar crumenophthalmus 74 9 1 31 272 387 Trachinotus carolinus*

59 21 1 42 62 3 2 78 91 1 15 375 Caranx cn.'sos 199 1 2 68 2 272 Table 50.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Crustaceans and Fish Captured by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer I Winter Total Pre [Post Pre [Post Pre I Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre IPost Anchoa sp.** 127 55 9 I1 202 Harengula humeralis**

1 138 15 154 Trachinotusfalcatus 6 16 14 15 4 5 32 4 14 1 14 125 Anchoa hepselia ** I 14 4 59 78 Eucinosiomus argenteug 21 5 2 19 7 54 Selene vomer I 13 4 2 4 6 1 2 2 6 7 48 Polvdacoylus v'rginicus 1 7 1 1 2 1 9 4 3 29 Caranx latus 1 1 2 17 21 Elops saurus 1 1 11 2 5 20 Centropomus undecinialis 1 4 4 2 1 7 19 A4ugil curenza 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 17 A.fenticirrhus anmericanus**

2 1 4 3 4 14 Ponatonwus saltatrix

1 1 11 13 Trachinotus goodei 1 3 5 3 12 Carangoides bartholonaei 5 5 10 Oligoplites saurus 4 1 3 8 Caratnx hippos 1 3 1 1 I 7 Eucinostomus jonesii 5 2 7 Menticirrhus saxatilis*

6 1 7 Bairdiella chrvsoura 6 6 Albula vulpes 4 1 5 Archosargus probatocephalus 4 4 4icropogonias undulazis

- 1 1 2 4 Selene se/apmnis 1 2 1I1 4 Eiruneus teres** I 2 3 Polvdacovlus oligodon 2 I 3 Pseudocaranr dentex 3 3 Scomberomorus maculatus

1 2 3 Sphlraena guachancho 3 3 Table 50.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Crustaceans and Fish Captured by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer [ Winter Total Pre [Post Pre J Post Pre IPost Pre I Post Pre[ Post Pre [Post C'Iharichthvs macrops 1 1 2 Stephanolepis hispida 2 2 Alosa sp.** 1 Anisoirenius surinaenensis 1 1 Bagre marinus 1 1 Caranr sp I 1 Carcharhinus brevipinna I I Ceptroponius sp. I 1 Chaeodipterus faber I 1I Decapterus macarellus I 1 Diaopterus auralus 1 1 Dorosomna peletnense**

I 1 Gerres cinereus I 1 Hemiramnphus brasiliensis I I Hvyorhamnphus meeki I I Hypnrhamnphus unifasciautu I I Lagodon rhomboides 1 1 Leioslomus sanlhurus$*

I I A4ugil cephalus 1 1 Myliobatidae 1 1 Sphyrna fiburo I I Trachinocephalus mvops I s ,Total Fish 1,812 [3,111 [ 45 [178 1,0041 966 ] 83 237 20,575 13,784 63 [247 142,105 Total All Organisms 1,824 3,118 45 179 1,006 1,020 84 242 20,586 13,868 69 248 42,289*Commercially and recreationally important (CRI) decapod crustaceans-Representative Important Species (RIS)

Table 51.Seasonal Comparison of Number ofCrustaceans and Fish Captured per Event by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SLU Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total PreI PostPre____ost__re r Pre P Pre Post Pre Post Pre- Post NumberofSamples j 15 18 1 9 181 15 18 [ 9 118 15 ] 18 9 18 180 Arenaeus cribrarin,*

2.40 0.17 0.40 6.83 0.33 0.17 0.40 13.67 7.10 Albuneidac*

0.50 1.80 0.60 Emnerita 'alpoida*

0.83 1.17 0.60 Emerita sp.* 0.17 2.00 0.17 0.40 Majoidea 0.33 0.10 Pamdnrus argus* 0.17 0.17 0.10 Callinecles sp.* 0.17 0.05 Farfantepenaeus duorarum*

0.17 0.05 Libinia dubia 0.17 0.05 Paguroidea 0.17 0.05 Plagusia depressa 0.17 0.05 Portunidae 0.17 T 0.05 Total Crustaceans/Event

[2.40 1.17 10.001 0.17 0.40 9.00 [ 0.33 0.83 2.20 14.00 2.00 0.17 9.20.%r; -.i I ý,t _______ '1K 'Ara,'_Harengulajaguana*

1.00 402.83 2.00 0.83 0.20 32.50 0.33 0.50 3,676.40 1,736.33 3.67 1,572.75 Unibrinacoroides*

39.00 36.83 1.67 11.50 26.60 64.33 0.67 20.33 67.20 99.17 3.67 18.67 109.35 Chloroscombrus chr3'surus 192.00 24.83 0.33 1.50 3.60 7.83 23.60 3.50 1.00 66.45 Eucinostonmus Iarengulus 5.60 3.00 1.83 0.20 187.17 58.90 Sardinella aurita 31.00 37.00 0.50 140.20 12.00 55.80 AMfenicirrhuslittoralis-13.60 16.50 0.67 10.67 13.00 22.33 1.67 7.17 28.40 19.50 10.33 5.00 40.00 Eucinostonus gula 4.60 0.50 73.40 1.83 0.17 37.00 2.00 0.33 30.20 Anchoa lvolepis**

0.20 0.40 95.00 28.65 Engrauhs eurystole

99.60 24.90 Opisthonena oglinum**

0.67 0.40 3.00 66.17 0.50 21.20 Selar crumenophthalmus 14.80 1.50 0.20 6.20 45.33 0.00 19.35 Trachinotuscarolinus" 11.80 3.50 0.33 8.40 10.33 1.00 0.33 15.60 15.17 0.33 2.50 18.75 Caranrxcrysos 39.80 0.17 0.40 13.60 0.33 1 13.60 Table 51.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Crustaceans and Fish Captured per Event by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer [ Winter Summer Winter Summer I Winter Total Pre Post Pre [Post Pre J Post Pre I Post Pre I Post Pre Post Anchoa sp.** 21.17 9.17 1.50 1.83 10.10 Harengula humeralis 0.20 27.60 3.00 7.70 Trachinonisfalcatus 1.20 2.67 2.33 3.00 0.67 1.67 5.33 0.80 2.33 0.33 2.33 6.25 Anchoahepsetus*

0.17 4.67 0.67 19.67 3.90 Eucinostonmus argenteus 4.20 1.00 0.40 3.17 1.17 2.70 Selene voiner 0.20 2.17 1.33 0.33 0.67 2.00 0.17 0.40 0.33 2.00 1.17 2.40 Polydac'lus virginicus 0.20 1.17 0.33 0.17 0.40 0.17 1.50 0.67 0.50 1.45 Caraxt Ian& 0.17 0.33 0.40 2.83 1.05 Elopssaurus 0.17 0.33 1.83 0.33 0.83 1.00 Centroponm" undecimahs 0.20 0.67 1.33 0.40 0.17 1.17 0.95 A-f ugil curema 0.20 0.33 0.50 0.17 0.33 0.60 0.83 0.85 A-fenticirrn,tramnericanus**

0.33 0.17 0.67 0.50 0.67 0.70 Pomaronius saltalra

0.20 0.20 3.67 0.65 Trachinausgoodej 0.17 0.50 0.83 0.50 0.60 Carangoides bartholonaei 0.83 0.83 0.50 Oligoplites saurus 0.67 0.17 0.50 0.40 Caruinx hippos 0.17 0.50 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.35 Eucinosiomusjonesii 1.00 0.40 0.35 Adenlicirrhus strawl/is**

1.20 0.17 0.35 Bairdiella chrysoura 2.00 0.30 Abula vulpes 0.67 0.17 0.25.4rchosargus probatocephalus 0.80 0.20 Aficropogonias undulatus**

0.20 0.20 0.67 0.20 Selene selapinnis 0.20 0.33 0.17 0.20 Etrurneus leres* 0,20 0.33 0.15 PolydacIvius oligodon 0.33 O. 17 0.15 Pseudocarant dentex 0.50 0.15 Scomberomorus nzaculalus*

0.33 0.33 0.15 Sphvraena guachancho 0.50 0.15 Table 51.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Crustaceans and Fish Captured per Event by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer I Winter Summer I Winter Total Pre I Post Pre [Post Pre I Post] Pre I Post Pre Post Pre J Postitharichthi's macrops 0.17 0.20 0.10 Stephanolepis hispida 0.33 0.10 41osa sp.** 0.17 0.05 4nisotrenmus surinamnensis 0.17 0.05 Bagre marinus 0.20 0.05 Caranx sp. 0.20 0.05 Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.17 0.05 Centroponius sp. 0.17 0.05 Chaetodipterusfaber 0.17 0.05 Decapterus macarellus 0.17 0.05 Diaplerus auratus 0.17 0.05 Dorosonia petenense**

0.17 0.05 Gerres cinereus 0.17 0.05 Hemiramphus brasilieznsis 0.20 0.05 Hyporhamphus meeki 0.17 0.05 Hyvporhamphus uniftasciatus 0.20 0.05 Lagodon rhomboides 0.17 0.05 Leiostonus xanthurus**

0.17 0.05 M.1ugi cephalus 0.17 0.05 Myliobatidae I017 0.05 Sphvrna tiburo 0. 17 0.05 Trachinocephalus mvops 0. 17 t 0.05 Total Fish/Event 362 15.00 29.67 200.80 161.00 27.671 39.50 4,115.00 2,297.33 21.00 41.17 2,105.25 Total Specimens/Event 364.80 519.67 15.00 29.83 201.20 170.00 28.00 40.33 4,117.20 2,311.33 23.00 41.33 12,114.45*Conimercially and recreationally important (CRI) decapod crustaceans

- Representative Important Species (RIS)

Table 52.Seasonal Comparison of Mean Number of Fish Captured by Beach Seine, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Season Pre- or Post- Area Total Uprate SL1 SL2 SL3 Pre 362.40 200.80 4,115.00 4,678.20 Summer* _ _ _ _Post 518.50 161.00 2,297.33 2,976.83 Pre 15.00 27.67 21.00 63.67 WVinter j______ ____________

Post 29.67 39.50 41.17 110.33 Total Fish/Event 257.30 114.50 1,733.45 2,105.25 Table 53.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Total Number of Individuals, and Biomass Among Areas for Fish and RIS (All Species Combined)Captured by Beach Seine, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Fish Taxa All Events 6.90 6.50 7.60 2 60 0.0941 0.9540+/-: 4.08 + 3.68 +/- 5.49 I Pre-uprate 6.13 6.75 6.00 2 24 0.5498 0.7597+/-4.58 +/-4.13 +/-4.60 Post-uprate 7.42 6.33 8.67 2 36 0.8232 0.6626+/- 3.83 +/- 3.53 + 5.96 Summer 8.36 7.91 9.82 2 33 0.3852 0.8248+/- 4.80 +/- 4.01 +/- 6.42 Winter 5.11 4.78 4.89 2 27 0.1174 0.9430+_2.03 +/- 2.44 +/- 2.26 1 1 1 Total Fis I I 257.30 114.50 1733.45 All Events 2 60 0.5247 0.7692+ 610.86 +/- 140.72 + 4726.45 232.13 135.88 2579.75 Pre-uprate 2 24 0.2860 0.8668+/- 514.49 +/- 184.08 +/- 6515.50 274.08 100.25 1169.25 Post-uprate 2 36 0.4742 0.7889+/- 689.43 +/- 109.94 +/- 3271.56 Summer 447.55 179.09 3123.55 2 33 0.4848 0.7847+/- 787.43 +/- 161.80 +/-6141.68 Winter 23.75 35.6 28.00 2 27 0.8591 0.6508+/- 24.13 +/- 39.47 + 32.07 Total Fish Caught Excluding Harengulujaguana All Events 72.25 83.5 299.25 2 60 0.6801 0.7117+/- 328.37 +/- 133.23 +/- 623.77 Pre-uprate 23.5 15.3 220 24 0.1555 0.9252+514.85 +183.92 +/- 659.64 Post-uprate 722 37 9.5 2 36 0.8012 0.6699+/- 81.28 +/- 89.21 +/- 628.51 Summer 227.36 161.27 505.36 2 33 0.7212 0.6973+/- 428.79 +/-_156.93 +/-_792.33 Winter 23.56 35.11 32.00 27 0.6858 0.7097+/- 23.76 +/- 39.01 +/- 26.66 Table 53.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Total Number of Individuals, and Biomass Among Areas for Fish and RIS (All Species Combined)Captured by Beach Seine, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).RIS Fish Taxa All Events 3.30 3.50 3.75 2 60 0.523 1 0.7698+/- 1.69 +/- 1.79 +/- 1.68 2.88 3.88 3.50 Pre-uprate 2 1.55 3.59 2 24 1.2475 0.5359+1.55 +/-1.55 +1.69 Post-uprate 3.58 3.25 3.92 2 36 0.1959 0.9067+ 1.78 +/- 1.96 +/- 1.73 Summer 4.00 4.36 4.55 2 33 0.2037 0.9031+/- 1.73 +/- 1.12 +/- 1.69 Winter 2.44 2.44 2.78 2 27 0.8421 0.6564+/-:1.24 +_1.94 + 1.09 Total RIS Fish Caught All Events 177.40 84.30 1633.75 2 60 1.0269 0.5984+/- 525.46 +/- 100.69 +/- 4556.35 Pre-uprate 64.00 80.75 2526.50 2 24 0.6958 0.7062+/- 90.69 +/- 109.60 +/- 6459.41 Post-uprate 253.00 86.67 1038.58 2 36 0.6948 0.7065+/- 675.34 +/- 99.26 +/- 2888.10 Summer 307.00 130.18 2947.27 33 0.8586 0.6510+/-695.10 -113.58 +/--5935.18 Winter 19.00 28.22 28.33 2 27 1.5588 0.4587[-+/- 21.84 +/- 39.02 +/- 31.75 1 1 Total RIS Fish Caught Excluding Harengulajaguana All Events 557 43 9.5 2 60 1. 1511 0.5624+/- 78.43 +/- 90.11 +/-+408.78 Pre-uprate 62.63 80.50 228.75 2 24 0.3069 0.8578+/- 90.46 +/- 109.68 +/- 579.92 51.17 70.17 168.58 Post-uprate 2 36 1.3562 0.5076+/- 73.22 +/- 79.51 +/- 270.26 86.82 112.36 329.09 2 33 0.9819 0.6121+/-94.71 +/-_103.44 +/-521.00 17.78 27.78 25.89 Winter 2 27 1.4586 0.4822+/- 21.22 +/- 38.50 +/- 26.05 1 1 Table 53.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Total Number of Individuals, and Biomass Among Areas for Fish and RIS (All Species Combined)Captured by Beach Seine, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).RIS Fish Biomass All Events 2460.80 827.36 25041.92 260 2.4859 0.2885 S+5308.10

+/-1186.29 +/-63613.40 2108.54 589.02 35624.66 Pre-uprate 2 24 0.5000 0.7788+3707.57 +/- 763.07 +/- 78118.23 2695.64 986.25 17986.76 Post-uprate 2 36 1.9117 0.3845+/- 6306.31 +/-1411.16 +/-54502.85 Summer 4098.42 1357.97 44980.81 2 33 0.5309 0.7669+/-6837.90 +/- 1387.07 +/- 81954.03 Winter 459.27 178.83 672.16 2 27 5.9524 0.0510+/- 526.59 +/- 277.60 +/- 695.30 RIS Fish Biomass Excluding Harengulajaguana p ._I a Valu Pe Are +,pd n1 Al Events 1215.99 768.50 4934.13 Al Eets260 2. 1868 0.3351+/-2501.42 +/-1160.11 +/- 14085.77 2094.53 585.41 8092.31 Pre-uprate 2 24 0.3800 0.8270+/- 3821.84 +/- 762.04 +/- 21754.35 630.30 890.57 2828.68 Post-uprate 2 36 2.0003 0.3678+/- 759.69 +/- 1383.65 +/- 5427.37 Summer 1880.39 1262.54 8511.95 2 33 0.4336 0.8051+ 3252.34 +/- 1380.77 +/- 18586.79 403.94 561.25 Winter +/- 538.21 164.68 +/- 521.46 2 27 6.1006 0.0473 I +/- 259.81 Table 54.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Total Number of Individuals, and Biomass for Fish and RIS Captured by Beach Seine, Pre-and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Fish Taxa SLI 6.13 7.42 1 20 1.0198 0.3126+/- 4.58 +/- 3.83 _____SL2 6.75 6.33 1 20 0.0015 0.9690+/-4.13 +3.53 SL3 6.00 8.67 1 20 1.9521 0.1624+4.60 +/-5.96 Total Fish Caught SLI 232.13 274.08 1 20 0.7208 0.3959+514.49 +689.43 ____SL2 135.88 100.25 1 20 0.0015 0.9692+ 184.08 +/- 109.94 SL3 2579.75 1169.25 1 20 0.6567 0.4177+/- 6515.50 + 3271.56 _Total Fish Caught Excluding Harengulajaguana 135.6.*3 83.75 SLI 207 22 1 20 0.3815 0.5368________ +/- 514.85 +/- 81.28 ____SL2 135.63 83.75 1 20 0.0000 1.0000+ 183.92 + 89.21 SL3 282.00 299.25 1 20 1.0856 0.2974+/- 659.64 + 628.51 F RIS Fish Taxa SL2 1 20 0.5599 0.4543+/- 1.55 +/- 1.78 SL2 383.5120 0.3460 0.5564+/-+1.55 + 1.96 SL3 0 3.92 1 20 0.1899 0.6630 k791.69 +/- 1.73 1 1 1 Table 54.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa, Total Number of Individuals, and Biomass for Fish and RIS Captured by Beach Seine, Pre-and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).SLI I 20 0.8604 0.3536+/- 90.69+/- 675.34 SL2 80.75 86.67 1 20 0.0015 0.9692+/- 109.60 +/- 99.26 SL3 2526.50 1038.58 1 20 0.7884 0.3746 6459.41 +/- 2888.10 Total RIS Fish Caught Excluding Harengulajaguana SLI 62.63 51.17 1 20 0.4840 0.4866+/- 90.46 +/- 73.22 SL2 80.50 70.17 1 20 0.0000 1.0000+/- 109.68 5 79.51 SLU 589.02 98.58 1 20 1.2534 0.2629+/-3579.92 270.26 1 RIS Fish Biomass 2108.54 2695.64 20 0.0238 0.8774 S3707.57 +/- 6306.31 SL2 [ 589.02 986.25 20 0.0953 0.7575+/- 763.07 +/- 1411.16 S3 35624.66 17986.76 120 1.1667 0.2801 78118.23 +/- 54502.85111 RIS Fish Biomass Excluding Harengljqun 2L 045 603 0 0.0000 1.0000 SL2 55489.7120 0.0238 0.8773+/-762.04 +/-1383.65 S1 20 1.5238 0.2170+/- 21754.35 1_5427.37 I I Table 55.Seasonal Comparison of Number of RIS Captured by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SJU Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre [Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre ] Post Pre Post Pre J Post NumberofSamples 15 18 1 9 18 15 18 I 9 18 15, 18 9 18 180<J'C114eiformeU.-

ks/i% 7 ~ >>A M i.~Harengulajaguana 5 2,417 6 5 1 195 1 3 18,382 10,418 22 31,455 Sardinella aurita 155 185 3 701 72 1,116 Anchoa lyolepis 1 2 570 573 Engraulis eunrstole 498 498 Opisthonemna ogliumn 4 2 18 397 3 424 Anchoa sp. 127 1 55 9 11 202 Harengula humeralis 1 138 15 154 Anchoa hepsetus 1 14 4 59 78 Etrunimeus teres 1 2 3 ,losa sp. I I Dorosoma petenense I I Total Clupeiformes 161 2,550 20 9 327 271 60 12 19,5991 11,460 0 36 34,505':OtheiRT-ilst CS? r3/4 1/2 _____ 9 i t' 1Ml Urnbrinacoroudes 195 221 5 69 133 386 2 122 336 595 11 112 2,187 Menticirrhus littoralis 68 99 2 64 65 134 5 43 142 117 31 30 800 Trachmotus carolinus 59 21 1 42 62 3 2 78 91 1 15 375 Alenticirrhus arnericanus 2 1 4 3 4 14 Poniatomus saltatrix 1 1 11 13 fenticirrhus saxatihs 6 1 7 Alicropogonias und/alaus 1 1 2 4 Scomberomorus maculatus 1 2 3 Letsiontus xanthurus 1 1 Total Other RIS 323 343 8 134 248 586 11 171[557 1804 56 163 3,404 Total All RIS 484 2,893 28 143 575 857 71 183 20,156 12.264 56 199 37,909 Table 56.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Total Individuals Among Areas for RIS Captured by Beach Seine During All Events, Seasons, Pre- and Post-Uprate Sampling Events, St. Lucie Plant EPU. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Clupeiformes All vens 137.00 33.50 1554.75 26 .33 094 AllEvents

+ 527.35 + 56.88 + 4519.36 0.9845 22.63 48.38 2449.88 Pre-uprate 2 24 0.3528 0.8383+ 53.93 +/- 73.98 + 6452.66 213.25 23.58 958.00 Post-uprate 2 36 0.3446 0.8417+/- 680.19 +/- 42.85 + 2794.91 Sununer 246.45 54.36 2823.54 2 33 0.7488 0.6877+ 706.45 +/- 69.14 + 5905.22 Winter 3.22 8.00 4.00 2 27 0.6225 0.7325+_6.82 + 19.46 +/- 8.67 Leiostonus xanthurus 0.00 0.05 0.00 All Events 0.00 0.05 0.00 2 60 2.0000 0.3679_________

+ 0.00 =+ 0.22 + 0.00 _______________

Pre-uprate 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 24 0.0000 1.0000+ 0.00 +/- 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 Post-uprate 2 36 2.0000 0.3679+ 0.00 +/- 0.29 + 0.00 Summer 200 0.00 0.00 33 0.0000 1.0000+/-- 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 0.00 0. 11 0.00 Winter 0.0 01 .02 27 2.0000 0.3679+0.00 +0.33 + 0.00 Allenticirrh

.11.802 60 1.0036 0.6054+ 18.82 + 14.02 +/--25.03 2 61.0 065 8.75 9.50 21.63 Pre-uprate 2 24 1.5003 0.4723+/- 11.77 + 14.27 +/- 37.87 13.83 15.33 12.67 Post-uprate 2 36 0.5594 0.7560+/- 22.63 +/- 13.97 + 11.59 Sunmmer 15.36 19.00 23.64 2 33 1.3963 0.4975+/- 19.66 +_14.45 -_31.33 Winter 744 5.67 7.22 2 27 0.5740 0.7505 i +/- 17.87 +/- 9.80 +/- 9.71 Table 56.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Total Individuals Among Areas for RIS Captured by Beach Seine During All Events, Seasons, Pre- and Post-Uprate Sampling Events, St. Lucie Plant EPU. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Micropogonias undulatus---..w. °All Events 0.05 0.05 0.10 2 60 0.0017 0.9991+/- 0.22 +/- 0.22 +/- 0.44 [Pre-uprate 0.13 0.13 0.25 2 24 0.0114 0.9943+/-0.35 +/-0.35 +/-0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 Post-uprate 2 36 0.0000 1.0000+/- 0.00 + 0.00 +/- 0.00 Sununer 0.09 0.09 0.00 33 1.0323 0.5968+/- 0.30 +/- 0.30 +/- 0.00 Winter 0.00 0.00 0.22 2 27 2.0000 0.3679+ 0.00 +_0.00 +/- 0.67 1 ----1 Pomatomus saltatrix All Events 0.00 0.13 1.50 2 60 2.1040 0.3492+ 0.00 + 0.22 +/- 2.46 Pre-uprate 0.0 01 .0 2 24 2.2765 0.3204+/- 0.00 +/- 0.35 +/- 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 Post-uprate 2 36 0.0000 1.0000+/- 0.00 +/- 0.00 +/- 0.00 Summer 0.00 0.09 0.09 2 33 1.0323 0.5968+/- 0.00 +/- 0.30 +/- 0.30 0.00 0.00 1.22 Winter 1 .0 00 .2 2 27 2.0000 0.3679+/-0.00 q-0.00 +/- 3.67 Scomberomtorus maculatus 0.00 0.05 0.10 All Events 2 60 2.0702 0.3552+/- 0.00 +0.22 +/-0.31 0.00 0.13 0.00 Pre-uprate 2 24 2.0000 0.3679+/- 0.00 +/- 0.35 +/- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 Post-uprate 2 36 4.1176 0.1276+ 0.00 + 0.00 +/- 0.39 Sunmler 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 33 0.0000 1.0000+ 0.00 +/- 0.00 + 0.00 Winter 0.00 0.11 0.22 2 27 2.1667 0.3385 I +/-_0.00 +/- 0.33 +/- 0.44 Table 56.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Total Individuals Among Areas for RIS Captured by Beach Seine During All Events, Seasons, Pre- and Post-Uprate Sampling Events, St. Lucie Plant EPU. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Trachiniolus carolinus All Events 4.05 5.45 9.25 2 60 1.7240 0.4223* 10.39 +/- 9.78 + 15.12 Pre-uprate 7.50 5.63 9.88 2 24 0.1938 0.9076+ 16.13 + 7.89 +/- 16.91 Post-uprate 1.75 5.33 8.83 36 3.1432 0.2077+/- 2.56 +/- 11.20 +/- 14.57 Summer 7.27 9.45 15.36 2 33 1.6239 0.4440-13.41 +/- 11.89 -18.18 0.11 0.56 1.78 Winter 2 27 2.6433 0.2667+/- 0.33 +/-1.13 +-3.90 Umbrina coroides 24.50 32.15 52.70 All Events 24.50 3 52. 70 2 60 0.6848 0.7100+/--43.11 +/--52.86 +/--99.43 ____25.00 16.88 43.38 Pre-uprate 2 24 0.3236 0.8506+/- 44.74 +/- 30.55 -112.64 Post-uprate 24.17 42.33 58.92 2 36 1.1639 0.5588+/- 43.99 +/- 62.85 +/- 94.32 Summe 37.82 47.18 84.64 2 33 0.4529 0.7973+/- 54.61 +/- 65.11 +/- 126.65 Winter 8.22 13.78 13.67 2 27 1.0643 0.5873 I- +/-11.95 +/- 25.44 +/- 17.68 Table 57.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Total Individuals Among Areas for RIS Captured by Beach Seine, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).I Clupeiformes I SLI 2.88 9 5 1 20 0.1326 0.7158+ 53.93 +7680.19 SL2 4.82.8120 0.6564 0.4178+/- 73.98 +/- 42.85 SU ~2449.88 958.00 12 .36 070+/-4 6452.67 +/-2794.91 I Leiosto, nus xanth urus SL1 0.00 0.00 1 20 0.0000 1.0000+ 0.00 +/- 0.00 SL2 000.8120 0.6667 0. 4142+/- 0.00 +/- 0.29 SUL.03.0 20 0.0000 1.0000+ 0.00 +/- 0.00 Menticirrhus SDD.21.63 12.67 SL3 1 20 1.1764 0.2781* 11.77 +/- 22.63 SL2 9.01.3120 0.7944 0.3728* 14.27 +/- 13.97 21631.63 20 0.0015 0.9692+/- 37.87 +/- 11.59 11 F Micro ogonias undulatus 0 ..130.00 SL1. 20 1.5000 0.2207+/-z 0.35 +/- 0.00+/-0.35 +/-0.00 SL3 0. 0.00 1 20 1.5000 0.2207_________

++/-0.71 +_0.00 _____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____

Table 57.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Total Individuals Among Areas for RIS Captured by Beach Seine, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Pomatomus saltatrix SL1 .000 20 0.0000 1.0000+ 0.00 + 0.00 SL2 20 1.5000 0.2207+/- 0.35 + 0.00 SL3 1.50 0.00 1 20 3.1579 0.0756 S +3.85 +/- 0.00 1 1 Sconiberornorus macu latus SL1 0.00 0.17 1 20 0.0000 1.0000 S +0.00 +/- 0.00 SL2 010.01 20 1.5000 0.2207+/- 0.35 + 0.00 SUL.3 01 1 20 1.4074 0.2355+/- 0.00 +/- 0.39 Trachinotus carolinus SLI 9.88 8.83 1 20 0.6825 0.4087+ 16.13 + 2.56 SL2 565.31 20 0.2255 0.6349+/- 7.89 +/- 11.20 SL3 9.88 8.83 1 20 0.1558 0.6930+/-16.91 +/- 14.57 111 Umbrina coroides 25.00 24.17 SLI 20 0.4876 0.4850+/- 44.74 +/- 43.99 Table 58.Seasonal Comparison of Mean Total Length (mm) for RIS Captured by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Summer Winter Summer Winter. Summer Winter e L(: oj TL (..I Pre Post Pre IPost Pre I Post I Pre I Post Pre Post Pre I Post Number of Samples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 180 Scomberomorus maculatus 28.00 369.00 255.33 Leiosiornus xanhurus 236.00 236.00 Alicropogonias undulatus 240.00 220.00 168.50 199.25 Menlcirrh hlittoralis 82.70 95.15 241.50 94.00 90.97 96.49 85.84 102.50 165.85 101.52 78.32 99.49 103.78 Dorosona petenense 102.30 102.30 Harengula laguano 68.00 106.53 167.67 126.06 107.00 68.65 117.00 152.23 86.08 91.17 155.77 94.56 Umbrinacoroides 125.15 77.90 74.48 100.24 82.70 74.71 54.10 65.94 101.73 110.42 86.22 99.97 94.17 Opisthonemna oglinum 76.40 92.50 75.97 89.34 203.00 89.94 Alosa sp. 85.50 85.50 Trachinotuscarolinus 101.57 87.57 69.00 91.72 79.65 50.67 62.50 94.69 69.99 390.00 80.26 85.49 Sardinellaaurita 104.08 68.24 81.50 79.75 87.73 84.16 Menticrrhus americanus 67.95 303.00 63.70 58.69 71.28 82.49 Etrumeus teres 38.00 94.65 75.77 Engraulis eurstole 73.80 73.80 Harengula humeralis 69.90 73.13 69.48 72.33 4nchoa lvolepis 60.30 40.85 69.92 69.19 Mentieirrhus saxatilis 51.17 87.50 56.36 Pomatonus saltatrir 49.20 132.00 43.90 51.68 ,4nchoa hepsetus 57.60 29.20 84.28 32.17 1 _ 1 34.85.4nchioa sp. 18.10 30.51 26.01 27.56 Mean TL (mm) j 106.46 91.30 1 90.06 [102.18 82.54 80.80I 38.48 1 75.78 1 102.86. 93.63 [ 82.45 1 104.26[ 91.41 Table 59.Seasonal Comparison of Mean Weight (g) for RIS Captured by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 SLI S2 SUTotal Mean Taxa Summer [ Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Weight (g)Pre I Post I Pre IPost Pre Post Pre I Post Pre I Post I Pre I Post Number of Samples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 180 Scomberomorus maculatus 0.1 235.3 156.9 Iicropogonias undulatus 380.0 119.4 58.5 154.1 Leiostonus xanthnirus 139.6 139.6 f,[nticirrhus littoralis 10.7 11.4 398.0 11.7 13.3 24.9 6.4 16.2 87.0 22.1 6.8 14.7 26.7 Aflenicirrhus americanus 2.5 325.0 2.6 1.8 4.8 26.0 Umnbrmacoroides 57.5 9.2 9.0 27.7 8.1 7.4 1.6 4.2 12.4 31.3 20.3 21.0 20.7 Trachinotuscarolihnu 18.3 14.8 5.1 17.2 12.1 1.9 4.3 19.0 6.9 708.0 14.7 15.7 Harengulajaguana 3.0 16.5 54.5 24.3 15.0 3.4 14.0 37.8 7.3 10.5 44.0 12.5 Dorosoma petenense 9.2 9.2 Opisthonema oglmum 4.6 6.7 4.5 6.4 79.4 8.4 Sardinella aurita 12.2 3.6 4.2 3.0 5.7 5.2 Etrumeus leres 0.3 7.2 4.9 Harengula humeralis 3.5 4.1 3.2 3.9 Engraulis eurvstole 3.2 3.2 Akenticirrhus sara/ilis 2.7 5.6 3.1 Poanalomus saltairix 1.0 27.0 0.8 3.0 Anchoa lyolepis 1.4 0.4 2.2 2.1 Alosa sp. 0.5 0.5 Anchoa hepsetus 1 4 0.1 4.9 0.1 0.4 Anchoa sp. 0.1 0. 1 0.1 0.1 Mean Weight (g) 33.4 J 12.1 j 47.0 ] 27.3 [ 9.7 12.4 0.9 [ 8.4 24.1 [ 16.4 23.1 I 23.8 17.5 Table 60.Seasonal Comparisons of Calculated and Mean Biomass (kg) ror RIS Captured by Beach Seine Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprale, St. Luode Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2_SL3_ _ Total Taxa Summer P. r Winter S.m.er PeWier Srummer PrWinter Biomnss Pre Post Pre IPost I Pre ]Post Pre ]Post Pre ] Post I ere I Post (kg)Numberof Samples 15 18 9 18 15 18 9 18 Is 18 9 18 180 Harengulajaguana 0.015 39.877 0.327 0.121 0.015 0.667 0.014 0.113 134.418 109.896 0.969 286.434 Umhbritw coroides 11.205 2.029 0.045 1.912 1.083 2.854 0.003 0.512 4.170 18.624 0.223 2.357 45.016 Mepiicirrhus litoralis 0.730 1.124 0.796 0747 0.864 3.342 0.032 0.695 12.352 2.590 0.212 0.442 23.926 Trachinotuscarolinus 1.080 0.311 0.005 0.724 0.753 0.006 0.009 1.485 0.626 0.708 0.220 5.927 Sardinell0 a,,rita 1.891 0.666 0.013 2.124 0.408 5.102 Opisihonema oglinum 0.018 0.013 0.081 2.543 0238 2.894 Engrauhs eurystole 1.594 1.594 Anchoa Ivolepi_ 0.001 0.001 1.236 1.238 ficropogonias undulatus 0.380 0.119 0.000 0.117 0.616 Harengula humerahs 0004 0.564 0.049 0.616;comberomorus maculatus 0.000 0.471 0.471 Alenticirrhus americanus 0.005 0.325 0.010 0.005 0.019 0.365 Leiostomus -anthurus 0 140 0.140 Pomatomnus saltafrix 0.001 0.027 0.008 0.036.4,clhoa hepsetus 0.001 0.001 0.020 0.008 0.030 AIenlicirrhus saxatalis 16200 0.006 0.022 Anchoa sp. 0.013 0.001 0.001 0.015 Etrumeus teres 0000 0.014 0.015 Dorosoja petenense 0.009 0.009 ,4losa sp. 0.001 Mean Biomass (kg) I 0.765 ] 2.169 j 0.059 0.156 I 0.203 0.386 ] 0.003 0.074 I 7.811 6.797 J 0.063 1 0.236 I 18.723 Table 61.Seasonal Comparison of Number of lchthyoplankton and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate. St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI J L2 SL3 Taoa Life Stage Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre iPost Pre Post Pre Post Number of samples 10 I 12 6 12 10 12 6 12 10 12 6 12 120 A -- CrustaceansA.-

-.--.41bunea sp. Zoea 36 221 9 72 152 1,264 206 73 89 177 II 206 2,516 Callinectes sp. Megalops 173 60 507 49 95 94 196 27 25 36 197 63 1.522-fenippe mercenaria Zoea 15 104 120 44 240 113 262 68 83 62 I1 171 1,293 Erneritatalpoida Zoea 27 124 12 104 91 107 40 278 81 55 34 333 1,286 Calfinectes sp. Zoea 70 19 112 77 54 154 358 46 47 89 88 131 1,245 Callinectessapidus Megalops 156 325 132 135 190 116 1,054 Callinectes similis Megalops I I 16 112 246 385 Penacidac Mysis 15 2 5 20 43 28 122 42 II 66 20 374 Penaeidae Post Larvae 24 83 2 4 229 4 346 Penaeidae Protozoea 4 14 12 61 87 37 4 5 7 8 239 Fafantepe'naeus sp. Post Larvae 2 20 3 53 6 3 I 27 29 48 I 38 231 Farfantepenaeus sp. Mysis 9 151 I 14 4 179 Sicivnia sp. Mysis 43 87 4 15 149 Alenippe mercenaria Megalops 16 47 I I 68 7 3 1 144 Farfantepenaeus a-tecas Post Larvae 27 28 4 30 1 4 10 15 9 128 Forfantepetuweus duorarum Post Larvae 22 I 14 4 15 33 8 14 111 Leptdopa sp. Zoea 3 8 8 I 4 9 39 72 Portunidae Zoea 7 13 7 18 4 13 62.ictonira sp. Post Laae 3 39 9 I 52 Rimavenaeus IXiphopenoeus Mysis 48 48 complex Porlunidae Megalops 2 8 20 8 3 41 Lepidooa websteri Zoea 13 26 39 Scvllarus americanus Phyllosoma 2 30 1 35 Rimalpenaeus constrictus Mvsis 1 24 I 26 Rinrapeneus con,,trictus Post Larvae 8 2 I 6 I 18 Menippe sp. Megalops 1 16 17 Emerita talpoida Juvenile 5 43 14 12 Rimapenaeus sp. Post Larae 10 10 Emerta talpoida Me alops 98 I9 Callinectes similis Juvenile 2 6 8 Callinectcs sp. Juvenile 1 2 3 Table 61.Seasonal Comparison of Number of lchthyoplanklon and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CR1) lDecapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Life Stage Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Portunidac Juvenile 2 1 3 Sicyoniidae Mvsis I 2 3 Sieyoniidae Post Larae 2 I 3 Callinectes sapidus Juvenile 2 1 2 Hippidae Zoea 2 2 lenippe sp. Zoea 2 2 Callinecces sp. Post Larvae I Hippoidea Zoea 1 Penaeidae Other 1 Scvilaridae Phyllosoma 1 Sicsosia brevirosirns Mvsis I Sicionia sp. Juvenile t 1'iphopenaenus kýoteri Mysis_1 1 Total Crustaceans 603 662 822 829 1,233 2,092 J 1,143 957 901 778 414 1,242 11,676 Unidentified eggs Eggz 527 7,869 2.895 5.387 666 12,049 2,329 1,090 6,245 4,904 2,404 3,037 49.402 Clupeidae E 129 386 204 6,764 724 148 1 36 1,327 274 9,993 Clupeiformes Egg 1,012 608 445 149 2.214 Synodontidaw Egg_ 3 143 23 5 114 86 374 Engraulidae Eg., 88 17 87 193 Carangidae/

Labndae/ Sciaenidae Egg 163 163 egg complex Sciaenidae 2g g__ 27 6 7 31 ____ 28 43 144 Sparidae Egg 32 32 Achiridae Egg , I I Tetraodontiformes Egg1 1 Total Fish Eggs 781 7.998 4,355 5,614 903 I 19,4211 3,107 1,688 6,389 4,940 3,860 3,461 62,517 K ~~~~ ~ Fish ~~4~ ~ ~ 'K -2 Clupeidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 65 57 925 483 183 221 so 455 32 120 16 76 2,713 H4icrogobius thalassinus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 126 I 1 417 2 5 17 1 I I 576 Gobidace Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 35 II 107 14 23 38 88 18 6 16 I5 20 391 Sciaenidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5 44 2 51 19 38 22 37 9 23 93 42 385 Engraulidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae t0 189 27 47 48 I 2 24 I 13 362 Unidentified fish Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5 17 27 14 19 21 20 81 3 iI 9 64 291 Table 61.Seasonal Comparison of Number of lchthyoplankton and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Tasa Life Stage Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post A4icrogobius gulosus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 3 44 12 32 6 7 28 2 137 Bleoniidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5 9 4 4 13 5 13 5 34 Is 19 129 Gobiosoma robuslum Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 7 I 30 8 34 6 3 4 3 99 Etrtneus teres Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 8 41 45 94 Clupelfornies Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 73 4 10 89 Eucinostomus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 8 16 3 28 I 1 6 I I 23 88 Ct,noscion sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 3 22 11 4 8 4 22 77 Haemulidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 6 2 4 2 I 41 2 I 3 63 4nchoa sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 10 4 Is 26 58 Canangidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 16 1 I 19 1 8 3 2 I 2 54 Microdesmidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 18 29 I 5 53 Sparidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 7 4 13 1 13 2 9 3 53 Bregmacerotidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 2 33 I I 6 46 Clupeidae Yolk-Sac Larvae 26 18 44 Cvnoscion nebulosws Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 3 2 15 1 2 16 43 Bretortia sotjthi Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1I 2 28 41 Lut anidac Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 8 6 10 I 7 5 37 Sciaenops ocellatws Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 7 I 2 2 I 18 35 Perciformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 21 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 33 4nchoa mitchtlt Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 24 1 5 30 Ctenogobius boleosomia Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 1 5 4 4 II 26 Diodontidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 16 2 I 3 1 24 Labridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5 2 I I 4 2 2 6 23 Gobiosoma sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5 9 1 6 I 22 Larimustfasctatus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 2 19 22 Serraaidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 2 5 8 I I 20 (-hloroscombrus chtesurms Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 I I I 3 19 Alentictrrhus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 1 14 I 1 19 S.jegastes sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 18 18 Microdesmus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 7 8 17 4chirus linealus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 7 2 2 1 16 Bathvgobius soporator Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 3 2 I I 1 4 16 Dactvloscopidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 8 4 I 3 + _ 16 Sciaenidae Yolk-Sac Larvae 6 1 8 15 Table 61.Seasonal Comparison of Number of lchthyoplankton and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate. St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Life Stage Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Tetraodontidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 I 3 1 1 5 15 Monacanthldae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 5 4 I 14 Ponmacentridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 14 Gerreidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 8 I 1 I I 13 Myctophidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5 3 I I 3 13 Prionolus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2_I _1_ _ I 4 1 4 13 Triglidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 1 10 t 13 Atherinopsidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 2 1 8 12 Citharnchth.,s spilopteris Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 8 3 12 Lugjanus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I I 1 12 Paralichthvidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 2 3 4 2 12 Pareques sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 2 2 4 3 1 12 4Anchoa I1olepis Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I I 1 I Eleotridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 4 1 6 1I Sphoeroides sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 2 I 4 I 1I.budefdufsacratilis Juvenile 1_0t 10 Cerdale floridana Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 10 10 Labrisomidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 5 1 1 2 10 Ahcropogonias ua,,ulatus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 1 7 I 1 10 Batrdiella chrsoura Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 1 3 1 3 9 Brevoortia sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 2 I 3 9 Cvnoscion regalis Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5 2 2 9 Gnnostomatidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I I 4 I I 1 9 Scaridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 I 2 I I 9 Sltephanolepis hispida Juvenile 6 2 1 9 Gobiesox strnmosus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 2 I I 8 f-.enticirrhus americaas Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 I I 2 8 Ostraciidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 I 2 1 8 Paralichthrs albigutta Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 8 8 Pomacanthidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 5 I 8 Sparisoma sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 2 1 2 2 8 Storiiformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 2 2 8 Apogonidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 4 1 7 ,Harengulajaguawr Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 7 7 Table 61.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Ichthyoplankton and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SU3 Taia Life Stage Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Ophidiiformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I S I 7 Pleuronectiformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 3 1 7 Alnguilloidei Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 6 6 Selar crtmenophthalmus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 4 6 ,ngnathus

/ouisianae Juvenile 1 1 4 6 A.ticropogonis" fumieri Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5 5 lotacalnohus ciliuas Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 1 2 5 (Jphidion sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 2 5 Parablennius ma-moreus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 1 5 Pareques acuntnalus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 4 5 Phosichthyidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 I 5 Selene setapinnis Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1_5 5 Stc llfer lanceolatus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5 5 Stephanolepis hispida Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 I __ 1 5 St'mphurus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 1 5 Diodon holocanthus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 1 4 Diplospinus muthistriaius Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 4 4 Mullidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 4 Sa,-rida brasiliensis Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 3 4 Scars sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 4 Sphyracnidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 4 Tetraodontdae Yolk-Sac Larvae 4 4 Aluterus schoepfii Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 l 3 Balistidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 3 Blennioidei Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 3 Chaetodiptents faber Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 1 1 3 Chloroscombrus Juvenile 3 3 Hacmulon sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 2 3 Ophidion sp. Yolk-Sac Larvae 3 3 Scombridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 2 3 Scorpaenidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 3 Atheriniformes Post Larae 22 Breroortia 1t'rantus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 Chasmodes saburrae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 1 2 Table 61.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Ichthyoplanklon and Commercially or Recreationally Imporlant (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Capiured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Life Stage Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Cit/o1richtht's arelifrons Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 1 2 Clupeiformes Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 Diplectmrm sp Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 Diplogrammus pauctradialus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 2 Elops saunis Post Yolk-Sac Larvae _I 2 Ephippidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 Epinephelus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 Gobiosoma bosc Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 Htigophum reinhardii Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 Letostomus xanthurms Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I I 2 Muraenidae Post Yolk-Sac LaIvae I 2 Opistognathidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 Percophidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 Post Yolk-Sac Larvae _ _1_2 Sitngnathus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 1 2 Tetragonuridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2 2 4canthurus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae _ I Achiridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae ACropomatidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 41bula rulpes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4luterus schoepfii Juvenile I 4rchosargus probatocephalus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 4strapogon puncticulatus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Atheriniformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Bothidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Bothus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Bramidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvaesp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I 0itharicht, tss sp. Juvenile I I"it/harichthcs sp Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 I Congridae Juvenile 1 I Congsridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I Co'ophaeoa hippurus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Ctenogobius sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 Table 61.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Ichthyoplankton and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Luce Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Life Stage Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post C'lothone sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Dac'l-opterms sohltans Juvenile Diodon sp Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I Diogenichtht's allantlcos Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I Dormitator

,,aculatus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Eleotris pisonis Post Yolk-Sac Larvae t Engraulidae Yolk-Sac Larvae I Euth,nnus alleteratas Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Gempylidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1__Gobionellus oceancas Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I Gobionellus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Gobiosoma parr, Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Hippocampus erectus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Lagodon rhomboides Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1_I Luptinoblennius nicholsi Post Yolk-Sac Larvae __I Melamphaidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1I1 Melanocetidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1_I Merlucciidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Alugil cephalus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae __I Muottidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I__Nes Iongus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Ogcocephalus sp Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I__Ophidiidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1_I Pawalepididae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Ii Pleuronectidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Sconiberomorus iaculatus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I Scorpaeniformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I Stephanoberyciformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I Srvngnathus Iouisinae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae __I sp. Juvenile Trichiarus lepturus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Tripterygiidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Umibrina coroides Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Unidentified Ftsh Yolk-Sac Larvae Table 61.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Ichlhyoplankton and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Derapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate. St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Taxa Life Stage Summer IWinter Sumer Winter Summer Winter Total Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Uranoscopidac Post Yolk-Sac Larvae I [ I I I Total Fish 351 5293 1.260 856 904 639 30 4 127 10386 261 443 6,874 Total All Organisms 1,735 9.183 1 6,437 7,299 3.040 22,152 4,570 3.449 7.417 16,104 4,535 5.146 181,067 Table 62.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Larval Fish Captured by Plankton Net, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -Februar' 2015.Season Pre- or Post- Area Total I Uprate SL1 SL2 SL3 Summer Pre 351 904 127 1,382 Post 523 639 386 1,548 Pre 1,260 320 261 1,841 Winter* _ _ _ _Post 856 804 443 2,103 Total 2,990 2,667 1,217 6,874 Table 63.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per lOOm3 of Water Filtered) for Fish and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprale.

St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI I S2I Total Taa life Stage Summer .Winter I Summer Winter Summer [ Winter oCPaE I Pre Post Past Pr I e re Post Pre Post Pre post Number of Samples t0 12 12i 6 12 tO 12 [ 6 12 120.41bunea sp. Zoea 7.6759 41.2313 2.1277 126538 31 2115 209.6186 62.6140 12.2074 16.6Q79 30.5699 4.3137 31.07111 41.6281 Culhoeaos sp. Megalops 36.8870 11.1940 119 8582 86116 19.5072 15 5887 595745 4.5151 46904 6.2176 77.2549 9.5023 25.1820 Ake-ppey mrcenaroa Zoea 3.1983 194030 28 3688 7.7329 492813 187396 79.6333 113712 155722 10 7081 4.3137 25.7919 21.3931 E-m rotlu~poid.

Zoea 5.7569 23.1343 2.8369 18.2777 18.6858 17.7446 12.1581 46.4883 15.1970 9.4991 13.3333 50.2262 21.2773 Callnectes sp. Zoe. 14.9254 3.5448 26.4775 13.5325 11 0883 25.5390 168.8146 7.6923 8.8180 15.3713 34.5098 19.7587 20.5989 CalneOoaooprdus Megalnps 33.2623 57.1178 271047 22.5753 35.6473 17.4962 17.4388-d(6shcts,,nhs Megalops 23454 2.8120 22.9979 46.1538 6.3700 Penoeidae Mvsis 3.1983 0.3731 0.8787 4.1068 7.1310 8.5106 20.4013 7.8799 1.8998 258824 30166 6.1880 Penaeidae Post Larvae 4.4776 13.7645 06079 0.6689 39.5509 0.6033 5.7247 Penawidae Prolozoea 0.8529 2.6119 2.8369 12.5257 14.4279 11.2462 06689 0.9381 1 2090 1.2066 3.9M43 Farfaniepenaeur sp. Post Larvae 0.4264 3.7313 0.7092 9.3146 1 2320 04975 03040 45151 5.4409 82902 0.3922 5.7315 3.8220 F-5fitntcsrno sp. Msis 1.9190 31.0062 0.1672 2.6266 0 6033 2.9616 S,ý-.oa sp. Mvsis 75571 14.5485 (0.6908 2.2624 2.4653 Afeenippemercenaera Megalops 3.4115 8.7687 0.1757 0.2053 11.2769 1.3133 0.5181 0.1508 2-3825 Farfantepoeneuosa:ecus Post Larao 5.7569 6.6194 0.7030 6.1602 0 1658 1.2158 1.6722 2.8143 1.3575 2.1178 duorarum Post Larae 4.6908 5 1866 3 3097 0.7030 3 0801 5.5184 1.5009 2.1116 1.8365 Lepdopa sp. Zoea 0.6397 1.4060 2.4316 0.1672 0.7505 1.5544 5 8824 1.1913 Portunidae Zoea I 3060 2.2847 1.1609 3.0100 0.6908 1.9608 1.0258 S-vosra sp. Post Larvae 0.5597 6.4677 1.5544 0.1508 0.8604 sop-paeus

/lXiphopenaus Mysis 7.2398 0.7942 complex Portunidae M8egalops 03731 1.4060 3.3445 1.3817 0.4525 0.6784 Lepipooa webswri Zoea 2.1559 4.4905 0.6453 Scvllarus ameranus Phvllosoma 0.4728 6 1602 0.3752 0.3922 0.5791 RP peneus constrictus Mvsis 0.1757 4.9281 0.1508 0.4302 Riapernacnsconstrictus Post Larvae 1.7058 0.3515 0.2053 1.1257 0.1508 0.2978 kfensppe sp. Memalops 0.1866 2.6534 0.2813 Emerita tal~poda Juvenile 1.0661 0.6160 0.7505 0.1985 Rimapel-eus sp. Post Larvae 1.8657 0.1655 Eoersba taloo~da Megalnps 1.6427 0.1876 0.1489 Cal1'-,res smhnIs Juvenile 0.4264 1.2320 0.1324 Cainectes sp. Juvenile 0.1876 0.7843 0.0496 Portunidae Juvenile 0.3344 1______10 1508 0.0496 StI-o-idae M ksis 0 3040 0 7843 0.0496 IPostrae L 0.3752 0.3922 0.0496-spids IJuvenile 0.4264 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [ 1 0.0331 Table 63.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per lOOmI ofWater Fillered) for Fish and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas. Pre- and Post-Uprale, St. Lorie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Ta"a U11. Stage Summer Winter Summer Pein ler Summer Winter Total Pre SaPost e pre IPost re I Post Pre Post P"_ I PostI Pre IPost Hippidac Zoea 0.4728 0.0331 SAle..ppe sp. Zoea 0.3731 0.0331 C.a,'arcts sp Post Larvae 0.2364 0.0165 Hippoidea Zoea 0.1672 0.0165 Penawida Odther 0.2053 0.0165 Scvllaridae Phvllosoma 0.1866 0.0165 Sicwo,,(a 0,sbroons Msis 0.1727 0.0165nia sp. I useo ile 0.150§ 0.0165 Xiphopaacus koisvri M'vsis 0 150g 0.0165 Total Crustaceans 128.5714 123.5075 1943262 145.6942 253.1828 346.9320 347.4164 160.0334 169.0432 134.3696 162-3529 187.3303 193.1833.~ Ish Eggs: ýýi q:-4s ~~_Unidentifiedegs Egg 112.3667 1468.0970 684.3972 946.7487 136.7556 1998 1758 707.9027 182.2742 1171.6698 846.9775 942.7451 458.0694 8173726 Clupeida Egg 24.0672 912530 358524 1121.7247 220.0608 24.7492 0.1876 6.2176 520.3922 41.3273 165.3375 Clupeiformes Egg 239.2435 100.8292 74.4147 0.0000 22.4736 36.6314 Sonodonndae Egg 0.7092 29.3634 6.9909 0.8361 21.3884 33.7255 6.1880 Eneraulidae Egg 18.7633 2.9877 17.8645 0.1876 3.1932 Carangidae/

Labridael Sciacoidac Egg 34.7548 2.6969 egg comples Sciaenidae Egg 0.4264 6.3830 1.0545 1.4374 9.4225 5.2533 16.8627 2.3825 Sparida- E 7.5650 0.5295 Achiridae E 02132 0.0165]etraodon6 formes Egg 0.1508 0.0165 Total Fish Eggs 166.52451 1492.16421 1029.55081 986.6432 185.4209 3220.7297443769 1 282.2742 1198.68671 853.1952 1 1513.72551 522.0211 10343647 Clupeidae Post Yolk-Saw L.arae 13.8593 10.6343 218.6761 84.8858 37.5770 36.6501 24.3161 76.0870 6.0038 20.7254 6.2745 11.4630 44.8875 A6cr.gobiulhal laW i-s, Post Yolk-Sac Larsae 26.8657 0.1866 0.1757 85.6263 0.3317 0.8361 3.1895 0.8636 03922 01508 9.5301 Gobildae PoslYolk-Sac La-,ae 7.4627 2.0522 252955 2.4605 4.7228 6.3018 26.7477 3.0100 1.1257 2.7634 5.8824 30166 6.4692 Scoaedae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1.0661 8.21190 (1.4728 8.9631 3.9014 6.3018 6.6869 6.1873 1.6886 3.9724 36.47u6 6.3348 63700 Enraulidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2.1322 35.2612 4 7452 9.6509 7.9602 0.1672 0.3752 4.1451 0.3922 1.9608 5.9894 Unidentified fish Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1.0661 3.1716 6.3830 2.4605 3.9014 3.4826 60790 13.5452 0.5629 1.8998 3.5294 9.6531 4.8147 Alicrogobiusgulosus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.6397 0.5597 10.4019 2.1090 53068 1.8237 1.1706 10.9804 0.3017' 2.2667 Blenisidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.9328 2.1277 0.7030 0.8214 21559 1.5198 2.1739 0.9391 5.8722 7.0589 2.8658 2.1343 Goboomoarobustum Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.6397 1.3060 0.2364 6.1602 1.3267 101.3343 1.0033 05181 1.5686 0.4525 1.6380 Erumeus cres ePost Yolk-Sac Laoae I 4060 1 6.8562 6 7873 i.5553 ClupeiforIses Post Yolk-Sac Lrae 0.4264 12.8295 I 2158 39216 1.4725 Eucinosromus sp Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1.7058 2.9851 0.7092 4.9209 1.2053 (0.1658 1.0033 0.1876 0.1727 3.4691 114560 C"oson sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.6397 0.5597 3.8664 2.2587 1.2158 1.3817 15686 33183 1.2740 Haemulidae Post Yolk-SacLarvae 0.2132 1.1194 0.3515 0.8214 0.3317 0.3041) 6.8562 0.3454 6.3922 0.4525 1.0424 Table 63.Seasonal Comparison of CPUIE (Number Collected per 1OOm3 of Water Filtered) for Fish and Commercially or Recemationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprale, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 Ta"a Life Stage Summer Winter S.. Winter Summer .Winter TPUa Pre I Post Pre I Post Pre PostI Pre I Post Pre I Post Pre Post.4,choa sp Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1.8657 0.7030 2.9851 44905 0.9596 C aangdac Post Yolk-Sac Lar-ae 2.9851 0.1757 0.2053 3 1509 0.3040 1.3378 0.5629 0.3454 0.3922 0.3017 0.8934 Microdessidac Post Yolk-Sac Larsae 3.3582 5.9548 0.1672 0.9381 0.8769 Spanidae Post Yolk-Sac Larca 02132 1.3060 0.9456 2.2847 0.2053 2.1559 0.3344 1.5544 0.4525 0.8769 Bremacuotidaw Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.5597 0.4728 5.4726 0.1727 0.3922 0.9050 0.7611 Clupeidae Yolk-Sac Larvae 4.8507 4.2553 -0.7280 (Cm-ocion nebulosus Post Yolk-Sac Larae 0.7463 0.6160 0.6079 2.5084 0.1727 0.7843 2.4133 0.7114 Brewona sootht Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2.6005 0 6079 10 9804 0.6784 Lutanidae Post Yolk-Sac Lar-ae 1.4925 1.0545 1.6584 0.3040 1.1706 0.8636 0.6122';--oopocell-/s Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.8529 1.3060 0.2364 0.4107 03317 0.1876 3.1088 0.5791 Pesciforores Pool Yolk-Sac Lar-ae 4.9645 0.3515 0.1658 0.6079 0.1076 0.1727 1 1765 0.3017 0.5460.4Achoo .,tchl/i Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 5.1173 0..1 757 1 0267 0.4964 Ctenogobiusboleosoma Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.2132 0.1866 0.8787 0.6633 0.6689 1.6591 0.4302 Diodosfdae Post Yolk-Sac Lac 0 1866 32854 0.3317 0.1672 0.5181 0.1508 0.3971 Labndae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.9328 0.4728 0.1757 0.1658 0.6689 0.3752 0.3454 0.9050 0-3805 Gobiosoma sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 10661 1 8480 0.1658 1.1257 0.3922 0.0000 0.3640 Laromusfasr'aros Post Yolk-Sac Larae 0.2132 0.3515 3.9014 03640 Serrarudae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.7092 0.3515 08292 1.3378 0.1727 0.1508 0-3309 Chloroscombrusochpsurus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.7463 0.1658 2.0638 05181 0.3144 Aentcirrhus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.4264 0.1866 2.4605 0.1658 0.1727 0.3144 Stegostes sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 2.9851 0.2978sp. Post Yolk-Sac L.arsae n 4264 1.1609 1.3817 0.2813 Achorus Ineatus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.4264 0.3731 -1.4374 0.3317 0 6079 0.1727 0.2647 Bath,,ob0,ssoporor Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.4728 0.3515 06160 0.3317 03040 0.1876 0.3922 0.6033 0.2647 Dactyloscopidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1.6427 1.2158 0.1727 1.1765 0.2647 Sciaeridae Yolk-Sac Larvae 1.4184 0.2053 3.1373 0.2482 Tetraodonlidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 08529 01866 0.5272 0.1658 0.3922 0.7541 0.2482 Monacanthidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.3731 0.4728 1.0267 1.2158 0.1727 0.2316 Pomacentridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.3731 0.4728 0.3515 0.3317 0.3040 0.3344 04525 0.2316 Gereeidae Post Yolk-Sac Larae 0.1866 1.8913 0.2053 0.1658 0.1672 0.1876 0.2151 M?,yctophidae Post Yolk-Sac Laanae 08787 0.4975 0.1876 0.1727 0.4525 0.2151 Pronotos sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.3733 0.1658 0..1876 0.6908 0.3922 06033 0.2151 Triglidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 02053 0.3040 1.6722 0.1508 0.2151 Athernopsidae PostYolk-Sac Larvae (0.1757 0.3317 0.3040 1.3817 0.1985 Cnth-rchthissptloptrers Post Yolk-Sac Larsae 0.2132 1 3378 0.4525 0.1985 Lutjaous sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.0000 1 8242 0.1727 0.1985 ParaLchlhyidae Post olk-SacLarac 0.2132 0.3515 0.4975 1.2158 0.3017 0.1985 Parqoeo sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larae 0.2132 0.3515 0.4107 1.75(15 0.5181 0.1985 Table 63.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per OOm3 of Water Filtered) for Fish and Commercially or Recreatlionally Imporlant (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Planlaon Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL.3 [Total Taa Life Stage Sommer Winter S Win .. Winter Summer .. .Winer CPUE PI e I Pe PPost I Pre I Post I Pre I Post Pre [ Post Total Anchoa Ij'oleps Post Yolk-Sac Larsae 2.3454 0.1820 Eloot-idae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1866 0.7030 0.9050 0.1820 Sphocroides sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0 5597 0.4728 0.1757 0.6633 0.1508 0.1820 4bdefdufsaastilirl Juveile 1.7271 0.1655 Crdalr lor7da-o Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1 6584 0.1655 Labrisoraidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1757 0.8292 (0.1672 (1.1876 0.3454 0.1655 Alimooogomas undulatus Post Yolk-Sac Las'ae 0.426- 1.6548 0.2053 0.1655 Ba-diella chýlsoura Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1866 0.1757 04975 0.1672 0.4525 0.1489 Breroorna sp. Post Yolk-Sac Loroae 0.5272 0.4107 0.1672 1.1765 0.1489 (',,o-scor-aflis Post Yolk-Sac Larse 1.0661 0.4728 0.3344 0.1489 Gonostonatidae Posl Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.2132 0.1866 0.9456 0.1757 u1727 0.1508 0.1489 Scaridae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.4264 0.3731 0.1757 0.4107 0.1658 0.1876 0.1489 Stephaolepois hspd Jvenile I 1194 03454 0.1508 0.1489 Gobiesox stumosus Post Yolk-Sac L-acoo 0.4264 04107 0.6079 01727 0.1508 0.1324 Atotcirrhos

.-crics-, Post Yolk-Sac Lareae 0.9456 0.1658 (0.3040 0.3454 0.1324 Ostsaciidae Post Yolk-Sac Larva 0.9456 0.1757 0.4107 00000 0.1508 0.1324 Parahchrhys al1btgra Post Yolk-Soc Larvae 1.4060 0.1324 Pomacatthidae Post Yolk-Sac Loarso 0.35 15 0.5292 0.1727 0.1324 Sporisoma sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1866 0.4728 0.0000 0.1727 0.7843 0.3017 0.1324 Stormiformes Post Yolk-Sac I-arve 1.9456 0.3454 0.7843 0.1324 Apogonidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 04728 1.7158 0.1727 0.1158 H jreno ag..a-a Post Yolk-Sac Larae 1.3133 1 0.1158 Ophidiiformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1866 1.0267 0.1658 0.1 18 Pleuronecfiformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 09119 0.5617 0.1508 0.1158 Anguillotdet Post Yolk-Sac Lar-ae 1.2320 0.0993 Solar crumenophthalmus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.3317 1 2155 0.0993 S),ngwathuslouostaooe luvenile 0.2132 0.1866 0.9456 0.0993 AOrvopogostayfi-rnsr Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 1.1820 0.0827 Aonacafthushcilitous Post Yolk-Sac Larnae 03731 0.1658 03454 0.0827 Oohuh-t sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larsoe 0.6160 0.3344 0.0827 Parablennius mnarmoreus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.9456 0.1727 0.0827 Pareques oconisatus Post Yolk-Sac La-so1 0.1658 1.2158 0.0827 Phosichthsidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.7030 0.3040 0.0827 Selente setapmtoos Post Yolk-Sac Lar'ae 1.5198 0.0827 Stellifer kanceolatus Post Yolk-Soc Larvae 1.5198 0.0827 Stephaooleptohsohtda Post Yolk-Soc lar1ae 05597 0.1757 0.1658 0.0827 Srsnphurs sp. Post 'olk-Sac Larvae 0.4264 0.4728 0.2053 0.0827 Diodon holo-atwhus Post 'olk-Sac Lanaoe 0.5597 0. 1658 0.0662 Table 63.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per 100ml of Water Filtered) for Fish and Commercially or Reerealionally lmportant (CRI) Decapod Crmstareans Captured by Plankton Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprale, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 I j _ _ _ _ Wi PoPos T.- Lfe Stage Summer Winter Sumer Winter Sum r WiSuer r CPUE Pre I Post Pre I Post P;;SI Post 1 re P ost pre I Post Pre I Diplospnus mulltstas Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.6033 0.0662 Mulhdae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.3515 0.3017 0.0662 Saurida bralienvis Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.2132 06160 0.0662 Status sp. Post Yolk-Sac Laosao 0.6033 0.0662 S ph% raenidae Post Yolk-Sac Larsae 0 9456 0.0662 Tetoaodontidae Y'olk-Sac Lar-ae 0.9456 0.0662.4hsttros schozpi, Post Yolk-Sac Larsae 0.1866 0 1658 0.1727 0.0496 Balistidae Post Yolk-Sac La--ao 0.4525 0.0496 Bleonioidei Post Yolk-Sac Larsao 0.5597 0.0496_Telodito e-pruo abo Post Yolk-Sac Larae 0.3317 A 3922 0.0496 Chloroscossbrus chri'osros Javentlc 0.5181 0.0496 Hae-slon sp Post Yolk-Sac Larae 0.2364 0.3317 0.0496 Ophidson sp Yolk-Sac Larvae 0 6160 0.0496 Scombridam Post Yolk-Sac L-esa 0.1658 03017 0.0496 Scorpacnidae Post Yolk-Sac Larsae 0.3731 0.1727 0.0496 Atheoiniforoses Post Larvae 0.4264 0.0331 Bres'oorota nraus Post Yolk-Sac L-sac, (0.3344 0.0331 Chasmodcs sabuorra Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0 2053 0.3040 0.0331 Csttartchtlhvs arctsfrons Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.16508 0.3922 0.0331 Clupeiformcs Yolk-Sac Lataae 0.7843 0.0331 Diplrcrrum sp Post Yolk-Sac Lam ae 04264 0.0331 Dtsologra-s, p.uciradtsus Post Yolk-Sac Lar-ae 0.1866 u 1727 0.0331 Elops saurus Post Yolk-Sac Lar-ao .1672 0.1508 0.0331 Ephippidae Post Yolk-Sac Larsae 03515 0.0331 Epinepheluo sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.4264 0.0331 Grobio-oa boso Post Yolk-Sac Larsao 0.3344 0.0331 Hvgophum retsnhardnt Post Yolk-Sac Laosae 0.4728 0.0331 Leiostoomuo .xanthurus Post Yolk-Sac Lt-a'e 0 1866 0J.2364 0.0331 Muraeudae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1866 0.1508 0.0331 Opistoonathidac Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 04728 0.0331 Post Yolk-Sac Laae 0.3615 0.0331 Sysn~athidaw Post Yolk-Sac Lavae 0.1757 0.1727 0.0331 Sisgnathit" sp Post Yolk-Sac Larvac .1672 0.1876 0.0331 oluagonuridae Post Yolk-Sac Lao-ac 03515 0.0331.4canthurus sp Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1976 0.0165 Ac",indaw Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1672 0.0165 Acropomafidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1876 0.0165 4lbulo vulpes Post Yolk-Sac Larae 0.1757 0.0165 Table 63.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per 100m3 of Water Filtered) for Fish and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Planklon Net Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprale.

St. Lucie Plant EPU. August 2011 -February 2015.SLII- -SI.2 _ _ SL3UTotal T.- Life Stage SummEr Winter Sumomer F Winier Summer :j _Winer 1 TotalE P" I pre Post p re Post pre I Post Pre I Post I Pre PostI PreI Pos C l4uterusoschvoep/i Juvenile 41.1866 0.0165.4rchorrgur psbrobaocplohus Post Yolk-Sac Laosae 0.1757 0.0165 As4-apogospu..c.tcl.a.

Post Yolk-Sac L-rvae 0.1757 0.0165 Atherinifonsses Post Yolk-Sac Lar-ae 0.1876 0.0165 Botodno Post Yolk-Sac Lar-ae 0.1672 0.0165 Bothoo sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larmae ( 1658 0.0165 Bramidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1757 0.0165 Cu-aro sp. Post Yolk-Sac Lacsae 0 1866 0.0165'idwttrichthvs sp. Jusenile 0.2053 0.0165 Citharlhthvos sp. Post Yolk-Soc L-ao 0 1508 0.0165 Co-gridae tos'nile 0.1866 0.0165 Congridac Post Yolk-Sac Larvae w 02132 0.0165 Cooph-aen hOpprurs Post Yolk-Sac Lacsae 0.1672 0.0165 Ctnogobis sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1757 0.0165 Csslothone sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1876 0.0165 o-htans Juvenile 0 1658 0.0165 Diodon sp. Post Yolk-Soc toov'n 0.1727 0.0165 DLtýehchths atl-&onIat Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1757 0.0165 Dormslaor -Iculaus Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1658 0.0165 Elcoris psonts Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1508 0.0165 Engraulidae Yolk-Sac Larvae 0,2132 0.0165 Euhwnous alleterafou I Post Yolk-Sac Larsae 0.1658 0.0165 Ge.'plidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1658 0.0165 Gobiocnllos occanirs Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.2132 0.0 165 Gobiosrllos sp. Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0 1672 0.0165 Gobiosoma parri Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1757 0.0165 Hippocmpus erectus Post Yolk-Sac Laovae 0.1866 0.0165 Logodon rhomborlrs Post Yolk-Sac Larvao 0 1757 0.0165 LupIttoblennous nicholsi Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1727 0.0165 Melamphaidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1757 0.0165 Melanoeoidae Post Yolk-Sac Lar,'ae 0.1727 0.0165 Merluccidae Post Yolk-Sac Laovae 0 1658 0.0165 Aftýt! cepholuo Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0 1866 0.0165 Mugilidae Post Yolk-Sac Laroae 0.1757 0.0165 Nes Ionewc Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1727 0.0165 Ogcoreplalus sp. Post Yolk-Sac Laroaw 0.1658 0.0165 Ophidiidae Post Yolk-Sac Lar'ae 0.1727 0.0165 Paralepididae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0. 1866 0.0165 Table 63.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per lOOnm of Waler Filtered) for Fish and Commercially or Recreationally lmporlani (CRI) Decapod Crostaceans Captured by Planklon Net Among Areas, Pr- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -Febroary 2015.SLI SL2 SL3 T.- fe Stage Srnoner j- S m _ 01cr 1 terTotal Pr Post Prem Post P" Post I Pr e Post Is P" I Post Pleuronoctidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0 1672 0.0165 Sco 0-bromoros .ocotos Post Yolk-Sac Lan ae 0.20.53 0.0165 Scorpacniformes Post Yolk-Sac Lar'ae 0.1866 0.0165 Stephanobor-,ciformes Post Yolk-Sac Larvao 0.1866 0.0165 Svngiathos ootsnooae Post Yolk-Sac La-sa. O.1508 0.0165 sp. ousenile J. 1866 0.0165 Trichiurs leptPrusoPost Yolk-Sac Larvae 0.1672 0.0165 Triptersojidae Post Yolk-Sac Larvae 0 1658 0.0165 Umbri- co-rc des Post Yolk-Sac Lar-ae 0.1757 0.0165 Unidootified Fish Yolk-Sac Larvae 0 187_ 0.0165 Uranoscopidae Post Yolk-Sac La0.ae 0.1757 0.0165 Tolal Fish 1 74.8401 197.5746 297.8723 150.4394 185.6263 10-5.9701 97.2644 17 .4482 9 23.8274 566.6667 102.35 76.175 13.26 ITotal All Organismos 1 369.9360 [1713.246311521.74941 1282.77681 624.2300 [13673.631811389.05781 576.7559 1 1391-55721 1054.23141 1778.43141 776.1689 11341.2806 Table 64.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per 100m 3 of Water Filtered) for Fish and Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, Au ust 2011 -February 2015.Season Pre- or Post- SL I 1 L2 SU Mean CPUE Uprate I L I L I L I enCU Pre 369.94 624.23 1391.56 818.80 Summer ________t________________________________

Post 1713.25 3673.63 1054.23 2179.22 Pre 1521.75 1389.06 1778.43 1543.40 WVinterj______________

______________

Post 1282.78 576.76 776.17 868.52 Mean CPUE 1234.55 1646.55 1142.96 1341.28 Table 65.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per 100m 3 of Water Filtered) for All Fish Larvae Captured by Plankton Net, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.re- or Post Season Pre-or st- SLI SL2 SL3 Mean CPUE Pre 74.84 185.63 23.83 92.81 Summer- _ _ _ _Post 97.57 105.97 66.67 90.10 Pre 297.87 97.26 102.35 182.82 Winter Post 150.44 134.45 66.82 114.92 Mean CPUE 149.72 132.23 59.95 113.73 Table 66.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa and Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Among Areas for Larval Fish, Fish Eggs, and Commercially/Recreationally Important (CRI) Invertebrates Captured by Plankton Tows, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).13.80 13.30 12.40 All Events+ 7.09 +/- 5.74 + 5.40 60 0.6909 0.7079 Pre-uprate 12.63 12.00 10.00 24 0.9152 0.6328+ 7.39 -6.97 -3.21 Post-uprate 14.58 14.17 14.00 2 36 0.0524 0.9741+/- 7.10 +/- 4.90 +/- 6.08 Summer 13.00 14.27 11.09 33 1.6779 0.4322+/- 6.20 +/- 6.67 +/- 5.26 160.69 173.99 52.10 Winter 2 27 0.7768 0.6782 148.33 4- 1.46 +/-3 5.43 Fish Larvae CPUE All Events 90.0 156.66 4.1 2 60 3.3561 0.1867+/-- 180.45 7 197.93 +/- 41.60 Pre-uprate 11.6 122.37 76.0 2 24 1.8950 0.3877+/- 232.94 +/- 296.68 +/- 47.00 Post-uprate

1. 36 1.1547 0.5614 4-146.31 +/-- 101.76 +/-- 38.84 Summer 90025.6 67 33 3.4088 0.1819+/-- 60.77 +/-- 253.77 +/-- 34.60 Winter 217 12.7 609 2 27 0.6384 0.7267 4-252.08 4-108.69 4-45.59 Fish ELY, Taxa All Events 2.00 1.95 2.20 60 1.3871 0.4998-1.26 -0.83 -0.95 Pre-uprate 2.50 2.38 3.00 2 24 2.3430 0.3099+ 1.77 +/- 0.92 +/- 0.76 Post-uprate 1.67 1.67 1.67 2 36 0.0000 1.0000* 0.65 +/- 0.65 +/- 0.65 Summer 1.64 1.64 2.00 2 33 2.1272 0.3452*- 0.92 +/- 0.67 +/- 0.78 Winter 2.44 2.33 2.44 2 27 0.1311 0.9366-1.51 +/- 0.87 +/- 1.13 1 1 Table 66.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa and Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Among Areas for Larval Fish, Fish Eggs, and Commercially/Recreationally Important (CRI) Invertebrates Captured by Plankton Tows, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Sam-pling Mea Valu 0.6e5 Area71 p 503.97 +/- 519.55 + 1708.81 1229.17 1526.21 695.31 Post-uprate 2 36 1.0045 0.6052+ 1352.01 + 3050.92 +/- 508.34 Summer 848.03 1605.82 985.33 33 0.0603 0.9703 S+1113.06

+3188.14 + 1448.51 Winter 1042.60 491.23 788.87 27 2.1058 0.3489+1219.35 +/-478.02 +645.14 CRI Crustacean Taxa Sm plng MenVlumnmre Ddfn1 All Events 5.0 615 65 60 1.5902 0.4515+1.73 +1.84 +/-2.46 Pre-uprate 5.88 6.25 6.38 2 24 0.0635 0.9688+/- 2.10 + 2.38 + 3.07 5.42 6.08 6.58 Post-uprate 2 36 2.4290 0.2969+ 1.51 + 1.51 + 2.11 Summer 5.64 6.36 6.82 33 1.6094 0.4472+ 1.80 + 2.11 + 2.79 Winter 5.56 5.89 6.11 2 27 0.1986 0.9055+ 1.74 +_1.54 +/- 2.09 CRI Crustacean CPUE Peio .L L L All Events 146.70 280.98 169.04 2 60 3.1957 0.2023+ 103.08 +/- 268.35 +/- 128.45 159.84 308.85 180.53 Pre-uprate 2 24 1.7550 0.4158+ 138.65 + 263.24 + 163.61 137.94 262.40 161.37 2 Post-uprate 76.87 +/- 281.69 +/- 106.32 1.5180 0.4681 Summer 131.44 326.60 146.56 33 6.4774 0.0392*+/- 80.98 + 301.35 +/- 145.79 Winter 165.35 225.22 196.50 2 27 0.6772 0.7128+ 127.77 +/- 226.19 +/- 105.24*.-. .-n IUS TdndJ11 iili lt/..lL;-1,pi

...... II..... U "It .-TV1 ---I *- 11iK rU L.-II Ir ... .... SIU C

......L. f IJULSKdi-WaUlIS A NOlgVAh anu{. IvIUlIpleC onipanlsons ol jvjCanl mariS troSt-noC iCSt Snowucu onlmlctuig results. ivtiann-Whitney U Test results showed SL2 was significantly higher than SLI and SL3, but SLI vs SL3 were not significanity different.

Table 67.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa and Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for Larval Fish, Fish Eggs, and Commercially/Recreationally Important (CRI) Invertebrates Captured by Plankton Tows, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Fish Larvae Taxa SL1 26 45 1 20 0.1215 0.7274+/- 7.39 +/- 7.10 SL2 1 20 1.6267 0.2022+/- 6.97 +/- 4.90 SL3 10.00 14.00 1. 20 2.3917 0.1220+ 3.21 +/- 6.087 Fish Larvae CPUE l SL1 160.69 134.20 120 0.3810 0.5371+/-4 232.94 +/- 146.31]SL2 13911.9 20 0.0952 0.7576+296.68 +101.76 SL3 52.10 65.15 1 20 0.8571 0.3545+ 47.00 + 38.84 Fish 2.50 1.67 n! Taxa SLI 1 1 20 0.8251 0.3637+ 1.77 +/- 0.65 1 SL2 2.38 1.67 1 20 3.2500 0.0714+/- 0.92 +/-_0.65 3.00 SL3 + 0.76 1.67 1 20 9.4869 0.0021+/- 0.65 1 1 Fish Eeg CPUE SL1 20 0.0238 0.8774+/- 519.55 + 3050.92 SL3 1199.35 695.31 20 0.0536 0.8170+/-_ 1708.81 +/-1508.34 Table 67.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Number of Taxa and Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for Larval Fish, Fish Eggs, and Commercially/Recreationally Important (CRI) Invertebrates Captured by Plankton Tows, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).CRI Crustacean Taxa SL1 .854 20 0.1297 0.7187+/- 2.10 +/- 1.51 SL2 626.8120 0.0000 1.0000+/- 2.38 +/- 1.51 SL3 6.38 6.58 1 20 0.4396 0.5073+/- 3.07 +/- 2.11 1 1 1 SLI 1 20 0.0000 1.0000+/- 138.65 +/- 76.87 SL2 308.85 262.40 1 20 0.2143 0.6434 j 263.24 +/- 281.69 SL3 180.53 161.37 1 20 0.0238 0.8774+/- 163.61 +/- 106.32 Table 68.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collectcd per 100m 3 of Water Filtered) for All Fish Eggs Captured by Plankton Net, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.Season Pre- or Post- SLI SL2 SL3 Mean CPUE I Uprate IIII Pre 166.52 185.42 1198.69 542.18 Summert Post 1492.16 3220.73 853.20 1883.53 Pre 1029.55 944.38 1513.73 1124.33 Winter I_______ ______________

Post 986.64 282.27 522.02 588.14 Mean CPUE 938.81 1245.36 918.72 1034.36 Table 69.Seasonal Comparison of CPUE (Number Collected per 100m 3 of Water Filtered) for All Commercially or Recreationally Important (CRI) Decapod Crustaceans Captured by Plankton Net, All Species Combined, Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, Au ust 2011 -February 2015.Season P or Post- SLI SL2 SL3 Mean CPUE I Uprate IIII Pre 128.57 253.18 169.04 183.81 Summer Post 123.51 346.93 134.37 205.59 Pre 194.33 347.42 162.35 236.25 Winter Post 145.69 160.03 187.33 165.46 Mean CPUE 146.02 268.96 164.29 I 193.18 Table 70.Seasonal Comparison of Number of Green Turtles (Chelonia mndas ) Sighted per Kilometer of Transect Surveyed Among Areas, Pre- and Post- Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015.IPre- or Post-r111 Season P prat- SLI SL2 SL3 Mean Uprate Pre 0.40 2.40 0.00 0.93 Summer _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _Post 0.58 1.50 0.00 0.78 Pre 0.33 3.50 0.00 1.28 WinterI________

_______ ________ _____ __Post 1.40 2.50 0.10 1.33 Mean 0.71 2.32 0.03 1.05 Table 71.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Total Number of Sea Turtles Observed Among Areas, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).1.35 4.40 All Events +1.39 q-3.57 0.05 60 32.3894 < 0.0001+/- 0.22 5.63 Pre-uprate 0.75 + 3.85 0.00 2 24 17.9747 0.0001+/- 0.71 +0.00 1.75 3.58 Post-uprate

+ 1.60 + 3.29 0.08 2 36 15.6937 0.0004+0.29 1.00 3.82 Summer + 1.18 +3.03 0.00 2 33 17.2311 0.0002 W 0.00 1.78 5.11 Winter +/-1.56 +/-4.23 0.11 2 27 14.8101 0.0006+-0.33 Table 72.Results of Statistical Comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) of Total Number of Sea Turtles Observed, Pre- and Post-Uprate, St. Lucie Plant EPU, August 2011 -February 2015. Means Are Presented For Each Area Plus or Minus One Standard Deviation (SD).Tntal S;ea Tu rtle- Ohiherved Per Are2a LEGEND 0 220 440 I i a I I Kilomet:4 Discharge Pipes Gill Net Transects Trawl & Bongo Net Transects Trawl Only Transects O Beach Seine Locations 0 A 880 ers C Atlantic Ocean-Hutchinson Island Indian River Lagoon-A Figure 2. Location of the Cooling Water Discharge Pipes and Biological Sampling Locations at the Discharge Study Site, FPL St. Lucie Plant EPU.

L-2015-146, Florida Power & Light Company - Biological Plan of Study Implementation for St. Lucie Plant EPU Final Report - August 2011 - February 2015: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:25, 27 April 2019

Text

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

L-2015-146, Florida Power & Light Company - Biological Plan of Study Implementation for St. Lucie Plant EPU Final Report - August 2011 - February 2015: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:25, 27 April 2019

Text

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search