FINAL REPORT (MALACANTHIDAE) CHARACTERIZATION IN AND AROUND THE MIAMI, , OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE USING 1986 VIDEOGRAPHIC DATA

Contract W912EP-09-D-0013-0008

Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8175

Prepared by ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2106 NW 67th Place, Suite 5 Gainesville, Florida 32653

(ANAMAR Project #09-0012)

In Collaboration with Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University 5600 U.S. 1, North Fort Pierce, Florida 34946

August 2010

Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Characterization in and around the Miami, Florida, ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1 Background ...... 6 1.2 Objectives ...... 6 1.3 Brief Introduction to Blueline and Golden ...... 7 2.0 METHODS ...... 11 2.1 Historical Data ...... 11 2.2 ROV Navigation, Video Transects ...... 11 2.3 Video Analysis ...... 12 2.3.1 Field of View Estimation ...... 13 2.4 Habitat Characterization ...... 14 2.5 Faunal Characterization ...... 14 2.6 Terminology and Definitions ...... 14 2.6.1 Bioturbation ...... 14 2.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ...... 15 3.0 RESULTS ...... 18 3.1 Physical Data ...... 18 3.2 ROV Video Quality ...... 19 3.3 ROV Transect Summary ...... 20 3.4 ROV Navigation and Transects ...... 20 3.5 ROV Transect Notes ...... 21 3.5.1 Video Transect-1 (VT-1) ...... 21 3.5.2 Video Transect-2 (VT-2) ...... 22 3.5.3 Video Transect-3 (VT-3) ...... 22 3.5.4 Video Transect-4 (VT-4) ...... 23 3.6 Faunal Identifications and Distribution ...... 24 3.6.1 Occurrence and Distribution ...... 26 3.6.2 Tilefish Observations ...... 26 3.6.3 Benthic Occurrence and Distribution ...... 29 3.7 Substrate Types ...... 32 3.8 Bioturbation ...... 34 3.8.1 Tilefish Burrows ...... 35 4.0 DISCUSSION ...... 42 4.1 Determination of Bioturbators ...... 42 4.1.1 Conical Mounds, Depressions, and Craters ...... 42 4.2 Determination of Tilefish Burrows ...... 42 4.2.1 Shape and Size of Burrows ...... 43 4.2.2 Depth and Distribution ...... 43 4.2.3 Temperature Preferences ...... 43 4.2.4 Sediment Preferences ...... 44 4.3 Active versus Inactive Burrows ...... 45 4.4 Identification of Golden Tilefish ...... 45 4.5 Associated Fauna ...... 45 4.5.1 Potential Tilefish Prey ...... 45 4.5.2 of Management Interest ...... 46 4.6 Tilefish Burrow Densities ...... 46 4.6.1 Estimated Tilefish Habitat within and Adjacent to the Miami ODMDS ...... 47 4.6.2 Managed Species Possibly Benefited by Rock Rubble Disposal ...... 48 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING ...... 51 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 52

i Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Characterization in and around the Miami, Florida, ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

FIGURES Figure 1 The Golden Tilefish ( chamaeleonticeps) ...... 8 Figure 2 Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) Caught off Campeche Bank, Mexico ...... 9 Figure 3 Blueline Tilefish ( microps) Caught off Campeche Bank, Mexico ...... 9 Figure 4 Artist Depiction of Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) Burrow in Cross Section ...... 10 Figure 5 Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) Hovering at Burrow Entrance ...... 10 Figure 6 Video Transect 4 of the 1986 Miami ODMDS ROV Survey as Plotted Using the Coordinates Given by Conservation Consultants (1986) ...... 21 Figure 7 Fish Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects ...... 28 Figures 8 Additional Fish Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects ...... 28 Figures 9 Invertebrate Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects ...... 31 Figures 10 Additional Invertebrate Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects ...... 32 Figure 11 Percent Cover of Bottom Types over All ROV Transects ...... 33 Figure 12 Substrate, Bioturbation, and Debris Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects ...... 35 Figure 13 Percentage of 2-Minute Intervals with Sightings of Potential Tilefish Burrows, Possible Tilefish Burrows, Dense Mound Bioturbations, Visual Sightings of Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) ...... 37 Figure 14 Potential Tilefish Burrow Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects ...... 38 Figure 15 Mean Number of Tilefish Burrows per 2-Minute Increment for Each ROV Video Transect ...... 41 Figure 16 108 kg Warsaw Grouper (Epinephelus nigritus) Caught off Naples, Florida ...... 49

i Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Characterization in and around the Miami, Florida, ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

TABLES Table 1 List of Specialized Scientists Contacted to Review Video Excerpts ...... 17 Table 2 Sediment Composition, Depths, and Temperatures Taken Within and Adjacent to the Miami ODMDS ...... 18 Table 3. Comparison of Sediment Composition between 1985 and 2007 Surveys ...... 19 Table 4 Video Transect Summary: Transect Length, Depth, and Number of 2-Minute Interval Records ...... 20 Table 5 Taxa Identified from Videotapes of ROV Transects ...... 24 Table 6 Number and Distribution of Recorded in ROV Video Transects ...... 26 Table 7 Selected Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) of Fishes Identified from ROV Transects ...... 27 Table 8 Number and Distribution of Benthic Observed in ROV Video Transects .... 30 Table 9 Selected Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) of Benthic Invertebrates Identified from ROV Transects ...... 31 Table 10 Anthropogenic and Other Debris Recorded during ROV Video Transects ...... 33 Table 11 Selected Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) of Substrate and Bioturbation from ROV Transects ...... 34 Table 12 Number of 2-Minute Intervals with Potential or Possible Tilefish Burrows (>30 cm diameter) ...... 36 Table 13. Potential Active and Inactive Tilefish Burrow Numbers (Actual Counts per 2-Minute Interval) ...... 39

MAPS Map 1 ROV Video Transect Points with Traced Transect Lines Map 2 Traced ROV Transect Lines with Tilefish Bioturbation Map 3 Traced ROV Transect Lines with Substrate Types and Species of Management Interest

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Transect Times and Coordinates in Decimal Degrees Converted from the Original Degrees Decimal Minutes in 2-Minute Increments

APPENDIX B Condensed Annotations of ROV Video Transects in 2-Minute Increments

(A CD containing an electronic copy of the full video annotations, along with video frame grab JPG files, is included with this final report.)

ii Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Characterization in and around the Miami, Florida, ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Acronyms and Abbreviations

°C degrees Celsius (also known as Centigrade) CD compact disk cf. confer (Latin; equivalent to ‘compare’ in English) cm centimeter(s) CTD-profiler conductivity-temperature-depth profiler cu yd cubic yard(s) DGPS differential global positioning system DVD digital video disk ft feet GIS geographic information system GPS global positioning system HBOI Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute ibid. ibidem (Latin; equivalent to ‘in the same place’ in English) IPS integrated positioning system JPG Joint Photographic Experts Group, an electronic file format for photographic images Loran long-range navigation m meter(s) mm millimeter(s) MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 nmi nautical mile(s) ODMDS Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site PDF portable document format ROV remotely operated vehicle R/V research vessel SEAMAP Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program sp. species SPI camera sediment-profile-imaging camera USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USBL ultra-short baseline sonar USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VT video transect

i Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Characterization in and around the Miami, Florida, ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Executive Summary During January 25 and 26, 1986, the consulting firm Conservation Consultants, Inc. conducted an underwater video survey using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) within and around the Miami Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) off Miami-Dade County, Florida. Four video transects were completed (VT-1 through VT-4), each running from south to north and ranging from 2.07 nautical miles (nmi) to 3.78 nmi in length. The video transects traversed a combined total of 12.30 nmi. A total of 17.8 hours of recorded video data were submitted to the contractor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District (USACE), along with a figure illustrating the transect lines and a list of coordinates and ship positions taken every 2 minutes.

USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) identified a need to have the 1986 video dataset reviewed and analyzed for the possible presence of federally managed species. Preliminary review of the video records indicated possible tilefish (Malacanthidae, referred to as Branchiostegidae by some authors) habitat evidenced by the presence of large burrows in soft substrate. Of the approximately 40 members of the tilefish family, only two species, blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps, Figure 3) and golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps; Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5), are of management interest and are likely to use this area.

The main objectives of this study are to: 1) Characterize benthic by analyzing videotapes generated during the 1986 Conservation Consultants ROV survey using substrate and habitat categories likely to be found in this region. 2) Map habitats and biotic features along each video transect line using GIS software including burrows, tilefishes, and other species of management interest. 3) Quantify local tilefish habitat, if possible, including potential tilefish burrows. 4) Identify benthic macrofauna which can be potential tilefish prey organisms (e.g., mollusks, , fishes) to the lowest practical taxonomic level based on the videotapes.

Results The black and white ROV video was of low resolution. This fact, along with the frequently changing field of view and camera orientation to the seafloor limited our ability to differentiate burrow types, biological resources, and substrate types. Average speed over ground was calculated as 0.8 knots, which is faster than desirable for quality video documentation (<0.5 knots is optimal). Of the total 17.8 hours of video time recorded on the 10 DVDs, 14.3 hours were recorded with the ROV on-bottom during the video transects.

Fish Occurrence and Distribution Eleven fish taxa were identified from the ROV video (Tables 5 and 6, Figures 7 and 8), all of which were observed near potential tilefish burrows. Golden tilefish were identified in the video on two occasions, both of which occurred along VT-3 outside of the Miami ODMDS in water 247–252 meters deep (Map 3). No blueline tilefish were observed. Additional species of management interest were observed in the ROV video. Three snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus), a species of management interest, were observed along VT-1 in water 123–130 meters deep (Map 3). Two of the three snowy grouper observed were associated with a

1 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Characterization in and around the Miami, Florida, ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data derelict vessel and potential tilefish burrows along the west border of the Miami ODMDS. The third snowy grouper was observed outside the ODMDS. The only other fish species of management interest observed was an individual tentatively identified as a silk snapper (Lutjanus cf. vivanus) found along VT-3 outside the ODMDS at a depth of 248 meters (Map 3). Additional identified fish taxa observed in the ROV transect video include members of eight families and totaled 23 individuals. Of the indentified fishes observed, the most diversity was found along VT-3 (five taxa) followed by VT-1 with four taxa identified, VT-2 (three taxa), and VT-4 (two taxa). An additional 212 small (5–10 cm total length) unidentified fish were also observed along all four video transects.

Benthic Invertebrate Occurrence and Distribution Twelve benthic invertebrate taxa were identified from the ROV transect video (Tables 7 and 8, Figures 9 and 10). Of the invertebrates identified, one species is of management interest—the golden (Chaceon fenneri). A total of 16 individual golden were seen along all four transects in depths of 122–252 meters, both inside and outside of the Miami ODMDS (Map 3). The most golden crabs observed in one transect (n = 10) were located along VT-3, downslope of the ODMDS. Crabs tentatively identified as Jonah crabs ( cf. borealis) were seen a total of 28 times along all four transects in water 136–250 meters deep. Of the remaining 10 invertebrate taxa observed, 1 , 4 decapod crustaceans, 4 echinoderms, and 1 anemone taxon were observed. A species of burrowing anemone () was by far the most abundantly observed invertebrate along the ROV transects, with a total of 275 logged observations, not counting small (5–10 cm) individuals.

Substrate Types Substrate along the four transects consisted almost exclusively of sand and mud (Figure 11, Map 3). Sediment analysis (Table 2) from a 1985 environmental assessment (Conservation Consultants 1985) shows that most stations had sediment compositions of roughly three parts fine sand to one part silt, with the exception of Station M05, positioned farther upslope from all of the transects, which had 76% fine sand, 9% silt, and 14% clay content. A station located east of the Miami ODMDS and adjacent to VT-3 contained considerable amounts of clay (20%) and silt (45%) based on results of more recent surveys (Collins and Pruitt 2001, USEPA 2009). Anthropogenic debris was only a minor component of the seafloor; the largest debris observed in the video was a 6.1-meter-long derelict vessel with attached outboard motor along VT-1 (Figure 12F, Map 3). One small rubble field, consisting of 10-cm to 20-cm pieces of rock or concrete which covered an area of roughly 10 m2, was observed along VT-3. A second small rubble field was found along VT-4 and consisted of approximately 10-cm-diameter rocks or concrete pieces representing about 10% of the seafloor over an area of roughly 10 m2. One portion of VT-4 had a lumpy appearance not typical of bioturbation features, indicating possible underlying rock or debris.

Bioturbation and Tilefish Burrows Bioturbation included mounds, pits, craters, and burrows (Figure 12) which were observed in nearly every 2-minute interval of all four transects. These features were likely made by organisms such as worms (echiurans, sipunculids, , etc.), bivalve mollusks, echinoids, crustaceans, and fish. Conical-shaped mounds were categorized into three size classes: small (5–15 cm diameter at base), medium (15–30 cm), and large (31–50 cm). Dense concentrations of mounds were observed along significant portions of transects VT-2 and VT-4

2 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Characterization in and around the Miami, Florida, ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data within and north of the Miami ODMDS (Map 2), but were not observed in high densities in the remaining two transects. It is the opinion of the authors and of specialists consulted that the dense mound habitat was not constructed nor maintained by tilefish. Depressions and burrows were the other dominant bioturbation features observed and consisted of conical to oval scours in the sediment, some of which featured a vertical or oblique shaft or hole in the bottom. Depressions were recorded as either small (<30 cm diameter), medium (30–50 cm), or large (51–100 cm or larger).

The medium and large depressions (estimated at >30 cm diameter) having certain characteristics were categorized as potential tilefish burrows based on descriptions in published sources, opinions of specialists consulted, and on J. Reed’s (Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute) previous experience in deepwater surveys. Active tilefish burrows typically would have a vertical or oblique shaft at the bottom of the burrow. The depression would often have steep sides and would show signs of erosion from diggings of other occupants (e.g., crabs, fishes) of the burrow. The top edge of the burrow often would have a slightly raised rim caused by the tilefish scouring out the sediment. Inactive burrows, however, would appear comparatively smooth in cross section, and the shaft would be filled in with sediment. Potential tilefish burrows were categorized as either medium (approximately 30–50 cm) or large (51–150 cm) in diameter (Tables 10 and 11, Figure 14). In some intermediate areas between the dense mound habitat and the potential tilefish habitat, it appeared less certain that the medium and large craters were tilefish burrows. The burrows in these intermediate areas appeared to be inactive. In these intermediate cases, each 2-minute increment was logged as ‘possible tilefish burrows’. Overall, 81.7% of the transected seafloor had potential or possible tilefish burrows, ranging from 49.5% for VT-2 to 98% for VT-1 and VT-3 (Figure 13, Map 2, Table 12). Only VT-3 had actual tilefish sightings (Figure 5, Maps 2 and 3).

Considering the entire transected area, the maximum density of 21.6 burrows per 2-minute interval was recorded at VT-1 where almost 100% of the intervals counted had potential active burrows. Mean burrow density ranged from 115 burrows/1,000 m2 at Transect VT-3 to 419 burrows/1,000 m2 at VT-1, with an overall average of 244 burrows/1,000 m2 for all transects.

An estimation was made of the area of potential tilefish habitat within the Miami ODMDS based on the occurrence of these burrows along transects (Map 2) combined with substrate, bottom temperature, and depth data. Extrapolating to the entire area of the ODMDS and including the dense mound area thought to be able to sustain tilefish if not for fishing pressure, the estimated tilefish habitat includes the entire Miami ODMDS (1 nmi2). It is important to note that not all the burrows in the area would be active and burrow density data should not be used to estimate total tilefish population potential. There is presently no equation for use in predicting tilefish population density based on burrow density. Also the video transects were conducted more than two decades ago (in 1986) and cannot be used to estimate the current status of the site or potential for tilefish.

All four transects and the Miami ODMDS can be contained within a rectangle not extending beyond the farthest transect in any direction. This imaginary rectangle would span 5.1 nmi2. Based on sediment characteristics, possible and potential burrow densities, temperature attributes, and depth constraints, the authors estimate that the entire 5.1 nmi2 area contained suitable tilefish habitat during the time of the video surveys. It appears that the area in and around VT-3 may have better golden tilefish habitat than the shallower portions of the

3 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Characterization in and around the Miami, Florida, ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data rectangle, based on the cooler temperatures and the two golden tilefish sighted along this transect.

Potential Tilefish Prey Taxa identified in the ROV transect video (such as the decapod crustaceans) are likely food items for blueline and golden tilefish. Some of these taxa utilize tilefish burrows, apparently for shelter (Grimes et al. 1986), but may also gain trophic rewards (scavenging leftover food from tilefish) which presumably outweigh the risks involved in co-habitation with a predator. Only a few individuals of any taxon were actually seen inside the burrows, with the Jonah crab being the most often observed burrow associate. Various unidentified small (5–15 cm) fish were abundant, with 212 total individuals documented from the video. These may be juveniles of larger species, or forage fish, but were too small to identify in the video. These fish plus the dominant larger fish, American ( cf. oceanicus) and shortbeard codlings ( cf. barbatulum), are likely important prey items for tilefish in and around the Miami ODMDS.

Modern Status of Tilefish Habitat: The Next Step Since the time of the video survey, an estimated 4,893,300 cubic yards of dredged material have been deposited at the Miami ODMDS as of September 2008 (USEPA and USACE 2008). Of this material, at least 4.6% was characterized as silt/clay, while the majority of the deposited material included a gravel or limerock component (84.8%) (ibid.).

Recent surveys have shown that limestone rubble occurs in portions of the ODMDS as well as in areas to the north and west of the site (USEPA and USACE 2008). On the other hand, significant amounts of clay and silt have also been deposited at the site and directly north of the site based on results of an October 2007 survey (USEPA 2009). Somewhat conflicting data were obtained during a sediment-image-profiling (SPI) camera survey conducted in May 2006, during which coarse sand, gravel, and limestone rubble were found within the northern portion of the ODMDS but not extending beyond the ODMDS (Germano & Associates 2006).

The deposited rock and gravel, and to a lesser extent course sand, are likely to have negatively affected the ability of the Miami ODMDS to support tilefish. Limestone rubble appeared plentiful within the Miami ODMDS during an April 2010 ODMDS survey based on heavy trawl damage and occurrence of limerock rubble within the nets and Deep Ocean Van Veen grab sampler (ANAMAR 2010). The disposal records mentioned above, along with the most recent ODMDS survey results, suggest that some portions of the Miami ODMDS may no longer represent suitable tilefish habitat, and instead appear better suited to reef-dwelling species. Elucidating the modern presence of managed taxa goes beyond the scope of the present work and should be considered the next step in addressing tilefish habitat and that of other economically important species. Examples of additional species to be considered in subsequent studies are offered below.

Managed species that were recorded in the video footage and which are still likely to find habitat at the ODMDS include golden crab, snowy grouper, and silk snapper. Reef-dwelling species of management interest that may now occur at the ODMDS include misty grouper (Epinephelus mystacinus), red grouper (Epinephelus morio), warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus), and queen snapper ( oculatus). Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) and vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) prefer slightly shallower depths but would

4 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Characterization in and around the Miami, Florida, ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data otherwise find suitable habitat at the Miami ODMDS. The wreckfish (Polyprion americanus) is not commercially targeted outside of the Charleston Bump off South Carolina but may possibly find refuge at the Miami ODMDS.

Confirmation of the presence of managed species may require capture gear and/or a modern video survey. Examples of suitable capture gear include rod-and-reel, electric or hydraulic reels (‘bandit rigs’), bottom long-line, or similar hook-and-line equipment. Trapping equipment may also be suitable as long as the traps are large and well-anchored. An additional ROV video transect study could also be performed, although managed species would need to be video- taped to confirm their presence.

5 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) assigns basic responsibility to USEPA and USACE for ensuring that ocean dredged material disposal activities will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health or welfare, the marine environment, or economic potentialities (MPRSA Sections 102 and 103).

MPRSA Section 102 authorizes USEPA to designate sites and times at which dumping may occur and to establish criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications, including those for dredged material. These site designations are published in the Federal Register at 40 CFR Part 228. Site designations include a description of the site, the type of material for which the site is designated, and any restrictions on site use established by USEPA. It also requires USEPA, in conjunction with USACE, to develop site management plans for dredged material disposal sites.

An ODMDS off the coast of Miami has been used for dredged material disposal since 1957 (USEPA and USACE 2008). The center of the ODMDS is 4.7 nautical miles (nmi) offshore and measures approximately 1 nmi by 1 nmi square, centered at the coordinates 25° 45.00’N latitude and 80° 03.37’W longitude. In 2007, the ODMDS water depths ranged from 127 to 235 meters, with an average depth of 180 meters (USEPA and USACE 2008). The sediment within the ODMDS includes clay, silt, sand, gravel, and limestone rubble (USEPA and USACE 2008). Between 1957 and 1986 [date of the remotely operated video (ROV) survey] 3,050,541 cubic yards of material were deposited at the ODMDS, and an additional 160,083 cubic yards of material were deposited approximately 1 nmi west of the site.

As part of the site designation studies supporting final designation, USACE contracted an underwater survey of the in and adjacent to the ODMDS. The survey was conducted in January 1986 by Conservation Consultants, Inc. utilizing an ROV with video camera. The videographic data generated during the study, containing 17.8 hours of recorded data, were submitted to USACE along with a brief summary of transects surveyed.

1.2 Objectives USACE and USEPA identified a need to have the 1986 video dataset reviewed and analyzed for the possible presence of species of management interest. Preliminary review of the video records indicated possible tilefish (Malacanthidae, referred to as Branchiostegidae by some authors) habitat evidenced by the presence of large burrows in soft substrate. It must be noted that these videotape surveys were conducted more than two decades ago and are not necessarily indicative of the current presence or absence of tilefish or other resources revealed during this video review study.

The main objectives of this video review are to 1) Characterize benthic habitats by analyzing videotapes generated during the 1986 ROV survey (Conservation Consultants 1986) using substrate and habitat categories likely to be found in the region based on previous surveys (e.g., Reed 2002a, Reed et al. 2005a, Messing et al. 2006a).

6 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

2) Map habitats and biotic features (including burrows, tilefishes, and other species of management interest) along each transect using GIS software. 3) Quantify the local tilefish population, if possible, including potential tilefish burrows. 4) Identify benthic macrofauna comprising potential tilefish prey (e.g., mollusks, crustaceans, fishes) to the lowest practical taxonomic level. This will lend insight as to the area’s ability to support tilefishes.

This report includes detailed analyses of the original videotapes with documentation of substrate, habitat, bioturbation, burrows, and fauna along with photographs (from video frame grabs). Results are illustrated spatially on figures generated using GIS software. This final report includes electronic copies of the complete ROV videotape annotations (Appendix B offers a condensed version) and JPEG images taken from video frame grabs documenting the dominant habitats and fauna. Coordinates in the annotations are linked to the coded video frame grabs, facilitating future spatial analysis.

In a general sense, this study is intended to provide a basis for further research into the occurrence of tilefish and other federally managed taxa within and around the Miami ODMDS. It is hoped that this document will help address future management decisions affecting the Miami ODMDS and its economically important inhabitants.

1.3 Brief Introduction to Blueline and Golden Tilefishes Five tilefish species occur in this region: blackline tilefish (), blueline tilefish, (Caulolatilus microps, Figure 3), golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps, Figures 1–2 and 4–5), goldface tilefish (Caulolatilis chrysops), and sand tilefish ( plumieri). Due to water depth and substrate composition during the 1986 video survey, sand tilefish, which prefer shallower water and broken coral or rubble habitat, were not expected in the project area (Dooley 2002, McEachran and Fechhelm 2005). Similar to the sand tilefish in habitat preference, the goldface tilefish also was not expected within the project area (McEachran and Fechhelm 2005). Previous studies along the Florida east coast show that the blueline and golden tilefish are the predominant species likely to occur at the depth of the Miami ODMDS (Avent and Stanton 1979; Able et al. 1987b, 1993). Due to their importance as food and , blueline tilefish and golden tilefish are important in a fisheries-management perspective (South Atlantic Management Council 2009) and thus are the primary focus of this report.

The ranges of both blueline and golden tilefish include the outer and slope waters of the western central Atlantic, including southeast Florida (Dooley 2002, McEachran and Fechhelm 2005), and the golden tilefish is known to occur in suitable depths off Miami Beach (Freeman and Walford 1976). Blueline tilefish occur in water depths of 30 to 236 meters deep (most often found in 50 to 200 meters depth) over soft or rubble-covered substrates (Dooley 2002, McEachran and Fechhelm 2005). Prey taxa for the blueline tilefish include mainly benthic invertebrates (e.g., worms, mollusks, portunid crabs) and, to a lesser extent, fishes. This species is not known to migrate (Dooley 2002).

7 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Figure 1. The Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) [Drawing by H.L. Todd, taken from Collette and Klein-MacPhee (2002), used by permission of Dr. Bruce Collette]

Off Florida’s east coast, golden tilefish show strong preference for substrates having high clay and/or silt content in water 137–290 meters deep with an average bottom temperature of 8.6°C to 15.4°C (Able et al. 1993). However, this species has been shown to tolerate short but abrupt temperature fluctuations (Able et. al. 1993). Similar to those found off Florida’s east coast, New England populations of golden tilefish utilize areas having stable bottom temperatures and mud substrate (Grimes et al. 1986). Off New England, golden tilefish are known to utilize both burrow and non-burrow microhabitats, including horizontal cavities in clay walls of submarine canyons, rock shelves, and rocks and boulders (ibid.). Off New England, crustaceans and fishes were more abundant within the vicinity of tilefish burrows than away from them, even though the burrow community may be strongly affected by tilefish (ibid.). Maximum burrow diameter varies greatly by region. For instance, off the east coast of Florida, Able et al. (1993) recorded burrows up to 1.5 meters in diameter, while Grimes et al. (1986) found burrows up to 5 meters in diameter in the mid-Atlantic Bight. Prey taxa for golden tilefish include mainly crab and species, although other invertebrates (e.g., bivalves, , polychaete worms) along with elasmobranchs [i.e., piked dogfish (Squalus acanthias)] and fishes [e.g., (anguilliformes), lanternfishes (myctophidae), butterfishes (Stromateidae), hakes (Urophycis spp.)] are sometimes consumed (McEachran and Fechhelm 2005). Golden tilefish are not known to migrate. Mark-recapture data indicate that these fish exhibit long-term residence, as all recaptures, after being at liberty for as long as 20 months, were made less than 1 nmi from the release location (Grimes et al. 1986).

Both tilefish species have complex life cycles, but little information is available on reproduction. Golden tilefish are known to in summer off Cape Hatteras while blueline tilefish spawn from April through October off the Carolinas (Ross and Merriner 1983). Blueline tilefish are known to produce between 0.2 million and 4.1 million eggs per spawning (Ross and Merriner 1983). The pelagic eggs of golden tilefish are 1.16 to 1.4 mm in diameter, and newly hatched young measure 2.6 mm in notochord length. When pelagic juvenile golden tilefish measure 9.0 to 15.5 mm in standard length, they descend to the bottom where they spend the rest of their lives (Fahay 1983). Growth in northern stocks of golden tilefish occurs at about 10 cm per year for the first 4 years. At age 9, males average 74 cm fork length and females average

8 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

64 cm fork length (Able 2002). Sexual maturity is reached in female golden tilefish at about 50 cm fork length and 5 years of age, while males reach maturity at 65 to 85 cm fork length and 7 to 11 years of age (ibid.). The smaller blueline tilefish reaches maturity at 42.5 to 45.0 cm total length in females (ages 4 and 5) and at about 50 cm total length at age 5 in males (Ross and Merriner 1983). Some evidence suggests that reduced population densities of golden tilefish may trigger males to reach maturity at smaller sizes and younger ages (Grimes et al. 1988). Blueline tilefish are hermaphroditic (Ross and Merriner 1983), which may also be the case in golden tilefish, but that is not presently known.

Figure 2. Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) Caught off Campeche Bank, Mexico (Photograph courtesy of George Burgess)

Figure 3. Blueline Tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) Caught off Campeche Bank, Mexico (Photograph courtesy of George Burgess)

9 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Figure 4. Artistic Depiction of Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) Burrow in Cross Section (Drawing courtesy of Dr. Ken Able)

Figure 5. Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) Hovering at Burrow Entrance (Photograph courtesy of Dr. Ken Able)

10 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

2.0 METHODS 2.1 Historical Data Conservation Consultants, Inc. conducted two benthic surveys in and adjacent to the Miami ODMDS in 1985. The first, an environmental study of nine stations (three within the ODMDS and six adjacent), included physical, chemical, and biological sampling and analysis (Conservation Consultants 1985). Some of the data from the study are used in this report. Of the samples of pertinence to the present report, a total of nine stations were sampled for sediment using a Ponar dredge, amounting to 0.054 square meters of sediment surface per station. Also of interest here, benthic invertebrates and demersal fishes were collected at four stations by towing a 3.1-meter-wide trawl for 15 minutes per tow at a speed over ground of 1–2 knots, with two tows performed per station. Additional data in the present study included in situ water temperature recordings taken in October 2007 with a CTD-profiler provided by USEPA along with recent sediment composition data. Considering the temperature sensitivity of deepwater tilefishes, the bottom temperatures recorded by USEPA have proven useful in determining the suitability of the area to sustain tilefishes and thus are included herein. The second survey by Conservation Consultants (1986) was completed January 25–26, 1986, using a ROV with a video camera. Four south-to-north video transects were surveyed within and adjacent to the ODMDS. The ROV report lacked any description of methods used; however, the following methodological information was gained from audio recorded on the videotapes: 9 International Underwater Contractors conducted the ROV operations 9 Recon IV was the ROV model 9 Conservation Consultants, Inc. conducted the video survey 9 R/V Seward Explorer was the ship used for the survey 9 Hydrostar Underwater Navigation System was used to navigate the ROV

2.2 ROV Navigation, Video Transects Data provided from the ROV video survey consisted of 10 video tapes documenting the four video transects; a figure illustrating the transect paths; and a table containing the time (in 2-minute intervals), the ship’s position (degrees, decimal minutes to 0.01), and the relative position of the ROV in terms of range and bearing. These data were given in 2-minute increments for each of the four transects. The coordinates recorded from the 1986 ROV survey (Conservation Consultants 1986) were converted from degrees decimal minutes into decimal degrees for importing into Arcview GIS (Appendix B). Quality assurance and quality control were completed on these data to verify that the conversion was done correctly. The original videotapes generated during the study had been copied to 10 DVDs (17.8 hours total), which were used in this study. The video included an overlay of the date, time, depth in feet, and ROV heading in degrees. The date given in the video overlay was off by 1 year; it read 1985 rather than 1986.

Given the lack of documentation regarding materials and methods, the range given in the report could be either slant range from the ship to the ROV or horizontal range. According to submersible electronics specialist Jim Sullivan of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute (HBOI), the Hydrostar Underwater Navigation System used in that time period could have provided a

11 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

slant range. Mr. Sullivan further stated that the ROV heading could be either relative to a north heading or to the ship’s heading, but is likely relative to the ship’s heading given the readings. The Hydrostar Underwater Navigation System used Ultra-short Baseline Sonar (USBL) and was the predecessor for the same technology that is currently used in the ORE Trackpoint II Acoustic Positioning System that HBOI uses to track the Johnson-Sea-Link submersibles. Currently, submersible or ROV navigation using USBL technology with Trackpoint and Integrated Positioning System (IPS) software integrates the ROV position relative to the ship and calculates the ROV real-time DGPS position throughout each dive. Analysis of USBL tracking accuracy for a worst-case tracking scenario estimated a maximum statistical positioning error of 9.6 meters at a depth of 500 meters (Reed et al. 2006). No metadata were provided on the positioning system used in the 1986 ROV survey. Based on the time period, the investigators likely used Loran-C, which was at that time the official navigation aid for coastal waters (Dahl 1986). Loran is a low-frequency radio navigation system whose name is derived from the term ‘long-range navigation’ (Ellis 2000). It consists of two signals, each transmitted from separate ground stations. A pulse from the master station triggers the slave station to respond with a time-delayed signal, and the navigator finds his position with the aid of a Loran chart. Taking another set of readings from other stations confirms the location (ibid.). The Loran time delays would be measurable and repeatable when using the same navigation hardware, but when converted to latitude/longitude, it could be significantly offset. For example, J. Reed mapped deepwater reef sites off central Florida in the 1970s and 1980s using Loran-C and was able to return to targets using time delays, but was unable to locate the targets after converting the Loran-C numbers to global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, except after surveying the region. Professor Reed found that off the east coast of Florida, Loran-C had a navigational accuracy of ±100–300 meters (Reed et al. 2005b). Professor Reed’s assessment agrees with Melton (1986), who stated Loran-C is accurate to ±152–457 meters under normal conditions.

2.3 Video Analysis A video annotation log was developed from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for use in recording and annotating data from each ROV transect. Appendix B offers a condensed version of the video log, while an electronic copy of the full log is contained on a CD which was delivered along with this final report. The DVD videotapes were viewed using a Cyberlink Play DVD. The following data were recorded in the annotation log in 2-minute increments: 9 Date; 9 ROV dive number; 9 DVD number; 9 Latitude/longitude (converted to decimal degrees); 9 Time (from ROV overlay); 9 ROV heading (ROV overlay); 9 Depth (feet, ROV overlay); 9 Depth (meters, converted); 9 Bottom type, bioturbation; 9 Tilefish borrows; 9 Number of burrows; 9 Activity of burrows; 9 Number of individuals of each identified benthic species; 9 Habitat and faunal notes; and

12 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

9 Photo capture log.

Frame grabs captured from the video and converted to JPEG images (720 x 480 pixels, approximately 1.0-megabytes each) are included as electronic files on a CD which was delivered along with this final report. These images document specific habitat types, bioturbation features, tilefish burrows, and invertebrate and fish taxa and can be referenced in the video annotation log to obtain locality coordinates and other data.

The video transect data will be used to gauge a rough estimate of tilefish habitat relative to a known area. To facilitate this, a complete study area can be contained within a rectangle encompassing the four video transects and including the Miami ODMDS, but not extending farther than these transects in any direction. This rectangle would contain approximately 5.1 nmi2 of seafloor with corners at the following four locations (using datum WGS 84): ™ Northwest Corner: 80.0682° N by 25.7882° W ™ Northeast Corner: 80.0410° N by 25.7880° W ™ Southwest Corner: 80.0685° N by 25.7302° W ™ Southeast Corner: 80.0415° N by 25.7300° W

2.3.1 Field of View Estimation Modern ROV or submersible video surveys generally use either a ruler or parallel laser beams for use in estimating the size of benthic features and fauna. However, the videotapes lacked these measures of scale. Several other problems also occurred during the video transects, which made estimates of the width of the field of view difficult and thus affected the estimation of taxa population densities and burrow densities. Ideally, the ROV video camera should be at a relatively constant angle and height off the bottom. For quantitative calculations of densities, the camera angle should be perpendicular to the seafloor to prevent parallax. In the video transects the ROV did not maintain a constant height off the bottom, but instead moved up or down, making bottom-viewing difficult. Additionally, the camera angle was not consistent, so in some cases the ROV was on or very near the bottom with the camera pointing almost directly forward, whereas in other cases it was higher off the bottom (1–2 meters) with the camera angled out and providing a relatively wide field of view. As a result, J. Reed had to estimate the field of view and size of objects based on 30 years of experience of deepwater ROV and submersible dives in the Straits of Florida, which included documenting substrate type, macrofauna, bioturbation, and both golden tilefish and blueline tilefish (Avent and Stanton 1979).

To determine the field of view of the video, taxa of known limited size ranges, such as Jonah crabs (Cancer cf. borealis) and fishes such as shortbeard codlings (Laemonema cf. barbatulum), provided a relative size estimate. The size of bioturbation features such as the conical mounds found in the video are very common throughout this depth range along the Florida coast, typically ranging from 10 cm to 50 cm in diameter. Additionally, when the ROV was in a relatively good viewing position (near the bottom with the camera angled about 45 degrees down), J. Reed measured an object of known size, such as a beer can, that was viewed in the video. Video footage of beer cans were measured with calipers and compared to measured non-video beer cans. The field of view was then estimated by comparing the relative beer can size with the screen width at that horizontal point. In this case, a 2.54-cm width in the lower third of the screen was approximately equivalent to 10 cm, and the screen width of 25.4 cm

13 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

was equivalent to approximately 1 meter. This assumption was used for size estimates when the camera was within 1 meter of the seafloor. The lower portion of the field of view may be approximately 1 meter wide, whereas the upper portion of the field of view could be 2 meters or greater. Overall, the video was too blurry to identify organisms smaller than 5–10 cm.

2.4 Habitat Characterization Substrates were differentiated and categorized based on observed physical properties. Habitat categories included those that were likely to be found in this region based on previous surveys (e.g., Reed 2002b, Reed et al. 2005b, Messing et al. 2006b). Whenever hardbottom was encountered, substrate type was categorized based on subcategories established by the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) deepwater mapping project (Arendt et al. 2003). The SEAMAP bottom-mapping workgroup defines deepwater hardbottom as consisting of one or more of the following subcategories: coral, rock rubble, coral rubble, exposed hard pavement, thinly covered hard substrate, and artificial structures. Soft sediments were categorized based on the primary component of the substrate as seen in the ROV transect video. Each habitat was coded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for presence/absence during each 2-minute ROV transect time interval (Appendix B). Percent cover of each substrate type (i.e., softbottom, hardbottom) was determined by dividing the number of 2-minute intervals by the total number of intervals in each transect.

2.5 Faunal Characterization The dominant benthic invertebrate and fish fauna were counted for each 2-minute increment and identified whenever possible. Due to the low resolution and other factors affecting the video, many could not be identified beyond phylum; and the majority of small (5–10 cm) individuals were unidentifiable. Numbers of individuals were recorded for fishes and invertebrates whenever possible. An exception was made for smaller individuals of cerianthid burrowing anemones as this taxon was too difficult to quantify when smaller than 5–10 cm in diameter.

2.6 Terminology and Definitions Parameters regarding substrate type, bioturbation, and burrows documented in the video annotation are defined below (see Appendix B). These are typical features that one author, J. Reed, has documented elsewhere on the Florida shelf and Straits of Florida and in other deepwater benthic surveys. The main categories of softbottom and hardbottom were used to code each 2-minute interval of video footage. The main category of softbottom includes such substrates as mud, sand with or without bioturbation, sand waves, or sand ripples. The main category of hardbottom includes subcategories such as rock rubble, rock pavement/rock ledges, standing coral (live or dead stony corals and coral rubble), and artificial rock substrate (cement rubble, concrete pieces, or gravel). Rock rubble was the only hardbottom type identified in this study.

2.6.1 Bioturbation Bioturbation features found during the video review were pits, craters, mounds, and burrows made by organisms such as worms (e.g., echiurans, sipunculids, polychaetes), bivalve mollusks, echinoids, crustaceans, and fishes. Bioturbation was categorized as follows:

14 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

• Density of bioturbation features were categorized as either dense (present in virtually every frame of the video), sparse (few seen over the space of a 2-minute video increment), or none (none present over a 2-minute increment). • Mounds were conical in shape and often had an apical hole. This hole at the apex of the mound may be an ex-current vent of a worm or mollusk, as sediment was occasionally seen being expelled from the hole. Mounds were categorized as either small (5–15 cm diameter at base), medium (16–30 cm), or large (31–50 cm). • Burrows (depressions) were conical to oval-shaped scours in the sediment. Some depressions had a vertical or oblique shaft or hole in the bottom which would be the portion inhabited by the organism making the depression. These depressions were categorized as small (<30 cm in diameter), medium (30–50 cm), or large (51–100 cm or larger). • Tilefish burrows—the medium and large depressions (>30 cm diameter) having certain characteristics were categorized as potential tilefish burrows based on descriptions in published sources, opinions of specialists consulted, and on J. Reed’s (Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute) previous experience in deepwater surveys. Active tilefish burrows typically would have a vertical or oblique shaft at the bottom of the burrow (Figure 4). However, given the low resolution of the video and variable camera angle and height, many depressions could not be viewed for the presence of a shaft at the bottom. Additionally, the sides of the depression appear steep and eroded from the borings of other occupants (e.g., crabs, fishes). The top edge of the burrow often has a slightly raised rim from the tilefish scouring out the sediment. Inactive burrows indicate that a tilefish has left and is no longer actively maintaining the burrow. Inactive burrows appear smoothed-out when compared to active burrows, and the shaft has filled-in with sediment, with smooth sides having a gentle slope. Burrows thought to be from tilefish were recorded in 2-minute increments and logged in Appendix B as either potential tilefish borrows (Bu) or as possible tilefish burrows (Bu?) if their status or origin appeared less certain. Areas composed of dense mounds (Mo) appeared to be devoid of tilefish burrows and had no evidence of tilefish activity. Whenever the seafloor was out of view in the video, the code ‘n/a’ was logged, signifying that bioturbation could not be categorized in a 2-minute increment. Every 10 to 15 minutes, exact counts of the medium and large burrows were recorded for a 2-minute interval and were logged as being either active or not active burrows (Appendix B). The mean number of burrows was calculated for each transect based on averaging the individual 2-minute burrow counts. Each 2-minute interval was recorded as active if any active burrows were observed within the interval, even if inactive burrows were also observed in the interval. Burrow density was calculated by taking the mean counts divided by the total transect length times the estimated average field of view of 1 meter.

2.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Several qualified scientists were contacted for their expertise (Table 1). Many of these scientists kindly reviewed excerpts of the video or video grabs for their opinions and to verify identifications regarding sources of bioturbation, identification of tilefish burrows, and invertebrate and fish identifications. ANAMAR biologist J. Seitz compared video-identified taxa with verified species-specific ranges and habitats in the literature to ensure accuracy of identifications. The ROV video footage was reviewed several times by J. Reed to ensure that

15 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

the video annotations were complete. The video annotations were reviewed by J. Seitz to ensure the scientific accuracy of logged entries.

16 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Table 1. List of Specialized Scientists Contacted to Review Video Excerpts

Name Organization Specialization Director (retired), Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution; Associate Professor, University of Guam; Fish ecology and , Dr. Robert Jones Director, University of Texas Marine Science publications on deepwater Institute; tilefish Deputy Director, Bermuda Biological Station for Research Fish ecology and taxonomy, Director, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Dr. Churchill Grimes publications on deepwater NOAA Fisheries tilefish Fish ecology and taxonomy, Dr. Ken Able Research Fish Biologist, Rutgers University publications on deepwater tilefish Fish ecology and taxonomy, Dr. Andy David Research Fishery Biologist, NOAA Fisheries characterization of shelf-edge hardbottom habitat and fish Manager, Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, Fish ecology and taxonomy of Dr. George Sedberry NOAA Sanctuaries Program deepwater fish Fish ecology and taxonomy of Dr. Kenneth Sulak Research Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey deepwater fishes Fish ecology and taxonomy, Dr. Chris Koenig Research Fish Biologist, Florida State University shelf-edge fish and habitat characterization Decapod crustaceans, Director, Smithsonian Environmental Research Dr. Anson Hines deepwater geryonid crabs, Center golden crab Benthic ecology, deepwater Dr. William Lindberg Research Biologist, University of Florida geryonid crabs, golden crabs Research Professor, NOVA Southeastern Deepwater benthos, Dr. Charles Messing University, Oceanographic Center invertebrates Director (retired), St. Johns River Water Benthic ecology, infauna, Dr. Robert Virnstein Management District macrofauna President, George Institute for Biodiversity and Deep-sea ecology, Dr. Robert George Sustainability (GIBS) invertebrates Director (emeritus), Smithsonian Marine Station, Benthic ecology and taxonomy Dr. Mary Rice Curator of Invertebrates, National Museum of of worms (polychaetes, Natural History sipunculids, etc.) Geologist, benthic habitat Dr. Kathryn Scanlon Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey studies of deepwater coral reefs Professor of Marine Geology, Rosenstiel School of Deep-sea geology, sediment Dr. Robert Ginsburg Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of characterization Miami Dr. Bjorn Turnberg Research Biologist, Smithsonian Marine Station Benthic ecology, invertebrates Associate Director for Science, Paleontological Dr. Paula Mikkelsen Taxonomy of mollusks Research Institution

17 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Physical Data The physical and biological data provided by Conservation Consultants (1985) proved useful in assessing the potential occurrence of tilefishes (Table 1). Stations sampled in 1985 for sediment and various fauna were generally within the ODMDS and near transects VT-1 through VT-3 (Map 1). The 1985 report did not provide temperatures at or near the bottom; however, USEPA provided CTD-profiler temperature data taken in October 2007 and these data are included in Table 2 and in Map 2 of this document. VT-3 was east of these stations and was not sampled in 1985. More recent sediment data were obtained from Station M09 in October 2007 (USEPA 2009) that show considerable amounts of clay and silt. Station M09 is located approximately 90 meters from VT-3. Sediment compositions of most stations appear compatible with tilefish. Stations M05 and M09 appear most compatible with tilefish as these were the only stations to exhibit significant amounts of clay content.

Table 2. Sediment Composition, Depths, and Temperatures Taken Within and Adjacent to the Miami ODMDS Sediment October 2007 Station Depth Depth Composition Temperatures at Number (m) (ft) (% gravel/sand/silt/clay) Lowest Recorded DepthB M02A 216 708 0/74/25/0 16°C at 184 m M05A 86 282 0/76/9/14 27°C at 70 m M06A 138 452 0/72/28/0 18°C at bottom M07A 235 770 0/76/24/0 10°C at 227 m M08A 190 625 0/76/24/0 16°C at 171 m M09B – – 0/35/45/20 – A Sediment and depth data taken from Conservation Consultants (1985) from samples collected January 1985. B Data taken from USEPA (2009) from samples or profiles collected October 2007. Water depth and temperature were not recorded at Station M09.

A brief comparison between the January 1985 and October 2007 sediment survey results is offered in Table 3. It appears that percent silt and clay have increased in all samples since 1985, perhaps due to dredged material disposal activities. Another noticeable change is that gravel increased somewhat in Station M05 sediment, which may also be attributable to disposal activities. Statistical analysis in Collins and Pruitt (2001) on samples taken in July 2001 indicated that some stations did indeed have altered substrates, although station numbers differed between the 1985 Conservation Consultants report and the 2001 Collins and Pruitt document. Interestingly, stations representing M02 and M08 were considered to have native sediments in the 2001 study, while stations representing M05 and M06 were considered to be altered by dredged material (ibid.). An increase in tilefish-compatible silt and clay components can be seen when comparing results of the 1985 and 2007 sediment surveys, at least at stations within the vicinity of the video transects.

18 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Table 3. Comparison of Sediment Composition between 1985 and 2007 Surveys Station 1985 Sediment CompositionA 2007 Sediment CompositionB Number (% gravel/sand/silt/clay) (% gravel/sand/silt/clay) M02 0/74/25/0 0/54/26/20 M05 0/76/9/14 1/70/10/19 M06 0/72/28/0 0/26/50/24 M07 0/76/24/0 0/28/50/22 M08 0/76/24/0 0/39/42/19 A Taken from Conservation Consultants (1985) from samples obtained January 1985. B Taken from USEPA (2009) from samples obtained October 2007. Results are rounded to nearest whole number for easy comparison to 1985 results.

Following the 1986 ROV video survey, there has been extensive disposal (4,893,300 cubic yards from 1986 to 2006) of dredged material of which 84.8% included a gravel and/or limerock component (USEPA and USACE 2008). Surveys have shown that limestone rubble occurs throughout the ODMDS and in areas to the north and west of the site (USEPA and USACE 2008).

A sediment-profile-imaging camera (SPI camera) survey conducted in May 2006 in and around the Miami ODMDS found coarse sand, gravel, and limestone rubble within the northern portion of the ODMDS but not extending beyond it (Germano & Associates 2006). In fact, the majority of stations appeared to contain fine sand or very fine sand, even within the disposal site (ibid.). SPI-camera-recorded stations to the north and south of the ODMDS appeared to be devoid of hard materials, and instead consisted of combinations of sand, silt, and clay (ibid.). The dredged material footprint formed an elongate ellipse with its long axis oriented north-south (ibid.). Thickness of the dredged material ranged from 8.4 cm in the northwest quadrant of the ODMDS to trace amounts found as far as 1,300 meters north of the disposal site (ibid.).

A survey was conducted in April 2010 at the Miami ODMDS for sediment and tissue samples to be analyzed for PCB and metal concentrations (ANAMAR 2010). Limestone rubble appeared to be plentiful in the ODMDS during the survey, as evidenced by heavy damage to several otter trawls and the occurrence of limestone in the nets and Deep Ocean Van Veen.

3.2 ROV Video Quality Overall, the black and white ROV video was of low resolution, grainy, and often blurry. The lighting was poor and the positioning of the camera lights caused backscatter from plankton or nepheloid particles in the water column. The field of view was often obscured by white flare- ups on the video. The flare-ups appeared to occur from reflection off the light-colored bottom combined with the camera iris diaphragm being too far open. Average speed over ground for the transects was calculated by averaging the time/distance of the transects; it averaged about 0.8 knots, which is too fast for good video (<0.5 knots is preferable). Also, the ROV speed varied from fast (estimated up to 2 knots) to slow and sometimes even moved backward from the pull of the umbilical cord. In addition, the ROV and camera height off the bottom varied constantly, ranging from on-bottom to >2 meters off-bottom. When the ROV was far off- bottom, the seafloor was nearly out of view or too dark to see. During an estimated 20% of

19 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

the time, the video was either unusable due to flare-ups, too high off-bottom, or surging, which caused blurred images.

3.3 ROV Transect Summary Map 1 shows the traced ROV transect lines from the original report along selected benthic sampling stations (Conservation Consultants 1985 and 1986) and the Miami ODMDS boundaries. Each colored symbol shown in Map 1 alongside each transect indicates the ship’s position plotted with GIS in 2-minute increments (Appendix A). The four transects generally run south to north and range in length from 2.07 nmi to 3.78 nmi at depths ranging from 122 to 253 meters (Table 4). Transects VT-1 and VT-2 travel through the ODMDS, VT-4 skirts along the western boundary, and VT-3 is well to the east of the eastern boundary. Of the total 17.8 hours of video time recorded on the 10 DVDs, 14.3 hours were recorded with the ROV on- bottom during the video transects.

Table 4. Video Transect Summary: Transect Length, Depth, and Number of 2-Minute Interval Records Total Transect No. of Transect Length2 within Minimum Maximum Transect 2-Minute Total Length1 ODMDS Depth Depth No. Increments Time nmi (km) nmi (km) m (ft) m (ft) 4 hrs, 122.2 157.6 VT-1 135 3.76 (6.95) 0.42 (0.78) 24 min. (401) (517) 3 hrs, 152.7 244.4 VT-2 111 3.78 (7.00) 1.17 (2.17) 40 min. (501) (802) 3 hrs, 247.2 253.0 VT-3 95 2.71 (5.01) 0.00 (0.00) 8 min. (811) (830) 3 hrs, 138.4 233.8 VT-4 95 2.07 (3.83) 1.47 (2.72) 8 min. (454) (767) 14 hrs, 12.30 122.2 253.0 Total 436 3.06 (5.67) 20 min. (22.79) (401) (830) 1 Transect lengths were calculated by importing the original ROV transect lines (Conservation Consultants 1986) into GIS and measuring the length of each line in meters. 2 Transect lengths within the ODMDS boundaries were measured in the same manner, except that only the lines within the ODMDS were measured.

3.4 ROV Navigation and Transects The ROV transect lines traced from the original report (Conservation Consultants 1986) and shown in Map 1 appear to be smoothed when compared to the actual coordinates that were recorded in 2-minute increments to decimal degrees (Appendix A, Figure 6, Map 1). As described in Section 2.2 the navigation records could have positioning errors up to 100–300 meters. Even with modern tracking of submersibles at these depths, 10 meters of positioning error is estimated under good conditions. Poor conditions could easily result in significantly higher positioning errors. Therefore, when the positions of the 2-minute intervals were plotted, the resultant points showed an unrealistic zigzag pattern which the 1986 authors apparently smoothed out for their plots of the transect lines (Figure 6, Map 1). This is not entirely unexpected given the tracking and positioning being used. Any rocking of the ship could have

20 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

added to the discrepancy. Even if the ROV stayed stationary on the bottom for a period of time, there would be variability in the signals and position recorded. Due to the erratic nature of the 2-minute position plots, the original ROV transect plots were used as the background information in order to overlay the various data in Maps 2 and 3. This prevented us from determining actual densities of features or fauna since it was not possible to calculate the exact distance the ROV traveled during any particular 2-minute interval.

Figure 6. Video Transect 4 of the 1986 Miami ODMDS ROV Survey as Plotted Using the Coordinates Given by Conservation Consultants (1986). The red line links each 2-minute set of coordinates (blue dots) in chronological order.

3.5 ROV Transect Notes Descriptions of the benthic habitats and biota for each ROV video transect are summarized below. See Appendix B for further details.

3.5.1 Video Transect-1 (VT-1) The video of this transect was very poor, black and white, grainy, blurry, and had poor lighting. Average speed over ground calculated from time/distance of total transect was 0.82 knots. ROV speed appeared to fluctuate from fast (estimated up to 2 knots) to slow. The height off- bottom varied constantly, and backscatter from light hitting plankton or nepheloid particles in the water column and iris problems often resulted in white flare-up obscuring the field of view.

ODMDS: VT-1 was within the ODMDS boundaries during approximately 10:00–11:16.

Time 08:42–12:32: Depth 143–137 meters; the bottom was 100% mud sediment with dense to moderate bioturbation consisting of 10 to 30-cm-diameter crater-shaped depressions, and occasional 50- to 100-cm-diameter craters, some of which had horizontal burrows at the bottom. Conical mounds, 5–10 cm in diameter, were common, and some had holes at the top

21 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

and smoking sediment. Some mounds were 20–30 cm in diameter. The quantitative 2-minute counts of burrows appeared to have tilefish activity (active burrows), and cerianthid burrowing anemones were dense.

12:34–12:46: The beginning of video tape 3 was missing 16 minutes of the transect.

12:48–13:06: Depth 148–156 meters; the bottom appeared similar as before but most of the larger burrows appeared smooth and inactive. End of transect.

3.5.2 Video Transect-2 (VT-2) Tape 3 continues at time 15:50, but does not appear to be Transect VT-2, which is supposed to have started at 17:32. Tape 3 continues to 16:05 then starts VT-2. The video review was very difficult with the ROV often flying 2 meters off-bottom, barely seeing the bottom, and often changing the tilt and camera angle.

ODMDS: VT-2 was within ODMDS boundaries from 17:56 to 18:58.

17:32–18:36: Depth 175–157 meters; the bottom was 100% soft mud sediment with dense bioturbation consisting of moonscape-like dense mounds 10–25 cm in diameter, and depressions 10-30 cm in diameter. Most of the larger craters appeared inactive, smooth walled, with no obvious large shaft and no raised rims. These were not likely tilefish burrows. Jonah crabs (Cancer cf. borealis) were fairly common but other macrofauna were sparse.

18:38–19:18: Depth 156–167 meters; there was a definite change in habitat from the beginning of VT-2; bioturbation was moderate and the mounds were less dense but the depressions were more abundant, 15–50 cm with occasional 100-cm depression. None of the large burrows appeared active.

19:20–19:58: Depth 167–203 meters; the bottom was again dominated by mounds, and most depressions were associated with mounds, making it difficult to differentiate craters from valleys between mounds. Most of the larger craters appeared inactive, smooth walled, with no obvious large shaft and no raised rims. These were not likely tilefish burrows.

20:00–21:00: Depth 205–243 meters; the conical mounds were less dense and the smooth depressions, 30–50 cm in diameter, were common. Some had very small 5-cm burrows in the bottom, but no raised rim. These were possible tilefish burrows, but probably were not active. Various fish, eels, and crabs were quite common in this region.

21:02–21:12: ROV was pulled off-bottom, unable to see bottom. End of transect.

3.5.3 Video Transect-3 (VT-3) Tape 5 started at 00:27 on January 26, 1986, which was not the correct time for VT-3. The ROV appeared on-bottom at 00:31 and then the tape jumped to 05:43, in midwater. It appeared that the ROV pilots were trying to get kinks out of the umbilical. There was a view of the tether management system at 30.5 meters, then back to the seafloor. At 06:23 the ROV was on deck, then at 07:16 on-bottom. Tape 5 ended at 08:08; these data were not logged or annotated as to bottom type since the seafloor was out of range and no position coordinates

22 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

were available. Tape 6 started at 08:09; therefore, VT-3 was logged at the time at which the position coordinates began being logged (08:16). Much of this transect had the ROV high off the bottom, which may have been due having a different ROV pilot.

ODMDS: VT-3 did not enter the ODMDS boundaries.

08:16–10:00: Depth 251–252 meters; the bottom was 100% soft sediment with moderate bioturbation, conical mounds 10–30 cm in diameter, and most with apical 1-cm hole. The depressions were 10–30 cm in diameter , with occasional >50-cm-diameter depressions, and some had a 5-cm burrow in the bottom with no raised rim. These appeared to be potential tilefish burrows but few appeared to be active. The ROV was often positioned too high in the water column for the seafloor to be clearly seen. Some depressions were up to 100-cm- diameter with raised rim, some were elongate with rim, and some had a burrow in the bottom. Unidentified small fish and crabs were abundant.

10:02 Depth 252 meters; a tilefish (identified as a golden tilefish) was observed diving into a burrow. The >50-cm tilefish probably went inside a large elongate depression approximately 1.5 meters in diameter with no distinct raised rim. The sides of the burrow were steep with an apparent oblique burrow at the bottom. There were numerous 1- to 3-cm associated burrows around the sides of the depression.

10:04–11:14: Depth 253–248 meters; the bottom was the same, with bioturbation consisting of mounds 10–30 cm in diameter and large depressions that appeared active; most were elongate with steep, eroded sides, but a definite burrow at the bottom could not be seen. A small debris field at 11:12 included numerous unidentified objects, possibly concrete rubble, covering about 10% of the bottom over a 10-meter area.

11:16: Depth 247 meters; a second golden tilefish, approximately 30–50 cm, was observed diving into a burrow. It had a pronounced crest anterior to the typical of golden tilefish. The burrow was round, approximately 75 cm in diameter, and had a slight rim.

11:18–11:24: Depth 248 meters; bottom same as during 10:04–11:14. End of transect.

3.5.4 Video Transect-4 (VT-4) Tape 8 started at 13:59, but the coordinate log did not start until 16:10. The data was not processed during the time period when no coordinates were logged since there was no way to determine where the ROV was during that time. The pilot seemed to have little control of the ROV, constantly going up and down, with the bottom in and out of view and much too dark to see. Electronic interference or noise made the video extremely blurry and numerical overlay of depth and time difficult to read.

ODMDS: VT-4 was within the ODMDS boundaries from about 17:54 to 18:58.

16:10–17:28: Depth 140–158 meters; the bottom is 100% soft sediment with moderate to dense bioturbation, dominated by depressions 5–50 cm in diameter with some 50–100 cm, and few conical mounds. Many of the larger depressions appeared active, with high rim and steep

23 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

sides, circular to oblong, and some with oblique burrow shafts. Cerianthid burrowing anemones and unidentified small fish were common.

17:30–18:12: Depth 163–218 meters; bioturbation was increasing, moonscape-like, with dense conical mounds 25–50 cm in diameter. It was difficult to differentiate craters from valleys between mounds. Depressions 30–100 cm in diameter were common, but most were smooth and worn and probably not active tilefish burrows. There were no obvious shafts in larger craters or raised rims. No cerianthid burrowing anemones were seen in this video segment.

18:14–19:00: Depth 219–233 meters; the bioturbation was decreasing, with a moderate density of 15- to 30-cm-diameter mounds, a few ranging to 50 cm. Depressions were estimated to be 10–50 cm in diameter with occasional larger depressions (50–100 cm in diameter). All bioturbation features appeared smooth and worn and only a few were seen with a small burrow, raised rim, or steep sides. None appeared to be active tilefish burrows. Jonah crabs and golden crabs (Chaceon fenneri) were common.

19:02–19:04: Depth 233 meters; habitat was the same but the bottom appeared lumpy, possibly from rubble material under the sediment. A small debris field appeared approximately 10 meters wide with 10-cm-diameter rocks or mud clumps.

19:06–19:21: ROV pulled off-bottom by umbilical. End of transect.

3.6 Faunal Identifications and Distribution Table 5 lists the taxa of all species identified from the videotapes. A total of 12 benthic invertebrate taxa and 11 fish taxa were identified in the ROV video. Taxonomic names preceded by ‘cf.’ are tentative, but are likely candidates based on their morphology and known distribution in the region. Appendix B offers further details.

Table 5. Taxa Identified from Videotapes of ROV Transects Phylum Subphylum Class Hexacorallia Order Ceriantharia Family Cerianthidae (unidentified burrowing anemones)

Phylum Class Class Cephalopoda Family Sepiolidae (unidentified squid)

Phylum ARTHROPODA Subphylum Crustacea Order Family Paguridae (unidentified hermit crabs) Family Galatheidae Munida sp. (squat lobster) Family Cancridae

24 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Table 5. (continued) Cancer cf. borealis (Jonah crab) Family Pisidae Rochinia crassa (inflated spiny crab) Family Geyonidae Chaceon fenneri (golden crab) Family Bathynectes cf. longispina (bathyal swimming crab) Unidentified decapod crabs

Phylum ECHINODERMATA Class Ophiuroidea Unidentified ophiuroids (brittle stars) Class Asteroidea Family Astropectinidae Tethyaster grandis (giant orange sea star) Class Echinoidea Family Diadematidae Centrostephanus cf. longispinus (longspine urchin) Family Echinothuriidae Araeosoma sp. () Unidentified echinoids

Phylum CHORDATA Class Family Dasyatidae Dasyatus cf. centroura (roughtail stingray) Class Family Conger cf. oceanicus (American conger) Unidentified eels Family Chlorophthalmidae agassizi (shortnose greeneye) Family Laemonema cf. barbatulum (shortbeard codling) Family Ogcocephalidae Unidentified batfish Family Unidentified flounder Family Peristediidae Unidentified armored searobin Family Gadidae Urophycis sp. (hake) Family Malacanthidae (Branchiostegidae) Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps (golden tilefish) Family Lutjanus cf. vivanus (silk snapper) Family Serrandiae Epinephelus niveatus (snowy grouper)

25 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

3.6.1 Fish Occurrence and Distribution Eleven fish taxa were observed during the ROV transect video review, and a total of 240 individuals were counted (Tables 4 and 5). Table 7 documents the photographs used in Figures 7 and 8 showing the dominant fish fauna. Although the frame grabs of the video are too poor to make identifications, in some cases, viewing of the video (rather than the frame grabs) allowed slightly improved visibility of taxonomic characteristics. Numerous unidentified fish (212 total) were observed. These were mostly 5- to 10-cm total length demersal species, some of which could be juveniles. The dominant large fish consisted of American congers, shortbeard codlings, silk snapper, snowy grouper, golden tilefish, batfish, left-eye flounder, and hake. The great majority of the fish sightings were in the vicinity of depressions; however, only in a few cases were fish observed inside a depression. Shortbeard codlings and snowy grouper were always associated with debris, such as a ladder.

Table 6. Number and Distribution of Fishes Recorded in ROV Video Transects Total Transect Depth Range Bioturbation No. of Fish Taxa Observed No. m (ft) Type* Individuals Dasyatis cf. centroura VT-3 251 Bu? 1 (roughtail stingray) (823) Chlorophthalmus agassizi VT-3 253 Bu? 1 (Shortnose greeneye) (830) Conger cf. oceanicus (American VT-1 & VT-2 148–236 Bu & Bu? 8 conger); unidentified eels (485–774) Laemonema cf. barbatulum VT-3 249–252 Bu 5 (shortbeard codling) (817–827) Urophycis sp. VT-1 & VT-2 123–231 Bu & Bu? 2 (hake) (403–758) Ogcocephalidae VT-1 & VT-4 137–138 Bu 2 (unidentified batfish) (449–453) Peristediidae VT-2 209 Bu? 1 (unidentified armored searobin) (686) Epinephelus niveatus VT-1 123–130 Bu 3 (snowy grouper) (403–426) Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps VT-3 247–252 Bu 2 (golden tilefish) (810–827) Lutjanus cf. vivanus VT-3 248 Bu? 1 (silk snapper) (814) Paralichthyidae VT-4 138–140 Bu 2 (unidentified sand flounder) (453–459) Unidentified fish VT-1, VT-2, 122–253 Bu, Bu?, & Mo 212 (5–10 cm total length) VT-3, & VT-4 (400–830) * Bioturbation type codes are: Bu = potential tilefish burrows, Bu? = possible tilefish burrows, and Mo = dense mounds.

3.6.2 Tilefish Observations Of the total 17.8 hours of video transects and thousands of burrows that potentially could have been made by tilefish, only two observations were made of actual tilefish; both were identified as golden tilefish and were observed at depths of 247 meters and 252 meters along VT-3

26 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

(Map 2). Identifications were verified by specialists (R. Jones, pers. comm.) and based on general shape and size. One specimen had an enlarged crest anterior to the dorsal fin, characteristic of the golden tilefish. The depth of occurrence was within the preferred range of the golden tilefish, and the burrow construction was typical. Video Transect-3 was generally too deep and too cold for the range typical of the blueline tilefish.

The first tilefish sighting was at 10:02 at 252 meters depth (VT-3; Appendix B). The bottom was dense to moderate bioturbation — mostly small to medium mounds 10–30 cm in diameter with small depressions 10–20 cm and few medium depressions 30–50 cm. During the 2-minute interval four small (<15 cm) unidentified fish were recorded. One golden tilefish, estimated at approximately 50 cm total length, was observed inside a large depression approximately 1.5 meters in diameter. The depression was elongate with no distinct raised rim, and the sides were steep. At the bottom was an oblique shaft or burrow that the fish darted into head-first upon approach of the ROV. Numerous 1- to 3-cm-diameter burrows were around the entrance of main burrow. There was an approximately 75-cm depression beside the larger burrow, and no mounds were associated with the depressions. The tilefish depression was slightly larger than the other depressions observed in this portion of the transect.

The second sighting of a golden tilefish was also along Transect VT-3, at 11:16 at 247 meters depth. The bottom in that 2-minute increment had moderate bioturbation—mostly small to medium mounds 10–30 cm, small depressions 10–20 cm, and few medium depressions 30– 50 cm. When the tilefish was first observed far in the distance, it was sitting at the top edge of a 75-cm-diameter burrow. Upon approach of the ROV, the tilefish dived into a burrow shaft at the bottom of the depression. The tilefish was approximately 30–50 cm in total length and had a visibly pronounced crest anterior to the dorsal fin, confirming its identification as a golden tilefish. The depression was round with a slight raised rim. There were no adjacent mounds and the immediately surrounding bottom was relatively flat. One other unidentified 10-cm fish was seen during the 2-minute interval.

Table 7. Selected Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) of Fishes Identified from ROV Transects Figure Depth Depth Transect No. Description (m) (ft) No. 7A Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps (golden tilefish) 247 810 3 estimated 50 cm total length, in burrow 7B Epinephelus niveatus (snowy grouper) estimated 122 400 1 25 cm total length, and Chaceon fenneri (golden crab), with pipe debris 7C Dasyatis cf. centroura (roughtail stingray) estimated 251 823 3 50+ cm disk width 7D Urophycis sp. (hake) 229 751 2 8A Lutjanus cf. vivanus (silk snapper) 248 813 3 8B Laemonema cf. barbatulum (shortbeard codling) 249 817 3 and ladder debris 8C Conger cf. oceanicus (American conger) estimated 239 784 2 30 cm total length 8D Ogcocephalidae (batfish) 137 449 1

27 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Figure 7. Fish Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects A. Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps (golden tilefish); B. Epinephelus niveatus (snowy grouper) with Chaceon fenneri (golden crab) around pipe debris; C. Dasyatis cf. centroura (roughtail stingray); D. Urophycis sp. (hake). Refer to Table 7 for location and estimated sizes.

Figure 8. Additional Fish Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects A. Lutjanus cf. vivanus (silk snapper); B. Laemonema cf. barbatulum (shortbeard codling); C. Conger cf. oceanicus (American conger); D. Ogcocephalidae (batfish). Refer to Table 7 for location and estimated sizes.

28 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

3.6.3 Benthic Invertebrate Occurrence and Distribution A total of 12 taxa were identified from the videotapes (Tables 3 and 7), and several identifications were specialist-verified by video review (A. Hines, W. Lindberg, C. Messing, pers. comm.). Table 9 documents the photographs used in Figures 9 and 10 of the dominant invertebrate taxa. The most dominant invertebrate that could be identified was a cerianthid burrowing anemone that was present in all transects but dominated VT-1 and VT-4 at depths of 124–158 meters (Table 8). A few were seen to 252 meters on VT-3. Only the larger specimens (>10 cm) were enumerated; there were many more small individuals intermixed. The second most dominant invertebrate taxa were decapod crustaceans (70 individuals total). Jonah crab was a dominate large invertebrate species, with 28 individuals sighted throughout all transects and depths. The golden crab was relatively common (16 individuals) on all transects from 122– 252 meters but dominated Transect VT-3, which was deeper. Squat lobsters were common at depths of 242–253 meters, but only along transects VT-2 and VT-3. The inflated spiny crab was also common at depths of 130–243 meters on all transects except VT-3. The only other invertebrate taxa observed were echinoids and several ophiuroid brittlestars. A large black spiny echinoid, probably the longspine urchin, was recorded 28 times at depths of 132–166 meters. Other echinoderms observed included a giant orange sea star and an urchin of the Araeosoma (species undetermined). The great majority of the sightings of the benthic motile invertebrates were in the vicinity of depressions. However, only in a few cases were invertebrates observed within a depression, such as with Jonah crabs.

29 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Table 8. Number and Distribution of Benthic Invertebrates Observed in ROV Video Transects Invertebrate Transect Depth Range Bioturbation Total No. of Taxa Observed No. m (ft) Type1 Individuals Chaceon fenneri VT-1 122 (400) Bu 1 (golden crab) VT-2 159 (522) Bu? 1 VT-3 248–252 (813–827) Bu, Bu? 10 VT-4 207–228 (679–748) Bu?, Mo 4 Total 122–252 (400–827) Bu, Bu?, Mo 16 Cancer cf. borealis VT-1 136–156 (446–512) Bu 3 (Jonah crab) VT-2 157–243 (515–797) Bu, Mo 10 VT-3 248–250 (813–820) Bu, Bu? 12 VT-4 166–213 (545–699) Mo 3 Total 136–250 (446–820) Bu, Bu?, Mo 28 Rochinia crassa VT-1 130–149 (426–489) Bu 5 (inflated spiny crab) VT-2 205–243 (672–797) Bu? 2 VT-4 158 (518) Bu 1 Total 130–243 (426–797) Bu, Bu? 8 Bathynectes cf. longispina VT-1 123 (403) Bu 1 (bathyal swimming crab) VT-2 192 (630) Mo 1 Total 123–192 (403–630) Bu, Mo 2 Munida sp. VT-2 242–243 (794–797) Bu? 2 (squat lobster) VT-3 250–253 (820–830) Bu, Bu? 10 Total 242–253 (794–830) Bu, Bu? 12 Unid. Paguridae (hermit crab) VT-3 249–252 (817–827) Bu? 4 Centrostephanus cf. longispinus VT-1,VT-2, 132–166 (433–545) Bu, Bu?, Mo 28 (longspine urchin) VT-4 Tethyaster grandis (giant VT-4 139 (456) Bu 1 orange sea star) Araeosoma sp. (sea urchin) VT-1 150 (492) Bu 1 Ophiuroidea (brittle star) VT-3 250–251 (820–823) Bu? 3

Cerianthidae2 VT-1 124–158 (407–518) Bu 201 (burrowing anemones) VT-2 154–229 (505–751) Bu?, Mo 5 VT-3 251–252 (823–827) Bu 3 VT-4 138–149 (453–489) Bu 66 Total 124–252 (407–827) Bu, Bu?, Mo 2752 1 Bioturbation type codes are: Bu = potential tilefish burrows, Bu? = possible tilefish burrows, and Mo = dense mounds. 2 Cerianthidae counts are for large (>5 cm) individuals only. Individual anemones smaller than this size were not counted. This taxon was abundant in many areas.

30 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Table 9. Selected Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) of Benthic Invertebrates Identified from ROV Transects Figure Depth Transect No. Description m (ft) No. 9A Chaceon fenneri (golden crab) 251 (823) 3 9B Cancer cf. borealis (Jonah crab) 252 (827) 3 9C Rochinia crassa (inflated spiny crab) 243 (797) 2 9D Munida sp. (squat lobster) 242 (794) 2 10A Bathynectes cf. longispina (bathyal swimming crab) in crater 192 (630) 2 10B Cerianthidae (burrowing anemone) 138 (453) 4 10C Tethyaster grandis (giant orange sea star) 139 (456) 4 10D Centrostephanus cf. longispinus (longspine urchin) 134 (440) 1 10E Ophiuroidea (brittle star) 251 (823) 3

Figure 9. Invertebrate Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects A. Chaceon fenneri (golden crab); B. Cancer cf. borealis (Jonah crab); C. Rochinia crassa (inflated spiny crab); D. Munida sp. (squat lobster). Refer to Table 8 for location and size of images.

31 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Figure 10. Additional Invertebrate Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects A. Bathynectes longispina (bathyal swimming crab); B. Cerianthidae (burrowing anemone); C. Tethyaster grandis (giant orange sea star); D. Centrostephanus cf. longispinus (longspine urchin); E. Ophiuroidea (brittle star). Refer to Table 8 for location and size of organisms.

3.7 Substrate Types The substrate was found to consist almost exclusively of sand/mud substrate, although a few areas of rock rubble were also observed (Figure 11, Map 3). Sediment analysis (Table 2) from the 1985 environmental assessment (Conservation Consultants 1985) showed that most stations had sediment compositions of roughly three parts fine sand to one part silt. The only exception was station M05, positioned farther upslope from the other transects, which had 76% fine sand, 9% silt, and 14% clay content. Although there was some very minor debris scattered throughout the area (e.g., bottles, cans, cables, rope, pipe, a ladder, a fuel tank), only two 2-minute intervals showed any significant amount of rock rubble (Table 10). One small rubble field was observed in VT-3 and consisted of 10- to 20-cm pieces of apparent rock or concrete which covered about 10% of the mud bottom over an area of roughly 10 m2. A second small rubble field was found in VT-4, consisting of approximately 10-cm-diameter rocks or concrete covering about 10% of the mud substrate over an area of roughly 10 m2. One portion of VT-4 appeared to have a lumpy sediment surface that was not typical of the other bioturbation features, which indicates some underlying hard material. The largest man-made item observed was an approximately 6.1-meter-long derelict small boat with attached outboard motor along VT-1 (Figure 12F, Map 3).

32 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Figure 11. Percent Cover of Bottom Types over All ROV Transects (1986 video data are not necessarily indicative of current bottom types)

Table 10. Anthropogenic and Other Debris Recorded during ROV Video Transects No. of Transect No. of Drink Unidentified No. Bottles Cans Debris Other Debris* VT-1 4 3 9 5-cm-diameter cable, 6.1-m derelict vessel with outboard motor, pile of wire, rope, pipe VT-2 2 5 4 wires, tree branch, 50-cm fuel tank, small box VT-3 7 4 3 can, stick, cloth, glass, 6-m long rope, 1-m pipe, 20-cm rock; rubble field: pieces of 10–20 cm concrete or rock, approximately 10% cover of rubble on mud over 10 m2 area VT-4 0 0 0 cup, bucket, 50-cm pipe, 1-m cable; rubble field: 10-cm rocks or concrete chunks, 10% cover of rubble on mud over 10 m2 area *Sizes of debris were estimated from video.

33 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

3.8 Bioturbation Bioturbation typically included pits, craters, mounds, and burrows. The bioturbation features may have been made by such organisms as worms (echiurans, sipunculids, polychaetes, etc.), bivalve mollusks, echinoids, crustaceans, and fish. Bioturbation features were recorded during every 2-minute interval of nearly every transect (Appendix B). Between the bioturbation features, the bottom was relatively flat sediment. The dominant features consisted of conical mounds, some of which had an apical burrow or hole from which sediment was seen occasionally spurting out. These undoubtedly were the excurrent holes for infauna such as worms or mollusks. These were estimated in terms of size and then grouped by size class as either small (5–15 cm in diameter at base), medium (16–30 cm), or large (31–50 cm). The other dominant bioturbation features were depressions and burrows, which were conical to oval scours in the sediment, with some having a vertical or oblique shaft or hole in the bottom. Depressions were estimated as either small (<30 cm in diameter), medium (30–50 cm), or large (51–100 cm or more). Table 11 documents the photographs used in Figure 12 of the dominant substrate types, including debris and bioturbation.

Table 11. Selected Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) of Substrate and Bioturbation from ROV Transects Figure Depth Depth Transect No. Description of Bioturbation* (m) (ft) No. 12A 5 to 10-cm-diameter depressions over flat sediment 140 459 4 12B 30-cm mounds and 50-cm-diameter depressions 144 472 1 12C Moonscape: high density mounds and depressions 176 577 2 12D 100-cm-diameter depression with three active burrow 243 797 2 shafts in bottom 12E Scattered rocks or concrete (10- to 20-cm pieces) 249 817 3 over 10 m of bottom 12F 6.1-m-long overturned boat with outboard motor 130 426 1 12G Debris: bottle, cans 141 463 1 14A 50- to 75-cm-diameter, active burrow with raised rim, 138 453 4 probably from tilefish 14B Non-active burrow, large depression with smoothed 156 512 2 sides and eroded 14C Active burrow, probably from tilefish, 75- to 100-cm- 140 459 1 diameter circular depression with vertical burrow shaft in bottom 14D Active burrow, probably from tilefish, 75- to 100-cm- 140 459 1 diameter oblong-shaped depression with oblique burrow shaft in bottom *Sizes of bioturbation features were estimated from video.

34 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Figure 12. Substrate, Bioturbation, and Debris Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects A. Bioturbation in sand-mud sediment, small and large depressions; B. Bioturbation of large mounds and depressions; C. ‘Moonscape’ bioturbation with dense mounds and depressions; D. Large elongate depression with three burrows in bottom; E. Small rubble field of rock or concrete; F. Overturned boat with outboard motor; G. Bottles and cans. Refer to Table 11 for location and size of features.

3.8.1 Tilefish Burrows Since only two tilefish were observed during the ROV video review, the determination of whether the remaining thousands of depressions could be tilefish burrows is a judgment call based on J. Reed’s experience, collaboration with numerous specialists in the field (Table 1), and descriptions of blueline tilefish and golden tilefish burrows in the literature (Grimes et al. 1986; Able et al. 1987b, 1993). The presence or absence of potential tilefish burrows was recorded for each 2-minute increment of each transect (Appendix B, Table 12, Map 2). Burrow diameters were also noted and were categorized as either medium (approximately 30–50 cm) or large (51–150 cm) burrows (Figure 14). The depressions having the shape and characteristics of tilefish burrows as described in the literature were logged as ‘potential’ tilefish

35 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

burrows. In some 2-minute increments, dense mounds were observed along with various sized depressions not likely made by tilefish. These instances were logged as ‘dense mounds’. Excerpts of videotapes of this dense mound habitat type were shown to various specialists (R. Jones, K. Able, C. Grimes, G. Sedberry, C. Koenig, K. Sulak, pers. comm.), all of whom agreed that these features were not likely made by tilefish. In some intermediate areas between the dense mound habitat and the potential tilefish habitat, it appeared less certain that the medium and large craters were tilefish burrows. Burrows in intermediate areas appeared distinct from potential tilefish burrows as they had only moderately raised rims with smoother sides than potential tilefish burrows, as though they were not as actively managed as the potential burrows. Intermediate burrows differed from inactive burrows as they were not filled- in, with slightly steeper sides which did not appear as smooth as with inactive burrows. In these intermediate cases, each 2-minute increment was logged as ‘possible’ tilefish burrows. Overall, 81.7% of the transected seafloor had potential or possible tilefish burrows, ranging from 49.5% for VT-2 to 100% for VT-1 and VT-3 (Figure 13, Table 12). Only VT-3 had actual tilefish sightings (Maps 2 and 3).

Table 12. Number of 2-Minute Intervals with Potential or Possible Tilefish Burrows (>30 cm in diameter) Dense Percent of Transect Visual Potential Possible Mounds, with Potential or Sightings Transect Tilefish Tilefish Not from Possible of Golden No. Burrows1 Burrows1 Tilefish Tilefish Burrows2 Tilefish VT-1 125 2 0 100 0 VT-2 0 52 53 49.5 0 VT-3 11 81 0 100 2 VT-4 39 25 22 74.4 0 Totals 175 160 75 81.7 2 1 Potential tilefish burrows were defined as those burrows measuring 30-cm or more in diameter and exhibiting characteristics of tilefish burrows based on published descriptions as well as review by specialists and previous experience by J. Reed using submersibles. Possible tilefish burrows were defined as meeting some of these criteria but the characteristics were less definitive. 2 Percent of transect with possible tilefish burrows was calculated by adding up all 2-minute intervals containing potential and possible tilefish burrows and dividing by the total number of 2-minute intervals per transect.

36 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Total for All Transects

Video Transect-1 Video Transect-2

Video Transect-3 Video Transect-4

Figure 13. Percentage of 2-Minute Intervals with Sightings of Potential Tilefish Burrows, Possible Tilefish Burrows, Dense Mound Bioturbations, and Visual Sightings of Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps)

37 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Figure 14. Potential Tilefish Burrow Photographs (from Video Frame Grabs) from ROV Video Transects A. Large (approximately 75–100 cm in diameter) burrow with raised rim and steep sides; B. Inactive burrow that appears as smoothed, filled-in depression; C. Large burrow (approximately 75 cm) with apparent vertical shaft at bottom; D. Large burrow (approximately 75 cm) with oblique shaft at bottom. Refer to Table 11 for location and size of images.

The mean number of possible and potential tilefish burrows per 2-minute interval was calculated per transect by averaging the number of tilefish burrows that were counted during a 2-minute interval every 10–15 minutes (Table 13, Figure 15). The maximum density of 21.6 burrows per 2-minute interval occurred at VT-1 in which nearly 100% of the intervals counted had potential active burrows. VT-4 had a mean of 13.5 burrows per 2-minute interval and approximately 50% of these intervals had active burrows. Transect VT-3, in which the only two golden tilefish were observed, had 6.1 burrows per 2-minute interval, of which approximately 75% were considered active burrows. Transect VT-2 had 7.5 burrows per 2-minute interval; however, 100% of the burrows in VT-2 appeared inactive due to the smooth and worn appearance of the depressions, and there was no open shaft seen at the bottom of any depression.

Tilefish burrow densities (mean number of burrows/1,000 m2) were determined for each transect by taking the mean number of burrows per 2-minute increment and multiplying by the total number of 2-minute increments for that transect, then dividing by the total transect length in kilometers times the 1-meter-width field of view (Table 12). For example, Transect VT-1 had [(21.59 burrows per 2-minute interval) x (135 2-minute intervals total)] / [6.95 km length x 1 m] = 419 burrows/1,000 m2. Because of the uncertainty in determining the size of the field of view, the average width of 1 meter was used for the bottom portion of the video. However, the top of the video view could range between 2 meters and 5 meters in width depending on the

38 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

height of the ROV off-bottom. Mean burrow density ranged from 115 burrows/1,000 m2 at VT-3 to 419 burrows/1,000 m2 at VT-1, with a mean of 244 burrows/1,000 m2 for all transects.

Table 13. Potential Active and Inactive Tilefish Burrow Numbers (Actual Counts per 2-Minute Interval) Mean Mean No. Burrow No. of No. of of Density3 Active Transect Medium Large Total Burrows/ (No./ Burrows4 No. Time Burrows1 Burrows1 Burrows 2 min.2 1,000 m2) (Yes/No) VT-1 08:48 4 2 6 Yes 09:00 4 1 5 No 09:10 20 6 26 Yes 09:32 4 5 9 Yes 09:44 22 8 30 Yes 10:02 8 7 15 Yes 10:16 13 4 17 Yes 10:30 22 5 27 Yes 10:48 15 10 25 Yes 11:00 21 7 28 Yes 11:16 30 3 33 Yes 11:30 16 3 19 Yes 11:44 16 8 24 Yes 12:00 15 11 26 Yes 12:14 18 10 28 Yes 12:30 20 3 23 Yes 12:50 22 4 26 No VT-1 21.59 419 Total VT-2 17:34 4 1 5 No 17:46 1 4 5 No 18:00 9 0 9 No 18:16 5 1 6 No 18:30 2 0 2 No 18:44 3 0 3 No 19:00 1 1 2 No 19:16 2 2 4 No 19:30 4 2 6 No 19:44 7 3 10 No 20:00 8 4 12 No? 20:16 11 4 15 No? 20:30 6 4 10 No? 20:36 10 0 10 No? 20:58 12 2 14 No?

39 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Mean Mean No. Burrow No. of No. of of Density3 Active Transect Medium Large Total Burrows/ (No./ Burrows4 No. Time Burrows1 Burrows1 Burrows 2 min.2 1,000 m2) (Yes/No) VT-2 7.53 120 Total VT-3 08:30 6 5 11 Yes? 08:44 4 3 7 Yes 09:02 5 2 7 No 09:14 5 0 5 No? 09:36 3 2 5 Yes 09:48 5 6 11 Yes? 10:02 4 2 6 Yes 10:18 4 6 10 Yes 10:26 3 2 5 Yes? 10:44 0 1 1 Yes? 11:00 2 1 3 No 11:16 1 1 2 Yes VT-3 6.08 115 Total VT-4 16:10 25 5 30 Yes 16:20 22 7 29 Yes 16:30 15 3 18 Yes 16:44 13 14 27 Yes 17:00 6 8 14 Yes 17:14 11 5 16 Yes 17:30 0 4 4 No 17:44 0 3 3 No 18:00 1 6 7 No? 18:14 3 1 4 No? 18:30 2 1 3 No? 18:38 1 6 7 No VT-4 13.50 336 Total Total of All Transects 12.77 244

1Medium burrows were estimated at approximately 30–50 cm in diameter and large burrows were estimated at >51 cm in diameter. 2Mean number of burrows = average of 2-minute increments per video transect. 3Mean burrow density= mean number of burrows/1000 m2. 4Two-minute intervals were coded as active if at least some burrows showed signs of activity by tilefish, such as open shaft at bottom, raised rim, or rugged internal sides. Two-minute intervals were coded as not active if no active burrows were observed, and where remaining burrows did not have an open shaft at bottom, and which exhibited smooth or eroded sides. Two-minute intervals showing mostly inactive burrows but which also showed traits of active burrows were coded with a question mark (‘?’).

40 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Figure 15. Mean Number of Tilefish Burrows per 2-Minute Increment for Each ROV Video Transect (possible and potential burrows are combined here)

41 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Determination of Bioturbators 4.1.1 Conical Mounds, Depressions, and Craters Most of the invertebrate and infaunal specialists queried believed the mounds and smaller depressions could have been made by worms (e.g., polychaetes, hemichordates, echiurans, sipunculids), bivalve mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and fish (R. Virnstein, M. Rice, C. Messing, A. Hines, pers. comm.). None could definitely state that a particular mound or depression was made by any specific species. Some of the conical mounds were clearly fecal mounds, as plumes of sediment were observed emitting from the apical aperture. Dr. R. Virnstein (pers. comm.) studied continental slope benthic ecology off central eastern Florida using Johnson-Sea- Link submersibles in similar substrate and depths (124–311 meters) as the present study. Using the submersible, Dr. Virnstein and his associates attempted to sample the large mounds with a Smith-McIntyre grab, but were unable to determine the species responsible for the mounds. During submersible studies of tilefish, Dr. K. Able (pers. comm.) also attempted to suction the mounds and depressions but was unsuccessful in retrieving the . Dr. R. George (pers. comm.) explained that cerianthid burrowing anemones also may make mounds and trails. Cerianthid anemones were common in most of the Miami ROV video transects. Dr. M. Rice (pers. comm.) did not believe that sipunculid worms made the large mounds, and Dr. R. Ginsburg (pers. comm.) suggested the possibility of mud shrimp of the genus Callianassa, which form mounds of similar size and shape in shallow waters of south Florida and . Dr. W. Lindberg (pers. comm.) conducted submersible studies in similar habitat on the upper slope in the where he saw similar bioturbation mounds which were attributed to an undetermined species of worm. Although Dr. Lindberg and colleagues saw red crabs, squat lobsters, and tripod fish occasionally in the pits or on the mounds, these researchers saw no evidence that the features were made by these animals. Where the craters and mounds were together, Dr. P. Mikkelsen (pers. comm.) suggested that the mounds were made by some type of worm, with the depression formed by the intake of the worm and the opposite end forming a fecal mound. In addition to various worms, Dr. G. Sedberry (pers. comm.) suggested that hakes, skates, and crabs such as the Jonah crab and golden crab could have made some of the depressions.

The infaunal and epibenthic trawls and grabs made at the ODMDS site by Conservation Consultants (1985) listed a variety of invertebrates and fishes that could have contributed to the bioturbation. The 1985 authors listed various species of decapod crustaceans, some of which were observed during the video review, including squat lobsters, Jonah crabs, and swimming crabs (Portunidae). Conservation Consultants listed 8 families of bivalves, 26 families of polychaetes, 2 sipunculids, and 20 species of fish. It is interesting that the golden crab was not listed in the 1985 report as having been caught, as golden crabs were observed several times in the transect videos. Many of the crustaceans and other taxa documented in 1985 are present in and around the ODMDS today based on trawl captures during an April 2010 survey (ANAMAR 2010).

4.2 Determination of Tilefish Burrows Based on burrow shape and size alone, it was not possible to identify the burrows in this study as definitely made by either the golden or blueline tilefish (except for the two burrows golden

42 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

tilefish were observed using). The burrows of golden tilefish and blueline tilefish can be similar in size and shape, especially in the soft carbonate sediments off eastern Florida. In fact, both species have been observed in the same burrow at the same time (Able et al. 1987b), and both species construct burrows in areas of malleable, relatively soft sediment. Burrows of both species form cone-shaped depressions that narrow to a single oblique or vertical shaft. Smaller secondary burrows of associated crustaceans and fish are common around the upper wall of the cone. Only by direct observation of golden tilefish at two burrow sites was it possible to confirm that these two particular burrows were used by this species.

4.2.1 Shape and Size of Burrows The larger crater-like structures of 30 cm to more than 100 cm in diameter observed in the video transects have some characteristics of tilefish burrows. Numerous observational studies with submersibles of blueline tilefish and golden tilefish have documented the morphology of the tilefish burrows and have compared the two species. For golden tilefish, burrows as large as 4–5 meters in diameter at the top of the cone-shaped depression and 2–3 meters deep have been observed in the clay sediments of Hudson Submarine Canyon, but average burrow size in the canyon ranged between 0.88 meters and 1.6 meters in diameter (Twitchell et al. 1985). Tilefish burrows are believed to be formed by a combination of oral excavations by the fish, bioerosion by associated fauna (crabs, fish), and finning motions by the tilefish to flush fine sediments from the burrow (Grimes et al. 1986).

Off eastern Florida, the sediments on the upper slope are siltier and the burrows of golden tilefish are smaller, 0.3–1.5 meters in diameter (Able et al. 1993), due to the less-cohesive nature of silt versus that of clay. The largest burrows of blueline tilefish observed from a submersible off Florida were elongate or elliptical and measured up to 1.5 x 0.5 meters in diameter, although sidescan sonar records of the area showed potential tilefish burrows as large as 3 x 1.5 meters in diameter (Able et al. 1987a and 1987b). Smaller burrows attributed to blueline tilefish ranged from 30–60 cm in diameter and averaged 48 cm. The elongate- or elliptical-shaped larger burrows are thought to be shaped by the erosion and slumping of the soft sediment into the shaft burrow as it is repeatedly burrowed out. Sidescan sonar has been able to detect burrows as small as 0.5 meters in diameter of both blueline and golden tilefish in clay sediments off New England and in softer carbonate sediments off Florida’s Atlantic coast (Able et al. 1987a).

4.2.2 Depth and Distribution Based on the total known depth range reported for blueline tilefish ( 30–236 meters, McEachran and Fechhelm 2005) and for golden tilefish (81–540 meters, ibid.), either species could occur on any of the four ROV transects where burrows were recorded from 122 to 252 meters and where the golden tilefish were observed at 247–252 meters. However, the shallower burrows in the sandy-silty sediments of transects VT-1, VT-2, and VT-4 (122–200 meters) could likely be from blueline tilefish, and the deeper burrows of VT-2, VT-3, and VT-4 (>200 meters) could likely be from golden tilefish.

4.2.3 Temperature Preferences Blueline tilefish were reported off central eastern Florida at bottom temperatures of 13.8–18.0oC (Able et al. 1987b); however, Avent and Stanton (1979) recorded average temperatures of 12–

43 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

18oC at similar sites on the upper slope, with occasional upwelling to 10oC and even as low as 6–9oC. Golden tilefish can also endure abrupt temperature changes from upwelling to below 8.0oC for a short time (Able et al. 1993). In general, golden tilefish are known to prefer temperatures of 9–14oC (Grimes et al. 1986, Matlock et al. 1991) and were recorded off eastern Florida at temperatures of 8.6–15.4oC (Able et al. 1993). Prolonged cold temperatures outside the thermal tolerance of golden tilefish resulted in massive mortalities of the species off the northeastern U.S. coast in the early 1880s (Breder 1929).

Temperatures recorded and furnished by USEPA documented bottom temperatures of 10–18oC at depths of 140–226 meters near transects VT-1, VT-2, and VT-4 (Table 2, Map 2). The authors are not aware of any temperature records for the area closest to the deeper VT-3, but based on submersible dives elsewhere in this region, temperatures of 8–10oC are likely. As such, blueline tilefish can occur at VT-1, VT-2, and VT-4 and within their preferred range of 12–18oC. The deeper parts of VT-2, VT-3, and VT-4 at depths >200 meters could have temperatures at 10oC or lower, which is within the preferred range of golden tilefish but is lower than the preferred range of blueline tilefish.

4.2.4 Sediment Preferences The primary differences in Florida are that blueline tilefish generally use sandier sediments than do golden tilefish for their burrows. Larger burrows built in sandy sediments tend to collapse along the burrow shaft, resulting in an elongate shape. Since the silty-sand sediment is less cohesive, the burrow shafts are often oblique rather than the typical vertical shaft maintained in the more malleable clay sediment preferred by golden tilefish (Able et al. 1987b). During an analysis of sediments on the upper slope off central eastern Florida, blueline tilefish were observed at depths of 150 meters in sediments of 50–82% sand and 5–11% clay, while golden tilefish burrows were observed at depths of 238 meters where sediments were composed of about 24% sand and 28% clay (Able et al. 1987b, 1993).

During the 1985 Miami ODMDS survey, sediment analysis at sites along the central part of the ODMDS found sandy silt sediment (61–75% fine sand, 22–38% silt, 0% clay) along VT-1 and VT-3 (Table 2). The 1985 original survey had no stations near VT-3. A station located about 0.15 nmi west of VT-4 held relatively high clay (M05; 76% sand, 9% silt, and 14% clay) compared to the other stations sampled in 1985. Overall, it was concluded that VT-1, VT-2, and VT-4 are likely fine sandy-silt, which is generally preferred by blueline tilefish. However, blueline tilefish were not observed in the video to confirm this possibility.

More recently, all these stations were re-sampled in October 2007 and found to have significantly greater portions of both silt and clay compared to the 1985 analytical results. Additionally, sediment samples taken in June 2000 at a station east of the Miami ODMDS and appearing very close to VT-3 was visually and tactilely characterized as fine sandy clay loam (Collins and Pruitt 2001). Wet-sieve results of this station revealed that most of the sample consisted of silt and clay. USEPA sampled this station again in October 2007, and the results showed approximately 20% clay and 45% silt with small amount of gravel (0.3%), indicating that the sediment was suited for tilefish (USEPA 2009). These more recent results suggest that tilefish may still find appropriate substrate for burrow-excavation and maintenance, and that clay content appears to be increasing towards that preferred by golden tilefish.

44 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

4.3 Active Versus Inactive Burrows Exclusion experiments using submersibles off eastern Florida found that after blocking tilefish from entering their burrows, the cone-shaped depressions were nearly filled within 173 days (Able et al. 1993). Inactive burrows break down beginning with the shaft filling in, erosion of the upper cone, loss of associated burrows around the upper cone, and finally resulting in a relatively smooth, shallow depression (Grimes et al. 1986, Matlock et al. 1991). Able and associates (1987a) were able to differentiate active burrows from inactive ones by surveying the area with sidescan sonar. Abandoned burrows found during the late 1970s to early 1980s along the southeastern United States were attributed to the expansion of the commercial longline tilefish fishery (Able 2002, Grimes et al. 1986). Data from the South Carolina fishery showed substantial declines in catch rates and mean fish size in just 4–5 years with low-to- moderate fishing effort (Low et al. 1983).

Due to the reduced video quality of the present study, it was difficult to determine the frequency of occurrence of active versus inactive burrows. Only when the ROV was near the bottom and the camera was angled down and passing directly over a burrow could the presence of a shaft in the bottom of a depression be observed, indicating an active burrow. As such, instead of quantifying each burrow, it was possible only to quantify the presence of active burrows within a 2-minute time interval. Although all transects had what appeared to be tilefish burrows (Table 12), some areas appeared to have more active burrows than others. For example, 49% of the area in VT-2 appeared to have numerous tilefish-size depressions, but none appeared to be active (Table 13, Map 2). In contrast, nearly 100% of VT-1 appeared to have tilefish-like burrows, most of which appeared to be actively maintained. VT-3 and VT-4 had burrows over 100% and 74% of the transect area, respectively, but only about 50% of the burrows were active in either transect.

4.4 Identification of Golden Tilefish

The identifications of the two tilefish observed in the ROV video were based on comparisons with descriptions of golden tilefish and blueline tilefish (Dooley 1978, 2002; McEachran and Fechhelm 2005) and confirmations by a fish specialist (R. Jones, pers. comm.). Both fish were identified as golden tilefish, which is noted by having an elevated pre-dorsal ridge forming an enlarged crest and a truncate caudal fin. In contrast, the blueline tilefish has a dorsal head profile that is moderately convex, a deeply emarginated caudal fin, and a blue line from snout to eye. Katz et al. (1983) also noted that the golden tilefish is sexually dimorphic, with males having larger or more prominent pre-dorsal crests than do females. In addition, both fish were observed at depths of 247–252 meters, and this species is known to commonly inhabit such depths.

4.5 Associated Fauna 4.5.1 Potential Tilefish Prey During extensive submersible photo transects off the central eastern Florida slope (Avent and Stanton 1979), the dominant macrobenthic fauna included various decapod crustaceans (Jonah crabs, inflated spiny crabs, bathyal swimming crabs, squat lobsters, and golden crabs) and fish, including armored searobins and hakes. These same taxa were prevalent in this ROV survey and are likely food items for either the blueline or golden tilefish. Grimes et al. (1986) noted

45 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

that 60–80% of squat lobsters and Jonah/rock crabs were associated with burrows, presumably for shelter. These authors believe that for some burrow associates (such as squat lobsters), it may be easier to maintain a cavity inside the slope of the tilefish burrow than on open, flat bottom. Furthermore, the trophic rewards (scavenging leftover food from tilefish) must outweigh the potential disadvantages of predation by the tilefish, since all of these species are food items for tilefish. In addition to these larger prey items, McEachran and Fechhelm (2005) noted various infaunal prey items for golden tilefish such as bivalves, polychaetes, and holothurians, but these taxa were not observed in the transect video.

Our videotape analysis noted numerous invertebrates and fish in nearby association with burrows over all transects that certainly could be food items for tilefish. Aside from the abundant cerianthid burrowing anemones, the second-most dominant taxa (212 total individuals) were various unidentified small fish (5–15 cm), which could be juvenile fish but were too small and blurry to identify. Other larger fish, such as snowy grouper, silk snapper, roughtail stingray , armored searobins, and batfish, were only rarely seen. The dominant larger fish were American congers and shortbeard codlings, both of which are noted as food items for tilefish. The larger invertebrates such as Jonah crabs, golden crabs, squat lobsters, and inflated spiny crabs were found at all transects but in relatively low numbers. Only a few individuals of any taxon were actually seen inside the burrows, and Jonah crabs were the most often observed burrow associate. The majority of taxa, however, were within a few meters of any potential tilefish burrow.

4.5.2 Species of Management Interest In addition to the potential fisheries for blueline and golden tilefishes in this region, various taxa were observed in the ROV videos that are also of fisheries management interest (Map 3). These include silk snapper, snowy grouper, and golden crab. However, all of these species were only occasionally observed and thus apparently exist only in low densities in the area. Observations of the golden crab from submersibles is normally much lower than trap catch records for a given area, which indicates the crabs are drawn to traps from over a wide area (Wenner 1990). Depth records from golden crab fisheries for the southeastern U.S. range from 240–915 meters (Kendall 1990, Wenner 1990, Wenner and Barans 1990). Distribution records show the shallowest record of 183 meters off the Dry Tortugas (Boone 1938 in Manning and Holthius 1986) and the deepest record of 1,462 meters off Bermuda (Wenner and Barans 1990). A total of 16 individual golden crabs were observed in our study. We observed the species in depths of 122 to 252 meters and over all transects. These relatively shallow records of this species represent unusual occurrences based on published accounts (Tavares 2002). However, A. Hines (pers. comm.) suggests that our knowledge of the golden crab’s preferred depths is limited to deepwater surveys of the species; if surveys were conducted in shallower water, biologists may find the species to commonly occur shallower than what is currently known.

4.6 Tilefish Burrow Densities In surveys of densities of tilefish off central eastern Florida, golden tilefish burrow densities ranged from 0.44 to 8.10 burrows/1,000 m2 (Able et al. 1993). Off the mid-Atlantic and southern New England regions, Grimes et al. (1986) reported densities of 145–1,234 burrows/1,000 m2, and Matlock et al. (1991) reported 1,600/1,000 m2 off Texas. These counts were based on total number of burrows and not necessarily on active burrows. Sonograms off

46 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

eastern Florida showed that the average density of large blueline tilefish burrows (>0.6 m diameter) was 1.5 per 1,000 m2, with a maximum density of 13 per 1,000 m2 (Able et al. 1987b). However, the densities of smaller burrows (0.3–0.6 meters in diameter) were estimated as high as 0.5–1.0 per m2 (= 500–1,000 burrows/1,000 m2). Our estimates of potential tilefish burrow density in the ODMDS ranged from 115–419 burrows/1,000 m2 and averaged 244/1,000 m2. These findings are well within the range of burrow densities reported elsewhere in the United States.

4.6.1 Estimated Tilefish Habitat within and Adjacent to the Miami ODMDS The area of potential tilefish habitat within the Miami ODMDS was estimated based on the occurrence of these burrows for each transect (Map 2) along with suitable substrate and bottom temperatures. During the time of this survey, the muddy substrate (sandy-silt) that was found throughout all transects appeared suitable for tilefish as evidenced by dense occurrences of their potential burrows. For reasons unknown, the regions that were dominated by high densities of mound-like bioturbation had few or no potential tilefish burrows. The depressions that were intermixed with these dense mounds were mostly very smoothed and eroded and definitely not active tilefish burrows. This mound habitat occurred mostly within the lower central part of the ODMDS (VT-2 and VT-4), along with an area extending due north of the ODMDS along VT-2. Perhaps these areas had tilefish previously but were fished out, allowing the mound-makers to dominate. Any commercial fishery for tilefish quickly modifies the numbers and size of fish within just a few years (Low et al. 1983, Able 2002), which may easily explain the lack of active tilefish burrows in the mound habitat. Elsewhere within the ODMDS the bioturbation was dominated by the medium and large depressions which appeared to be tilefish burrows. Extrapolating to the entire area of the ODMDS and including the dense mound area thought to be able to sustain tilefish if not for fishing pressure, it is estimated that the entire ODMDS holds potential tilefish habitat (1 nmi2). Of course, not all burrows in the area would be active and should not be used to estimate total tilefish population potential. There is presently no equation for use in predicting tilefish population density based on burrow density.

Since the transects extended beyound the boundaries of the Miami ODMDS we estimated the size of the entire study area to be 5.1 nmi2, i.e., a rectangle not extending beyond the farthest transect in any direction. Based on sediment characteristics, possible and potential burrow densities, temperature attributes, and depth constraints, we estimate that the entire 5.1 nmi2 area contained suitable tilefish habitat during the time of the video surveys. It appears that the area in and around VT-3 may have better golden tilefish habitat than the shallower portions of the rectangle, based on the cooler temperatures and the two golden tilefish sighted along this transect.

Empirical data suggest that the depth range of the entire study area (ca. 140–253 meters) is suitable for tilefish, as 98% of the 2-minute intervals along the shallowest (VT-1) and deepest (VT-3) transects held either possible or potential tilefish burrows. The maximum depth of the study area (ca. 253 meters) is clearly suitable for tilefish considering that both golden tilefish observations were nearly as deep (247 meters and 252 meters) along VT-3. In fact, comparing each transect with one another using empirical evidence, one gets the impression that VT-3 may be favored by golden tilefish over the other transects, although the sample size (N = 2 direct observations) is certainly too low to be conclusive. All transects held environmental parameters suitable for tilefish, and 99.6% of video-recorded substrate appeared compatible

47 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

with tilefish burrow construction/maintenance. Thus, based on the 1986 video transect data along with previously mentioned sediment and temperature data, it is estimated that the entire 5.1-nmi2 study area was suitable tilefish habitat.

It is important to understand that these video transects were made more than two decades ago and cannot be used to estimate the current status of the site or potential for tilefish. Since the time of the video survey, an estimated 4,893,300 cubic yards of dredged material have been deposited at the Miami ODMDS as of September 2008 (USEPA and USACE 2008). Of this material, at least 4.6% was characterized as silt/clay, while the majority of the deposited material included a gravel or limerock component (84.8%) (ibid.). Recent surveys have shown that limestone rubble occurs in portions of the ODMDS as well as in areas to the north and west of the site (USEPA and USACE 2008). On the other hand, significant amounts of clay and silt have also been deposited at the ODMDS and directly north of the site based on results of an October 2007 survey (USEPA 2009). Gravel and limerock, and to a lesser extent, course sand, deposited after the 1986 video survey are likely to have decreased the availability of suitable tilefish habitat within the Miami ODMDS. However, as shown in the USEPA (2009) report, these materials were apparently accompanied by considerable amounts of clay and silt. The addition of clay and silt may have partially ameliorated the effects of hard materials on tilefish habitat.

If deemed necessary, the modern presence of tilefish within the survey area could be confirmed using capture gear such as rod-and-reel, electric or hydraulic reels (‘bandit rigs’), bottom long- line, or similar hook-and-line equipment. Trapping equipment may also be suitable, as long as the traps were designed for large (up to 100 cm total length) fish and were well anchored. An additional ROV video transect study could also be performed, although tilefish would need to be video-taped to confirm the presence of either tilefish species.

4.6.2 Managed Species Possibly Benefited by Rock Rubble Disposal The 2006 SPI-camera survey coupled with the 2010 survey observations and the disposal records following 1986 suggest that some portion of the Miami ODMDS may no longer represent suitable tilefish habitat. These data conflict somewhat with the 2007 sediment analyses, which did not note limestone in the sediment samples. This may be explained by the relatively small size of the grab sampler used to obtain sediment, which may have excluded larger rocks from being gathered in the sample. Also, large rocks may have been gathered in samples that were subsequently discarded due to partial loss of sample or winnowing.

Although the accumulation of deposited course sand, gravel, and limerock may have reduced available tilefish habitat in portions of the Miami ODMDS, the reef-like substrate may benefit other economically important species. The possibility of the area to currently support reef- oriented taxa of management interest is briefly discussed below.

Golden crab. Sixteen individual golden crabs were observed during the video transect review, in water depths between 122 meters and 252 meters. The Miami ODMDS appears to be contained within the essential fish habitat for this species as shown online at the Essential Fish Habitat Mapper website (NMFS 2010a). This species is not strictly a reef-dwelling species but is found in a variety of soft substrates as well as associated with structures such as rock outcrops, coral mounds, and pebbly substrate (Tavares 2002). The rock rubble substrate present at the Miami ODMDS may provide suitable habitat for this species just as the soft, bioturbated bottom

48 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

provided habitat prior to rock disposal activities. No golden crabs were captured during the April 2010 trawl efforts at the ODMDS (ANAMAR 2010), but this is not surprising considering the heavy damage sustained by the trawls, and that effort was limited to obtaining a few animals for tissue sampling.

Wreckfish (Polyprion americanus). The Miami ODMDS is well within the range of this large predatory species, which extends from Newfoundland to (Robins and Ray 1986, NMFS 2010b). Wreckfish prefer rock ledges, outcrops, and ship wrecks from 43 meters to 1,000 meters depth (NMFS 2010b). The fishery for wreckfish in United States waters is limited to the Charleston Bump off South Carolina with only seven vessels currently participating in this fishery (ibid.). An online search through the Florida Museum of Natural History revealed only one vouchered Florida specimen taken in 1972 off Palm Beach County in 192 meters depth (Catalog Number UF 231271). Nonetheless, it is possible that low numbers of wreckfish may find the ODMDS suitable shelter, and the Florida Current may provide ample forage fish and squid just as the promotes wreckfish forage along the Charleston Bump.

Misty grouper (Epinephelus mystacinus). The misty grouper is a deepwater species, and the Miami ODMDS is well within its preferred depth range. Misty grouper occur over rocky ledges and similar substrates (Robins and Ray 1986) and the steeply sloping rocky terrain of the Miami ODMDS may be attractive to this species.

Red grouper (Epinephelus morio). Adult red grouper occur in water up to 300 meters deep and are associated with rock ledges, rocky reefs, sand, and mud bottoms (Heemstra et al. 2002). This species is considered the most important commercial reef fish caught off Florida (ibid.) and has held this title for several decades (Carson 1944). Adults of this species may inhabit the Miami ODMDS.

Snowy grouper. An example of this species was observed in the video transect footage as being associated with pipe debris. Snowy grouper may find the human-mediated rocky substrate of the ODMDS better suited to them than the naturally occurring soft substrate.

Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus). The second-largest grouper of the western central Atlantic (Figure 16), the warsaw grouper inhabits deep water over rough, rocky terrain (Heemstra et al. 2002). This species is commonly caught off Florida Figure 16. 108-kg Warsaw Grouper (Epinephelus using electric or hydraulic reels or bottom nigritus) Caught off Naples, Florida (Photograph courtesy of Lisa Hallock) long-line gear. The Miami ODMDS may now

49 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

provide suitable habitat for warsaw grouper.

Queen snapper (Etelis oculatus). This large-eyed deepwater snapper prefers steep rocky slopes along the edge of the continental shelf (Robins and Ray 1986) between 135 and 450 meters depth (Anderson 2002). Due to the sloping bathymetry, rocky substrate, and presence of forage fishes, squid, and crabs (ANAMAR 2010), the Miami ODMDS appears to be suitable habitat for this managed species.

Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus). The Miami ODMDS may be too deep for red snapper, which prefer depths of 30–130 meters (up to 190 meters; Anderson 2002). Adult red snapper would likely find the rocky Miami ODMDS to their liking if not for the excessive depth. This species is known to utilize similar artificially-made structure, where they are known to exhibit site fidelity (ibid.).

Silk snapper. A small example of this species was identified in the video transect footage where it was associated with possible tilefish burrows. Silk snapper inhabit a wide range of substrates including rocky bottoms. Silk snapper prey on gastropods, squid, crustaceans, tunicates, and small fishes (Anderson 2002). Examples of many of these taxa were found at the Miami ODMDS during recent efforts (ANAMAR 2010). The Miami ODMDS appears to represent suitable habitat for this species.

Vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens). This small snapper may find the Miami ODMDS deeper than its preferred depth as it favors continental shelf waters (Anderson 2002). The rocky composition of the ODMDS may otherwise suite vermilion snapper.

50 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING

We thank Dr. Bruce Collette, George Burgess, Dr. Ken Able, and Lisa Hallock for graciously allowing the use of photographs or drawings. We especially thank all the taxonomists and ecologists who contributed their expertise and time in reviewing ROV video and photographs. Additional funding was provided for J. Reed by the Robertson Research and Conservation Program at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University. This is Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute contribution number 1809.

51 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Able, K.W. 2002. Tilefishes. Family Malacanthidae. Pp. 397-400. In: Collette, B.B. and G. Klein-MacPhee. Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Third Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Able, K.W., C.B. Grimes, R.S. Jones, and D.C. Twichell. 1993. Temporal and spatial variation in habitat characteristics of tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) off the east coast of Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 53(3)1013–1026.

Able, K., D. Twitchell, C. Grimes, and R. Jones. 1987a. Sidescan sonar as a tool for detection of habitats. Fishery Bulletin 85: 725–736.

Able, K., D. Twitchell, C. Grimes, and R. Jones. 1987b. Tilefishes of the genus Caulolatilus construct burrows in the sea floor. Bulletin of Marine Science 40:1–10.

ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2010. Technical Report. Surveying Miami Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site for PCB and Metal Contaminants, Miami, Florida. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida.

Anderson, W.D. 2002. Lutjanidae. Snappers. Pp. 1479–1504. In: Carpenter, K.E. (ed.), FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes: The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vol. 3: Bony fishes part 2 (Opistognathidae to Molidae), sea turtles and marine mammals. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Avent, R. M. and F. G. Stanton. 1979. Observations from research submersibles of megafaunal distribution on the continental margin off central eastern Florida. Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc., Technical Report No. 25.

Boone, L. 1938. The marine algae, Coelenterata, Annelida Polychaeta, Echinodermata, Crustacea, and Mollusca of the world cruises of the yachts “Ara” 1928–1929, and “Alva” 1931–1932, “Alva” Mediterranean cruise, 1933, and “Alva” South American cruise, 1935. William K. Vanderbilt, commanding. Bulletin of the Vanderbilt Marine Museum 7:1–373.

Breder, C.M. 1929. Field Book of Marine Fishes of the Atlantic Coast. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, , NY.

Carson, R.L. 1944. Fish and Shellfish of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Conservation Bulletin 37, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Collette, B.B. and G. Klein-MacPhee. 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Third Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Collins, G.W. and B.A. Pruitt. 2001. Sediment Survey: Miami Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. USEPA, Region 4, Atlanta, GA.

52 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Conservation Consultants, Inc. 1985. Appendix A. Environmental survey in the vicinity of an ocean dredged material disposal site, Miami Harbor, Florida. Submitted to Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida.

Conservation Consultants, Inc. 1986. Appendix A. Supplemental information: video survey of dredged material disposal sites located off Ft. Pierce Harbor and Miami Harbor, Florida. Submitted to Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida.

Dahl, B. 1986. The Loran-C Users Guide for Cruisers, Racers, and Fishermen. Richardson’s Marine Publishing, Inc., Streamwood, IL.

Dooley, J.K. 1978. Systematics and Biology of the Tilefishes (: Branchiostegidae and Malacanthidae), with Descriptions of Two New Species. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular 411.

Dooley, J.K. 2002. Branchiostegidae. Tilefishes (sand tilefishes). Pp. 1395–1411. In: Carpenter, K.E. (ed.), FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes: The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vol. 3: Bony fishes part 2 (Opistognathidae to Molidae), sea turtles and marine mammals. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Ellis, R. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Sea. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.

Fahay, M.P. 1983. Guide to the early stages of marine fishes occurring in the western north , Cape Hatteras to the southern Scotian shelf. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science. 4:1–423.

Freeman, B.L. and L.A. Walford. 1976. Angler’s Guide to the United States Atlantic Coast. Fish, fishing, grounds & fishing facilities. Section VIII St. Lucie Inlet, Florida to the Dry Tortugas. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.

Germano & Associates, Inc. 2006. Rapid Seafloor Reconnaissance and Assessment of Southeast Florida Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Utilizing Sediment Profile Imaging. May 2006 Post-disposal SPI Mapping at the Miami ODMDS. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, GA.

Grimes, C.B., K.W. Able, and R.S. Jones. 1986. Tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps, habitat, behavior and community structure in Mid-Atlantic and southern New England waters. Environmental Biology of Fishes 15(4): 273–292.

Grimes, C.B., C.F. Idelberger, K.W. Able, and S.C. Turner. 1988. The reproductive biology of tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Goode and Bean, from the United States Mid- Atlantic Bight, and the effects of fishing on the breeding system. United States Fisheries Bulletin 86:745–762.

Heemstra, P.C., W.D. Anderson, and P.S. Lobel. 2002. Serranidae. Groupers (seabasses, creolefish, coney, hinds, hamlets, anthilines, and soapfishes). Pp. 1308–1369. In: Carpenter, K.E. (ed.), FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes: The Living

53 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vol. 2: Bony fishes part 1 (Acipenseridae to Grammatidae). FAO, Rome, Italy.

Katz, S., C. Grimes, and K. Able. 1983. Deliniation of tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps, stocks along the United States east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. United States Fisheries Bulletin 81:41-50.

Kendall, D. 1990. An assessment of the Georgia golden crab fishery. Pages 18–19 in: Lindberg, W. and W. Wenner (eds.). 1990. Geryonid Crabs and Associated Continental Slope Fauna: A Research Workshop Report. South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium and Florida Sea Grant College Program. Florida Sea Grant Technical Paper 58.

Low, R., G. Ulrich, and F. Blum. 1983. Tilefish of South Carolina and Georgia. Marine Fisheries Review 45:16–26.

Matlock, G., W. Nelson, R. Jones, A. Green, T. Cody, E. Gutherz, and J. Doerzbacher. 1991. Comparison of two techniques for estimating tilefish, yellowedge grouper and other deepwater fish populations. Fishery Bulletin 89:91–99.

McEachran J.D. and J.D. Fechhelm. 2005. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Vol. 2: to Tetraodontoformes. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Melton, L. 1986. The Complete Loran-C Handbook. International Marine Publishing, Camden, ME.

Messing, C.G., J. Reed, B. Walker, and R. Dodge. 2006a. Calypso U.S. pipeline LLC, Mile Post (MP) 31–MP 0. Deepwater marine benthic video survey. A report to Calypso U.S. Pipeline LLC. Harbor Branch Technical Report Contribution No. 94.

Messing, C.G., J. Reed, S. Brooke, B. Walker, and R. Dodge. 2006b. Calypso LNG deepwater port project, Florida Marine Benthic Video Survey, Final Report. A report to Ecology and Environment, Inc. and Suez Inc. Harbor Branch Technical Report Contribution No. 95.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010a. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Accessed online at: http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010b. Fishwatch — U.S. Facts. Accessed online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/species/wreckfish.htm

Reed, J.K. 2002a. Comparison of deep-water coral reefs and lithoherms off southeastern U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 471:57–69

Reed, J.K. 2002b. Deep-water Oculina coral reefs of Florida: Biology, impacts, and management. Hydrobiologia 471:43–55

Reed, J.K., S. Pomponi, A. Wright, D. Weaver, and C. Paull. 2005a. Deep-water sinkholes and bioherms of South Florida and Pourtales Terrace- habitat and fauna. Bulletin of Marine Science 77:267–296.

54 Tilefish (Malacanthidae) Habitat Identification in and around the Miami ODMDS Using 1986 Videographic Data

Reed, J.K., A. Shepard, C. Koenig, K. Scanlon, and G. Gilmore. 2005b. Mapping, habitat characterization, and fish surveys of the deep-water Oculina coral reef Marine Protected Area: A review of historical and current research. Pp. 443–465. In: Freiwald A. and J. Roberts (eds.). Cold-water corals and . Proceedings of second international symposium on deep sea corals. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Reed, J.K., D. Weaver, and S. Pomponi. 2006. Habitat and fauna of deep-water Lophelia pertusa coral reefs off the Southeastern USA: Blake Plateau, Straits of Florida, and Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 78(2):343–375.

Robins, C.R. and G.C. Ray. 1986. A Field Guide to the Atlantic Coast Fishes of . Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, NY.

Ross, J.L. and J.V. Merriner. 1983. Reproductive biology of the blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps, off and South Carolina. Fishery Bulletin 81(3):553–568.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2009. Regulations by species. Accessed online 17 August 2009 at www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/RegulationsbySpecies/tabid/248/Default.aspx.

Tavares, M. 2002. True crabs. Pages 327–352. In: K.E. Carpenter (ed.). FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Volume 1. Introduction, mullusks, crustaceans, hagfishes, , batoid fishes and chimaeras. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Twitchell, D., C. Grimes, R. Jones, and K. Able. 1985. The role of erosion by fish in shaping topography around Hudson Submarine Canyon. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 55:712–719.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Miami Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site, Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Miami, Florida Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) and South Florida Reference Evaluation (SFLARE). October 4-October 11, 2007. Final Report, Revision 1: April 3, 2009. USEPA Science and Support Division, Athens, GA.

Wenner, E.W. 1990. Distribution and abundance of golden crab Chaceon fenneri in the south Atlantic Bight. Pages 6–7. In: W. Lindberg and E. Wenner (eds.) Geryonid Crabs and Associated Continental Slope Fauna. A Research Workshop Report. South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium Technical Paper No. 58.

Wenner, E. and C. Barans. 1990. In situ estimates of golden crab, Chaceon fenneri, from habitats on the continental slope, southeast U.S. Bulletin of Marine Science 46:723– 734.

55

Maps

MAPS 80°5'30"W 80°5'0"W 80°4'30"W 80°4'0"W 80°3'30"W 80°3'0"W 80°2'30"W 80°2'0"W 80°1'30"W 80°1'0"W

Map 1. ") #* %, #* ROV Video Transect Points %, #* #* %, %, ") #* %, with Traced Transect Lines ") %, ") ") #* %,

") ") %, 25°47'0"N

25°47'0"N ") #* %, %, ") ") #* #* %,%, ") #* #* ") #* %, ") ") #* #* %, %, %, LEGEND #* #* %, ") ") #* ") #* %, ") ") %, VT-1 VT-1 #* #* ") #* %, ") ") 200 m %, #* VT-2 VT-2 ") #* #* #* %, ") #* #* %, %, VT-3 VT-3 #* #* %, %, %, ") M02

25°46'30"N VT-4 VT-4 ") 150 m

25°46'30"N !. ") ") #* #* %, 60 m 60 ") ") #* #* #* #* %, %, ODMDS CTD-Profiler & Benthic Sampling Stations ") #* !. #* #* %, #* #* Bathymetry #* %, %, ") #* ") ") #* %, %, ") #* #* #* %, ") ") %, ") #* %, #* #* #* %, %, ") #* #* %, %, ") %, %, ") 25°46'0"N 25°46'0"N #* ") #* %, #* %, %, %, ") #* %, ") #* %, 100 m #*

90 m 40 m #*") #* %, ") ") %, ") #* %, #* ") %, µ ") %, ") %, Nautical Miles ") #* #* 50 m ") %, ") %, %, %, #* %, %, 0 0.5 1 ") #* #* %, #*

%, 25°45'30"N ") %, 25°45'30"N ") #* #* %, %, %, #* ") %, LOCATOR 9.1 m %, ") %, ") ") #* %, %, ") ") %, %, ") #* ") ") #* #* %, M05 ") #* ") !. ") %, ") #* #* %, 25°45'0"N 25°45'0"N ") M06 #* %, %, ") #* M07 %, ") %, ") !. %, 20 m !. ") %, %, ") %, %, ") %,

") ") #*

") ") #* ") #* #* #* ") ") #* #* ") ") ") #* #* #* 25°44'30"N

25°44'30"N ") ")

30 m ") ") ") #* #* ") ") ") #* #* ") #* #* #* #* ") #* ") #* ") #* ") #* ") ") ") #* ")

M08 25°44'0"N 25°44'0"N ") !.

")

80 m 80 70 m 70 ") This map and/or digital data is for planning purposes only and should not be used to determine the precise location of any feature. Data provided as-is. Fig1_ROVtrn11x17.mxd. 031110 Data sources: NOAA, USACE, ANAMAR. 80°5'30"W 80°5'0"W 80°4'30"W 80°4'0"W 80°3'30"W 80°3'0"W 80°2'30"W 80°2'0"W 80°1'30"W 80°1'0"W 80°5'30"W 80°5'0"W 80°4'30"W 80°4'0"W 80°3'30"W 80°3'0"W 80°2'30"W 80°2'0"W 80°1'30"W 80°1'0"W Map 2. Traced ROV Transect Lines with Tilefish Bioturbation 9.1 m *# N A N 25°47'0"N 25°47'0"N LEGEND N *# Golden Tilefish Observed VT-1

N 200 m . CTD-Profiler & Benthic Sampling Stations VT-2 N A A ≥1 Tilefish Burrows Determined to be Active VT-3

40 m 40 A N Tilefish Burrows Determined to be Not Active VT-4 N A Bathymetry

150 m M02 25°46'30"N Dense mounds, not from tilefish 25°46'30"N A . 16°C near bottom A Potential Tilefish Burrows N ODMDS *# A A

A 25°46'0"N

25°46'0"N A N

100 m A A µ 9.1 m N Nautical Miles

50 m 0 0.5 1 60 m N A 25°45'30"N 25°45'30"N N N N LOCATOR 9.1 m A N M05 A 27°C at 70m . A N 25°45'0"N

25°45'0"N M06 . 18°C at bottom 20 m A . A M07 N 9°C near bottom A 25°44'30"N 25°44'30"N A

30 m A A

A A A N M08 16°C near bottom 25°44'0"N

25°44'0"N .

90 m 90

70 m 70 80 m 80 A This map and/or digital data is for planning purposes only and should not be used to determine the 9.1 m precise location of any feature. Data provided as-is. Fig2_TrxBioturbation11x17.mxd. 031110 Data sources: NOAA, USACE, ANAMAR. 80°6'0"W 80°5'30"W 80°5'0"W 80°4'30"W 80°4'0"W 80°3'30"W 80°3'0"W 80°2'30"W 80°2'0"W 80°1'30"W 80°1'0"W 80°5'30"W 80°5'0"W 80°4'30"W 80°4'0"W 80°3'30"W 80°3'0"W 80°2'30"W 80°2'0"W 80°1'30"W Map 3. Traced ROV Transect Lines with Substrate Types and Species of Management Interest 25°47'0"N 25°47'0"N LEGEND # Golden Crab Bathymetry VT-1 Golden Tilefish # VT-2 Silk Snapper VT-3 200 m

9.1 m # VT-4 # Snowy Grouper Derelict Vessel 25°46'30"N 150 m Rock Rubble* 25°46'30"N !( 60 m 60 ODMDS

*areas not designated as rock rubble are sediment 25°46'0"N 25°46'0"N

100 m 90 m µ Nautical Miles

0 0.5 1

50 m

70 m 25°45'30"N 25°45'30"N LOCATOR

9.1 m 25°45'0"N 25°45'0"N

20 m 25°44'30"N 25°44'30"N

30 m

25°44'0"N This map and/or digital data is for planning purposes only

25°44'0"N 80 m 80

40 m 40 and should not be used to determine the 9.1 m 9.1 precise location of any feature. Data provided as-is. Fig3_Trx_substrate_mgtspp11x17.mxd. 031110 Data sources: NOAA, USACE, ANAMAR. 80°5'30"W 80°5'0"W 80°4'30"W 80°4'0"W 80°3'30"W 80°3'0"W 80°2'30"W 80°2'0"W 80°1'30"W

ROV Video Survey Coordinates Appendix A Appendix

APPENDIX A: ROV VIDEO SURVEY COORDINATES

APPENDIX A

Transect Times and Coordinates in Decimal Degrees Converted from the Original Degrees Decimal Minutes in 2-Minute Increments

Jan. 25, 1986 Video Transect 1 (VT-1) Ship Position

Time Latitude (Decimal Degrees) Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 850 25.730 -80.063 852 25.731 -80.062 854 25.731 -80.062 856 25.732 -80.061 858 25.734 -80.064 900 25.735 -80.063 902 25.733 -80.060 904 25.735 -80.063 906 25.735 -80.063 908 25.735 -80.063 910 25.736 -80.064 912 25.735 -80.061 914 25.739 -80.067 916 25.736 -80.062 918 25.737 -80.064 920 25.738 -80.065 922 25.737 -80.064 924 25.738 -80.065 926 25.736 -80.062 928 25.737 -80.064 930 25.737 -80.064 932 25.736 -80.062 934 25.737 -80.064 936 25.737 -80.064 938 25.737 -80.064 940 25.737 -80.064 942 25.738 -80.065 944 25.738 -80.065 946 25.739 -80.067 948 25.739 -80.067 950 25.739 -80.065 952 25.740 -80.065 954 25.740 -80.065 956 25.740 -80.068 958 25.739 -80.065 1000 25.740 -80.066 1002 25.739 -80.064 1004 25.741 -80.068 1006 25.741 -80.067 1008 25.741 -80.067 1010 25.743 -80.068 1012 25.741 -80.065 1014 25.743 -80.066

Page 1 of 10 1016 25.743 -80.066 1018 25.744 -80.067 1020 25.743 -80.065 1022 25.744 -80.064 1024 25.745 -80.066 1026 25.746 -80.064 1028 25.746 -80.067 1030 25.745 -80.063 1032 25.747 -80.066 1034 25.747 -80.065 1036 25.749 -80.067 1038 25.748 -80.065 1040 25.748 -80.065 1042 25.748 -80.064 1044 25.751 -80.067 1046 25.750 -80.066 1048 25.750 -80.065 1050 25.749 -80.063 1052 25.752 -80.066 1054 25.752 -80.065 1056 25.753 -80.067 1058 25.753 -80.065 1100 25.754 -80.066 1102 25.753 -80.064 1104 25.754 -80.063 1106 25.755 -80.065 1108 25.754 -80.063 1110 2525.757 757 -80.06680 066 1112 25.757 -80.065 1114 25.759 -80.066 1116 25.760 -80.068 1118 25.759 -80.065 1120 25.760 -80.065 1122 25.762 -80.068 1124 25.760 -80.064 1126 25.761 -80.064 1128 25.762 -80.065 1130 25.761 -80.063 1132 25.764 -80.066 1134 25.763 -80.064 1136 25.762 -80.065 1138 25.765 -80.067 1140 25.765 -80.065 1142 25.766 -80.066 1144 25.767 -80.064 1146 25.766 -80.065 1148 25.780 -80.069

Page 2 of 10 1150 25.769 -80.068 1152 25.769 -80.066 1154 25.769 -80.065 1156 25.770 -80.067 1158 25.770 -80.067 1200 25.770 -80.067 1202 25.770 -80.068 1204 25.771 -80.066 1206 25.770 -80.064 1208 25.773 -80.069 1210 25.772 -80.067 1212 25.774 -80.068 1214 25.773 -80.066 1216 25.774 -80.068 1218 25.774 -80.066 1220 25.775 -80.067 1222 25.776 -80.069 1224 25.776 -80.068 1226 25.779 -80.071 1228 25.777 -80.067 1230 25.778 -80.069 1232 25.778 -80.069 1234 25.777 -80.067 1236 25.777 -80.065 1238 25.780 -80.069 1240 25.778 -80.066 1242 25.779 -80.065 1244 2525.781 781 -80.06880 068 1246 25.781 -80.066 1248 25.782 -80.067 1250 25.783 -80.068 1252 25.782 -80.066 1254 25.783 -80.066 1256 25.782 -80.064 1258 25.783 -80.063 1300 25.783 -80.063 1302 25.784 -80.064 1304 25.784 -80.062 1306 25.787 -80.067

Page 3 of 10 Jan. 25, 1986 Video Transect 2 (VT-2) Ship Position

Time Latitude (Decimal Degrees) Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 1732 25.734 -80.057 1734 25.735 -80.057 1736 25.735 -80.057 1738 25.736 -80.057 1740 25.736 -80.056 1742 25.737 -80.055 1744 25.738 -80.057 1746 25.738 -80.053 1748 25.739 -80.058 1750 25.739 -80.056 1752 25.738 -80.053 1754 25.737 -80.051 1756 25.741 -80.056 1758 25.739 -80.052 1800 25.739 -80.050 1802 25.741 -80.053 1804 25.741 -80.050 1806 25.742 -80.052 1808 25.743 -80.053 1810 25.744 -80.053 1812 25.744 -80.053 1814 25.743 -80.050 1816 25.745 -80.054 1818 25.743 -80.052 1820 25.743 -80.052 1822 25.743 -80.048 1824 25.748 -80.056 1826 25.749 -80.054 1828 25.749 -80.055 1830 25.752 -80.057 1832 25.751 -80.058 1834 25.749 -80.055 1836 25.751 -80.058 1838 25.751 -80.058 1840 25.753 -80.059 1842 25.754 -80.061 1844 25.757 -80.063 1846 25.758 -80.064 1848 25.755 -80.059 1850 25.756 -80.060 1852 25.759 -80.060 1854 25.759 -80.063

Page 4 of 10 1856 25.759 -80.061 1858 25.760 -80.063 1900 25.766 -80.070 1902 25.763 -80.064 1904 25.763 -80.064 1906 25.762 -80.062 1908 25.760 -80.059 1910 25.761 -80.064 1912 25.764 -80.063 1914 25.764 -80.060 1916 25.765 -80.064 1918 25.765 -80.062 1920 25.765 -80.062 1922 25.765 -80.061 1924 25.767 -80.064 1926 25.767 -80.062 1928 25.767 -80.060 1930 25.767 -80.059 1932 – – 1934 25.768 -80.060 1936 25.771 -80.063 1938 25.769 -80.059 1940 25.773 -80.064 1942 25.772 -80.062 1944 25.771 -80.060 1946 25.770 -80.058 1948 25.770 -80.058 1950 2525.770 770 -80.05680 056 1952 25.772 -80.059 1954 25.772 -80.059 1956 25.774 -80.060 1958 25.773 -80.057 2000 25.772 -80.053 2002 25.776 -80.060 2004 25.773 -80.056 2006 25.772 -80.052 2008 25.772 -80.052 2010 25.773 -80.052 2012 25.773 -80.051 2014 25.775 -80.052 2016 25.776 -80.051 2018 25.779 -80.056 2020 25.777 -80.054 2022 25.778 -80.054 2024 25.778 -80.054 2026 25.778 -80.052 2028 25.776 -80.048

Page 5 of 10 2030 25.775 -80.046 2032 25.776 -80.047 2034 25.776 -80.045 2036 25.779 -80.050 2038 25.778 -80.046 2040 25.779 -80.050 2042 25.782 -80.053 2044 25.781 -80.051 2046 25.780 -80.048 2048 25.781 -80.048 2050 25.780 -80.046 2052 25.781 -80.048 2054 25.782 -80.049 2056 25.781 -80.047 2058 25.767 -80.045 2100 25.783 -80.048 2102 25.787 -80.053 2104 25.784 -80.050 2106 25.785 -80.055 2108 25.781 -80.045 2110 25.786 -80.053 2112 25.785 -80.052

Jan. 26, 1986 Video Transect 3 (VT-3) Ship Position

Time Latitude (g)(Decimal Degrees) Longitudeg( (Decimal Degrees) g) 816 25.746 -80.046 818 25.746 -80.042 820 25.746 -80.044 822 25.747 -80.045 824 25.748 -80.043 826 25.748 -80.045 828 25.748 -80.043 830 25.747 -80.043 832 25.749 -80.046 834 25.749 -80.046 836 25.749 -80.043 838 25.749 -80.046 840 25.750 -80.045 842 25.751 -80.043 844 25.753 -80.050 846 25.754 -80.049 848 25.753 -80.047 850 25.754 -80.045 852 25.754 -80.046 854 25.756 -80.045

Page 6 of 10 856 25.756 -80.045 858 25.755 -80.045 900 25.755 -80.044 902 25.757 -80.047 904 25.756 -80.047 906 25.759 -80.048 908 25.760 -80.048 910 25.761 -80.045 912 25.759 -80.045 914 25.759 -80.045 916 25.758 -80.045 918 25.760 -80.044 920 25.759 -80.042 922 25.761 -80.043 924 25.759 -80.040 926 25.762 -80.042 928 25.762 -80.042 930 25.763 -80.044 932 25.761 -80.039 934 25.765 -80.044 936 25.765 -80.042 938 25.764 -80.042 940 25.764 -80.040 942 25.765 -80.045 944 25.766 -80.042 946 25.768 -80.044 948 25.765 -80.041 950 2525.769 769 -80.04580 045 952 25.766 -80.043 954 25.767 -80.041 956 25.767 -80.041 958 25.767 -80.042 1000 25.769 -80.042 1002 25.769 -80.042 1004 25.770 -80.043 1006 25.770 -80.043 1008 25.770 -80.041 1010 25.770 -80.042 1012 25.771 -80.042 1014 25.771 -80.038 1016 25.772 -80.043 1018 25.773 -80.043 1020 25.773 -80.043 1022 25.773 -80.040 1024 25.773 -80.039 1026 25.775 -80.043 1028 25.775 -80.039

Page 7 of 10 1030 25.775 -80.040 1032 25.778 -80.043 1034 25.776 -80.039 1036 25.776 -80.040 1038 25.777 -80.041 1040 25.778 -80.043 1042 25.777 -80.041 1044 25.777 -80.040 1046 25.778 -80.042 1048 25.780 -80.044 1050 25.779 -80.041 1052 25.779 -80.041 1054 25.779 -80.041 1056 25.781 -80.044 1058 25.779 -80.043 1100 25.781 -80.042 1102 25.782 -80.045 1104 25.782 -80.045 1106 25.782 -80.043 1108 25.797 -80.045 1110 25.783 -80.043 1112 25.784 -80.044 1114 25.785 -80.042 1116 25.785 -80.046 1118 25.783 -80.042 1120 25.784 -80.043 1122 25.786 -80.045 1124 2525.7 78787-80.0 04545

Jan. 26, 1986 Video Transect 4 (VT-4) Ship Position

Time Latitude (Decimal Degrees) Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 1610 25.736 -80.068 1612 25.733 -80.063 1614 25.733 -80.063 1616 25.735 -80.063 1618 25.737 -80.066 1620 25.737 -80.067 1622 25.734 -80.062 1624 25.734 -80.061 1626 25.736 -80.064 1628 25.737 -80.066 1630 25.738 -80.066 1632 25.736 -80.064 1634 25.736 -80.064 1636 25.737 -80.064

Page 8 of 10 1638 25.735 -80.060 1640 25.738 -80.065 1642 25.740 -80.068 1644 25.738 -80.063 1646 25.739 -80.061 1648 25.739 -80.065 1650 25.738 -80.062 1652 25.738 -80.062 1654 25.740 -80.062 1656 25.740 -80.065 1658 25.740 -80.062 1700 25.741 -80.065 1702 25.741 -80.065 1704 25.740 -80.063 1706 25.740 -80.063 1708 25.743 -80.066 1710 25.743 -80.065 1712 25.742 -80.063 1714 25.744 -80.064 1716 25.742 -80.061 1718 25.743 -80.061 1720 25.744 -80.064 1722 25.744 -80.064 1724 25.743 -80.062 1726 25.743 -80.061 1728 25.744 -80.062 1730 25.742 -80.057 1732 2525.743 743 -80.06080 060 1734 25.745 -80.060 1736 25.746 -80.058 1738 25.745 -80.059 1740 25.745 -80.059 1742 25.745 -80.059 1744 25.745 -80.059 1746 25.744 -80.055 1748 25.745 -80.056 1750 25.745 -80.054 1752 25.747 -80.057 1754 25.748 -80.059 1756 25.749 -80.058 1758 25.748 -80.056 1800 25.748 -80.056 1802 25.746 -80.050 1804 25.749 -80.055 1806 25.748 -80.052 1808 25.747 -80.049 1810 25.749 -80.054

Page 9 of 10 1812 25.748 -80.050 1814 25.750 -80.053 1816 25.749 -80.051 1818 25.750 -80.051 1820 25.751 -80.052 1822 25.751 -80.052 1824 25.752 -80.051 1826 25.751 -80.049 1828 25.751 -80.049 1830 25.753 -80.050 1832 25.751 -80.047 1834 25.752 -80.048 1836 25.753 -80.047 1838 25.754 -80.053 1840 25.756 -80.052 1842 25.757 -80.053 1844 25.755 -80.050 1846 25.757 -80.051 1848 25.755 -80.050 1850 25.755 -80.050 1852 25.754 -80.048 1854 25.756 -80.052 1856 25.754 -80.048 1858 25.758 -80.053 1900 25.759 -80.054 1902 25.755 -80.050 1904 25.755 -80.050 1906 2525.755 755 -80.05080 050 1908 – – 1910 25.758 -80.053 1912 25.758 -80.053 1914 25.756 -80.052 1916 25.755 -80.050 1918 25.757 -80.051

Page 10 of 10

(A CD containing an electronic copy of the full video annotations, along with video frame grab JPG files, is included with this final report.)

Video Annotations Appendix B Appendix

APPENDIX B: VIDEO ANNOTATIONS

APPENDIX B

Condensed Annotations of ROV Video Transects in 2-Minute Increments

Green rows indicate start of new transect. Gold rows indicate sighting of golden tilefish. Gray rows indicate that the ROV is within the boundaries of the ODMDS.

(A CD containing an electronic copy of the full video annotations, along with video frame grab JPG files, is included with this final report.)

eis1 Begins T112.3 8.6 5 9 5. otDense Soft Dense 150.0 Soft 492 149.0 858 489 -80.064 25.734 856 1 -80.061 25.732 VT-1 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 0 7 4. otDense Soft 145.4 477 908 -80.063 25.735 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 5 9 4. otDense Soft 149.4 490 854 -80.062 25.731 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 0 7 4. otDense Soft 146.0 479 906 -80.063 25.735 1 VT-1 T11 VT-1 1 VT-1 1 1 VT-1 1 VT-1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 5 8 4. otDense Soft 149.0 489 852 -80.062 25.731 1 VT-1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 0 8 4. otDense Soft 146.9 482 904 -80.063 25.735 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 1 7 4. otDense Soft 143.9 472 910 -80.064 25.736 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 5 8 4. otDense Soft 147.8 485 850 -80.063 25.730 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 0 8 4. otDense Dense Soft Soft 147.2 147.8 483 485 902 900 -80.060 25.733 -80.063 25.735 1 1 VT-1 VT-1 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 842 4 8 4. otDense Dense Soft Dense Soft 147.5 Dense Dense Soft 484 147.8 Soft Soft 485 148.4 848 147.2 487 847 143.3 483 470 846 845 842 Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Bu? Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u2 cieCerianthidae-1 Active 6 20 Bu Bu u41 4 Bu Bu u42Active 2 4 Bu Bu Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) echinoid?-1 Cerianthidae-2 echinoid?-1 Araeosoma? Sp. crassa? 1 Rochinia echinoid?-2; Cerianthidae-3 echinoid-1; 1 Rochinia crassa- Cancer? sp.-1; 1

Invertebrates (other) - -1; unid ndfs- 15cmdepressionwith10fish?;fishswimming unid fish-2 Fishes (other) e?1bioturbationsame,dense15-30cmdepressions,somemaybeto50cm;10eelordebris eel?-1 ih110cmeel?;fish;15detritusindepressions(Thalassiadetritus?) fish-1 bioturbation same; urchinormaybeburrowinganemone Cerianthidae bioturbation same;echinoid? bioturbation same;debris bioturbation same;somestalked organism, 20cmtall-Cerianthidae? cable (5cm?diam)heading~N object- echinoid?-2; bioturbation same;largecrab?-Rochinia?sp.;highoffbottom,video dark;somedebris;round occasional 50-75 cmcrater) bioturbation same- moderatetodense,smallmounds andcraters(5-15cm)tolarge (15-30cm, spherical object-echinoid?; bioturbation same;somedepressionswith5-10cmlong,thin,dark objects-Thalassia;bottle;5cm Cerianthidae burrowing anemone bioturbation same; moderatetodense,densedepressions 30-50cm,occasional50-75 cm; sediment, fewmoundsto20-30cm depressions, 5-10cmdiameterconicalshapedmounds,somew/ hole attopandsmoking bottom flatmud,densetomoderatebioturbation,10cm30 diameter crater-shaped date of1/26/85,not1986. on bottom,videoverypoor,blackandwhite,grainy,blurry,lighting poor;notevideooverlayshows which arenotmoving,appeartobeThalassiadetritus;debris-bottle orcan;audio-firstpositionfix planktor swimming,bioturbationsame;somedepressionswith5-10 cmlong,thin,darkobjects borealis? OrC.irrotatus?;Thalassia detritus bioturbation same,dense15-30cm depressions,somemaybeto50cm;12cmcrab-Cancer bioturbation same;urchin-Areosoma? Sp. Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes ? 005- Rochiniasp. 20-30 cmdepressions echinoid? 003- Rochinia?;004- craters bioturbation with 5-15cm 013- moderatedensity crater; 012-Cerianthidae 011- biotrubation~50+cm camera aperature tooopenon Tape 1:001-flareupfrom 014- Cerianthidae? crassa cm pits;010-Rochinia bioturbation clusterof5-15 008- Cancerborealis?;009- crater 30 cmdiammoundsw/ 006- Araeosoma?sp.;007- Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 1 of 22 T112.4 8.6 5 0 2. otDense Soft 123.4 405 956 -80.068 25.740 1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 5 1 2. otDense Soft 125.0 410 954 -80.065 25.740 1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 5 1 2. otDense Soft 126.2 414 952 -80.065 25.740 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 5 0 2. otDense Soft 124.4 408 950 -80.065 25.739 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 4 2 2. otDense Soft 128.3 421 948 -80.067 25.739 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 4 3 3. otDense Soft 132.0 433 946 -80.067 25.739 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 4 3 3. otDense Soft 132.6 435 944 -80.065 25.738 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 4 3 3. otDense Soft 132.3 434 942 -80.065 25.738 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 4 4 3. otDense Soft 135.3 444 940 -80.064 25.737 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 3 4 3. otDense Soft 136.6 448 938 -80.064 25.737 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 3 4 3. otDense Soft 135.0 443 936 -80.064 25.737 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 3 5 3. otDense Soft 137.5 451 934 -80.064 25.737 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 3 5 3. otDense Soft 139.3 457 932 -80.062 25.736 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 3 5 3. otDense Soft 138.7 455 930 -80.064 25.737 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 2 6 4. otDense Soft 141.7 465 928 -80.064 25.737 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 2 5 3. otDense Soft 139.3 457 926 -80.062 25.736 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 2 5 3. otDense Soft 139.9 459 924 -80.065 25.738 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 2 03Sf Dense Soft 0.3 922 -80.064 25.737 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 2 6 4. otDense Soft 141.1 463 920 -80.065 25.738 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 1 6 4. otDense Soft 142.0 466 918 -80.064 25.737 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 1 6 4. otDense Soft 143.0 469 916 -80.062 25.736 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 1 5 3. otDense Soft 139.9 459 914 -80.067 25.739 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 1 7 4. otDense Soft 143.6 471 912 -80.061 25.735 1 VT-1 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu 22 8 Active Cerianthidae-1 unid fish-1 bioturbation same, mostly craters 20-100 cm, low mounds, 15cmfishinsediment bioturbation same,mostlycraters20-100cm, lowmounds, unidfish-1 Cerianthidae-1 Active 8 22 Bu Bu Bu Bu Cerianthidae-4 Bu Bu Cerianthidae-2 u45Atv Active 5 Bu 4 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present

Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-2 echinoid?-1 Cerianthidae-2; Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-3

Invertebrates (other) ,hk.1bioturbation craters20-75cm,some 100cm; noanimalsassociatedwith craters ., hake.-1 Urophycis?sp 1 dae, frogfish- Ogcocephali Fishes (other) bioturbation same, densecraters20-75cm,lowmounds bioturbation craters 20-75cm,some100cm;noanimals associatedwithcraters bioturbation same, densecraters20-75cm,lowmounds bioturbation craters 20-75cm,some100cm;noanimals associatedwithcraters bioturbation same, densecraters20-75cm,lowmounds bioturbation same,densecraters 20-75cm,lowmounds bioturbation same,densecraters 20-75cm,lowmounds bioturbation same as above; 75 cm craters w/ 5-10 cm burrow in bottom, no animals bioturbation sameasabove;75cmcratersw/5-10burrowin bottom, no video toodarktosee bioturbation sameasabove;75cmcratersw/5-10burrowin bottom, noanimals animals; rovoffbottom,toodark to see bioturbation sameasabove,mostly craters;75cmcratersw/5-10burrowinbottom,no animals; Thalassiadetritussticking outofhole bioturbation sameasabove,mostly craters;75cmcratersw/5-10burrowinbottom,no bioturbation same as above; 75 cm craters w/ 5-10 cm burrow in bottom, no animals; debris- can; bioturbation sameasabove;75cmcratersw/5-10burrowin bottom, noanimals;debris- angle, notverticalsomecratersoval orelongated;noanimalsseeninburrowhole;debris-can; bioturbation sameasabove;50-100cmcraterssomew/10-15 burrowinbottom,mostat bioturbation same bioturbation same;debris-bottles,cans?;5-10cmburrowsincraters bioturbation same;debris-beercan cerianthid; debrisoftenincraters,10-30cmblackthinmaterial-Thalassia detritus bioturbation sameasabove;50-75+cmcratersw/5-10burrow inbottom,noanimals; bioturbation same with burrowonbottom,noanimalsassociated bioturbation, fewerconicalmounds,largecratersmorecommon;50-100 cmcraters,somevisible visible bioturbation same;40cmcraterwith5apparentburrowatbottom- Acanthicaris?burrow,not Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes batfish 021- Ogcocephalidae, 018- debris, bottle, cans 018- debris,bottle, with apparent10cmburrow 019, 020-75-100cmcrater burrow 017- 40cmcraterwith5 016- Cerianthidae? mound and30-50cmcrater; combination 20-30cm 015- bioturbation, Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 2 of 22 T112.4 8.6 0046198Sf Dense Soft 129.8 426 1040 -80.065 25.748 1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 0242156Sf Dense Soft 125.6 412 1022 -80.064 25.744 1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 0843189Sf Dense Dense Dense Soft Dense Soft Dense Soft 128.9 Soft 129.2 Dense Soft 423 128.6 Dense 424 128.0 Dense Soft 422 1038 125.9 Soft 420 1036 -80.065 Soft 413 1034 125.3 25.748 -80.067 1032 126.2 25.749 -80.065 1 411 1030 125.6 25.747 -80.066 1 414 25.747 -80.063 VT-1 1 412 1028 25.745 VT-1 1 1026 -80.067 VT-1 1 1024 25.746 -80.064 VT-1 25.746 -80.066 VT-1 1 25.745 1 VT-1 1 VT-1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 0049147Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 124.7 123.7 409 406 1020 1018 -80.065 25.743 -80.067 25.744 1 1 VT-1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 0647141Sf Dense Soft 124.1 407 1016 -80.066 25.743 1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 0443128Sf Dense Soft Dense Dense 122.8 Dense Soft Soft 403 Soft 123.4 1014 123.4 405 122.8 -80.066 405 25.743 403 1012 1 1010 -80.065 1008 25.741 -80.068 VT-1 25.743 -80.067 1 25.741 1 VT-1 1 VT-1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 0642125Sf Dense Soft 122.5 402 1006 -80.067 25.741 1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 0443128Sf Dense Soft 122.8 403 1004 -80.068 25.741 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 0241122Sf Dense Soft 122.2 401 1002 -80.064 25.739 1 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 0643120Sf es ustartTape2,dive VT-1; bottomsame;back ontransect;endTape1 bottomsame;crab onboat;ROVoffbottomtoavoidtanglementwithboat Bu Bu Bu Dense Dense Dense Soft Soft Soft 132.0 131.1 433 128.3 430 421 1046 1044 -80.066 1042 25.750 -80.067 25.751 -80.064 2 25.748 1 VT-1 1 VT-1 VT-1 T112.4 8.6 0042125Sf Dense Soft 122.5 402 1000 -80.066 25.740 1 VT-1 T112.3 8.6 5 0 2. otDense Soft 123.1 404 958 -80.065 25.739 1 VT-1 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Bu Bu u2 Active 5 Bu Bu 22 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u1 Active 4 13 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u87Active 7 8 Bu Bu Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present

Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) Rochina crassa? Sp.-1 Bathynectes? Portunidae?, fenneri?.-1 Chaceon 1

Invertebrates (other) - ndfs- bottomsame; Thalassia?-blackstrap;10 cmfishinsediment unid fish-1 unid fish-1 ndfs- bottomsame;10cmfishinsediment unid fish-1 unid fish-1 ndfs- bottomsame;10-15cmfishswimmingintocrater unid fish-1 unid fish-1 rue- bottomsame; crabonboat,2snowygrouperunder boat grouper-2 snowy niveatus, Epinephelus rue- bioturbationcraters20-75cm,some100cm;noanimalsassociated withcraters grouper-1 snowy niveatus, Epinephelus Fishes (other) bottom same;blackstrap-Thalassia bottom same bottom same bottom same bottom same bottom same;largecraterslessdense bottom same bottom same bottom same bottom same bottom same some withraisedrims,grovesinsides ofcrater;10cmfishinsediment bottom same,craterscommon30-100 cm,manyvisiblyactivewithobliqueburrowsinbottom,and some withraisedrims;Thalassiadetritus bottom same;craterscommon30-100cm,manyvisiblyactivewith obliqueburrowsinbottom,and away, maybeBathynectessp. bottom same;1mcraterwith8cmburrow,stillnolifeassociated; 15cmunidcrab,quickswim burrows bottom same,15cmfish;craters30with5burrowcommon upto75-100cmwith10 bioturbation craters20-75cm,some100activewithburrow inbottom bottom same,somepatchyareasfairlysmoothandrelativelyless bioturbationorcraters; in debrispile bioturbation craters20-75cm,some100cm;noanimalsassociated withcraters;crabandgrouper Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes Chaceon fenneri?crab 026- snowygrouper, down withoutboard motor 027, 028-smallboat upside niveatus snowy grouper,Epinephelus pipes?; 023,025-~25cm 022- metaldebris,1m Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 3 of 22 T122.6 8.6 1046129Sf Dense Soft 132.9 436 1130 -80.063 25.761 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1846129Sf Dense Soft 132.9 436 1128 -80.065 25.762 2 VT-1 T122.6 -80.064 25.761 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1448135Sf Dense Soft 133.5 438 1124 -80.064 25.760 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1249138Sf Dense Soft 133.8 439 1122 -80.068 25.762 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1049138Sf Dense Soft 133.8 439 1120 -80.065 25.760 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 1848135Sf Dense Soft 133.5 438 1118 -80.065 25.759 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 1444153Sf Dense Soft 135.3 444 1114 -80.066 25.759 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1648135Sf Dense Soft 133.5 438 1116 -80.068 25.760 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 1245156Sf Dense Soft 135.6 445 1112 -80.065 25.757 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 1042147Sf Dense Soft 134.7 442 1110 -80.066 25.757 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 1840141Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 134.1 134.4 440 441 1108 1106 -80.063 25.754 -80.065 25.755 2 2 VT-1 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 1442147Sf Dense Soft 134.7 442 1104 -80.063 25.754 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 1243150Sf Dense Soft 135.0 443 1102 -80.064 25.753 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 1044153Sf Dense Soft 135.3 444 1100 -80.066 25.754 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 0844153Sf Dense Soft 135.3 444 1058 -80.065 25.753 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 0645156Sf Dense Soft 135.6 445 1056 -80.067 25.753 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 0445156Sf Dense Soft 135.6 445 1054 -80.065 25.752 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 02 03Sf Dense Soft 0.3 1052 -80.066 25.752 2 VT-1 T122.4 8.6 0040141Sf Dense Soft 134.1 440 1050 -80.063 25.749 2 VT-1 T122.5 8.6 0848135Sf Dense Soft 133.5 438 1048 -80.065 25.750 2 VT-1 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 1126 Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth 3 3. otDense Soft 133.2 437 (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or u1 cieCerianthidae-3 Active 3 16 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u3 cieCerianthidae-1 Active 3 30 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u2 cieCerianthidae-1 Active 7 21 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u1 0Active 10 15 Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present

Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) echinoid?-1 Cerianthidae-1 ; Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-2 echinoid-1 Cerianthidae-2 ; Cerianthidae-8 echinoid?-1 Cerianthidae-2 ; Cerianthidae-6 crassa?-1 Rochinia Cerianthidae-4; Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-5 Cerianthidae-4 Cerianthidae-6 Cerianthidae-8 Cerianthidae-4 Cerianthidae?-2 Cerianthidae-3

Invertebrates (other) Fishes (other) bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; some with raisedrims bottom same; craterscommon 30-75cm, manyvisiblyactive withoblique burrows inbottom, and bottom same;debris bottom same;debris bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; some withraisedrims bottom same;craterscommon30-100 cm,manyvisiblyactivewithobliqueburrowsinbottom,and bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; bottom same;lotsofoverexposedwhiteflare-backonvideo bottom same;debris-blackstraporThalassiadetritus some withraisedrims,grovesinsidesofcrater bottom same;craterscommon30-100cm,manyvisiblyactivewith obliqueburrowsinbottom,and depressions socannottellifburrowinbase no associatedanimalsindepressions,angleofcameradoesnotalways allowlookinginto visibly activewithobliqueburrowsinbottom,andsomeraised rims;some10-20cmmounds, flat sediment,bioturbationmostlypits/depressions5-50cmdiam, occasional 50-100cm,many Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes cm burrow 004- 60cmdepressionw/6 and appearsrecentlyactive m diamdepression,deep 30 cmdepressions;003-1 diam; 002-moonscape,10- smaller depressions5-20cm bioturbation, seriesof cm diamdepressions;001- Tape 2:000-bioturbation30 Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 4 of 22 T122.7 8.6 2042147Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 134.7 134.4 442 441 1210 1208 -80.067 25.772 -80.069 25.773 2 2 VT-1 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2243150Sf Dense Soft 135.0 443 1212 -80.068 25.774 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2641144Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 134.4 134.1 441 440 1206 1204 -80.064 25.770 -80.066 25.771 2 2 VT-1 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2240141Sf Dense Soft 134.1 440 1202 -80.068 25.770 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2040141Sf Dense Soft 134.1 440 1200 -80.067 25.770 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 1840141Sf Dense Soft 134.1 440 1158 -80.067 25.770 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 1640141Sf Dense Soft 134.1 440 1156 -80.067 25.770 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1442147Sf Dense Soft 134.7 442 1154 -80.065 25.769 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1241144Sf Dense Soft 134.4 441 1152 -80.066 25.769 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1041144Sf Dense Soft 134.4 441 1150 -80.068 25.769 2 VT-1 T122.8 8.6 1849138Sf Dense Soft 133.8 439 1148 -80.069 25.780 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1642147Sf Dense Soft 134.7 442 1146 -80.065 25.766 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1442147Sf Dense Soft 134.7 442 1144 -80.064 25.767 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1241144Sf Dense Soft 134.4 441 1142 -80.066 25.766 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1040141Sf Dense Soft 134.1 440 1140 -80.065 25.765 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1849138Sf Dense Soft 133.8 439 1138 -80.067 25.765 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1648135Sf Dense Soft 133.5 438 1136 -80.065 25.762 2 VT-1 T122.6 8.6 1446129Sf Dense Soft 132.9 436 1134 -80.064 25.763 2 VT-1 VT Dense Soft 132.6 435 1132 -80.066 25.764 2 VT-1

- ROV Dive Number 1

2 DVD Number (= Tape Number) 25 . 773 Latitute (Decimal Degrees) - 80 . 066 Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 1214 Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth 442 (ft) Depth 134 (m) . 7 S

o Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other ft Substrates were Observed) D ense Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u1 1Atv Cerianthidae-2 Active 11 15 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u1 cieCerianthidae-7 Active 8 16 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu B

u Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish 18 Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present 10 Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present A c

ti Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active ve (filled in, no shaft) Cerianthidae-5 unid fish-1 bottom same; abundant small cerianthids?; 15 cm fish swimming alongbottom bottomsame;abundant smallcerianthids?;15cmfishswimming unid fish-1 Cerianthidae-5 Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-2 ;echinoid?-1 Cerianthidae-3 Cerianthidae-6 einhde5ui ih1bottomsame; unidfish-1 Cerianthidae-5 ;echinoid?-1 Cerianthidae-4 Cerianthidae-3 crassa? Rochinia sediment- ;unid crabin Cerianthidae-3 Cerianthidae-4 Cerianthidae-4 ; echinoid?-1 Cerianthidae-13 Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-5 einhde4ui ih1bottomsame;ROVumbilicalinview;15cmfishon unidfish-1 Cerianthidae-4 C er i an thid Invertebrates (other) ae- 3 Fishes (other) bottom same;abundant smallcerianthids? bottom same;abundantsmallcerianthids? bottom same;abundant smallcerianthids? bottom same;abundantsmallcerianthids? angle, bottom same;abundant smallcerianthids?,maybe justshadowsofsmallmounds from lowvideo bottom same; shadows ofsmallmoundsfromlow videoangle, bottom, somecraterselongate,may havecavedin;abundantsmallcerianthids?,maybejust small horizontalburrows5-8cm; occasional 50-100cm,somewith10cmobliqueburrowat bottom same,bioturbationmostly small10-30cmtomedium30-50depressions,manywith bottom same;numeroussmall<5 cmceranthids?,cannotidentify bottom same;crabnotinborrow, butburrowedinsediment bottom same; identify; angleofvideochanged,almostparallelwithbottom,more difficulttosee,lotsofglare poor, blurry;patchesofsmall<5cmtubesonbottom,maybe cerianthids,toosmallto bottom same;videooverlay-depth,headingmovedtotopofscreen, easiertoread;videovery bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; bottom same;debris-bottle bottom same; bottom same; some withraisedrims;debris-bottle bottom same,craterscommon30-100cm,manyvisiblyactivewith obliqueburrowsinbottom,and b o tt om same Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes 005- echinoid? 006- 15cmunid fish 007 - Video Capture(DVD 50 Tape:Photo No.) cm d Page 5 of 22 epress i on w /

10

T132.8 8.6 3053164Sf Dense Soft 156.4 513 1300 -80.063 25.783 3 VT-1 T132.8 8.6 2853164Sf Dense Soft 156.4 513 1258 -80.063 25.783 3 VT-1 T132.8 8.6 2655139Sf Dense Soft 153.9 505 1256 -80.064 25.782 3 VT-1 T132.8 8.6 2449121Sf Dense Soft 152.1 499 1254 -80.066 25.783 3 VT-1 T132.8 8.6 2244106Sf Dense Soft 150.6 494 1252 -80.066 25.782 3 VT-1 T132.8 8.6 2048187Sf es B 24 22 Bu Dense Soft 148.7 488 1250 -80.068 25.783 3 VT-1 T132.8 8.6 2846181Sf Dense Soft 148.1 486 1248 -80.067 25.782 3 VT-1 VT-1 VT-1 VT-1 VT-1 VT-1 VT-1 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2249169Sf Dense Soft 136.9 449 1232 -80.069 25.778 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2046159Sf Dense Soft 135.9 446 1230 -80.069 25.778 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2846159Sf Dense Soft 135.9 446 1228 -80.067 25.777 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.7 2645156Sf Dense Soft 135.6 445 1226 -80.071 25.779 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2444153Sf Dense Soft 135.3 444 1224 -80.068 25.776 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2245156Sf Dense Soft 135.6 445 1222 -80.069 25.776 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2045156Sf Dense Soft 135.6 445 1220 -80.067 25.775 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2847162Sf Dense Soft 136.2 447 1218 -80.066 25.774 2 VT-1 T122.7 8.6 2647162Sf Dense Soft 136.2 447 1216 -80.068 25.774 2 VT-1 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number) 571-0061246 -80.066 25.781 571-0081244 1242 -80.068 25.781 -80.065 25.779 578-0061240 -80.066 25.778 570-0091238 -80.069 25.780 577-0051236 -80.065 25.777 577-0071234 -80.067 25.777

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a u45 4 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u2 Active 3 20 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active? cie echinoid?-1 Active? Not Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) Cerianthidae-1 echinoid?-2 echinoid?-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 Cerianthidae-1; echinoid?-2

Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-4 Cerianthidae-2 echinoid-1 Cerianthidae-6; Cerianthidae-1 einhde4ui ih1bottomsame;15cmfish unidfish-1 Cerianthidae-4 burrow Cancer? sp.in Cerianthidae-6 ; Cerianthidae-4 einhde4unidfish-2 Cerianthidae-4

Invertebrates (other) Fishes (other) bottom same;debris- 30cmpipe;debrisindepression; bioturbation- dominated bymounds,fewerdepressions, ceranthidsgone; no obvious shaft,oftenwith Thalassiadebris, noraisedrims; largeceranthids mostlygone; 50-75 cm,mostdepressions associatedwithmounds, mostlargeronesappeared inactive, smooth, cm pilewire? bottom same;bioturbation- 15-25cmmounds,depressions 15-50cm,some50-75 cm;debris?-30 small moundsfrom lowvideoangle bottom same;uncertainofdepth readout; abundantsmallcerianthids?,maybejustshadowsof missing onvideotape up, probablyfromumbilicalhitting bottom raised rims;debris-30cmbucket; 20cmwidegrooveinsedimentliketrawlmark;kicked smooth, noobviousshaft,oftenwith Thalassiadebris,whichatilefishwouldprobablyremove,no bottom same,mostdepressions associated withmounds,mostlargeronesappearedinactive, missing onvideotape blurry, nearcontinuouswhiteout ofmuchfieldview; fewer largecraters;startTape3- startsat12:48,missing16minutes;videoterrible-extrememly bottom same,more15-25cmmounds commonalongwithdepressionsassociatedmound, missing onvideotape missing onvideotape bottom same;endofTape2 missing onvideotape missing onvideotape bottom same missing onvideotape bottom same;debris bottom same;debris video overlaymovedtobottomagaininglare bottom; abundantsmallcerianthids?,maybejustshadowsof moundsfromlowvideoangle; small horizontalburrows5-8cm;occasional50-100cm,somewith 10cmhorizontalburrowat bottom same,bioturbationmostlysmall10-30cmtomedium30-50 cmdepressions,manywith bottom same;debris bottom same;appearstobecrabin30cmdepression sediment; 15cmfishswimming visibly activewithobliqueburrowsinbottom,andsomeraised rims;smallfishkickup bottom same,craterscommon30-100cm,mostcircular,someof larger oneselongate,many Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes depression 009- Cancercrabin30cm tall), beercan(6cmdiam) 008- debris,bottle(28cm Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 6 of 22 eis3 Begins T232.3 8.5 7658162Sf Dense Soft 176.2 578 1736 -80.057 25.735 3 VT-2 T232.3 8.5 7858162Sf Dense Soft 176.2 578 1738 -80.057 25.736 3 VT-2 T232.3 8.5 7455153Sf Dense Mo Soft Dense 175.3 Soft 575 175.9 1734 577 -80.057 25.735 1732 3 -80.057 25.734 VT-2 3 VT-2 T232.3 8.5 7059165Sf Dense Soft 176.5 579 1740 -80.056 25.736 3 VT-2 T132.8 8.6 3653164Sf Dense Soft 156.4 513 1306 -80.067 25.787 3 VT-2 VT-1 T232.3 8.5 7251171Sf Dense Soft 177.1 581 1742 -80.055 25.737 3 VT-2 T132.8 8.6 3457176Sf Dense Soft 157.6 517 1304 -80.062 25.784 3 VT-1 T232.3 8.5 7854180Sf Dense Soft 178.0 Dense 584 Soft 1748 177.4 -80.058 25.739 582 3 1744 VT-2 -80.057 25.738 3 VT-2 T132.8 8.6 3253164Sf Dense Soft 156.4 513 1302 -80.064 25.784 3 VT-1 T232.3 8.5 7053177Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 177.7 583 178.0 584 1750 -80.056 1746 25.739 -80.053 3 25.738 VT-2 3 VT-2 T232.3 8.5 7256186Sf Dense Soft 178.6 586 1752 -80.053 25.738 3 VT-2 T232.3 8.5 7458192Sf Dense Soft 179.2 588 1754 -80.051 25.737 3 VT-2 T232.4 8.5 8255114Sf Dense Soft 181.4 Dense 595 Dense Soft 1802 Soft -80.053 180.4 25.741 179.8 3 592 590 VT-2 1758 1756 -80.052 25.739 -80.056 25.741 3 3 VT-2 VT-2 T232.4 8.5 8455114Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 181.4 595 179.8 590 1804 -80.050 1800 25.741 -80.050 3 25.739 VT-2 3 VT-2 T232.4 8.5 8054180Sf Dense Dense Dense Soft Soft Soft 178.0 178.6 584 181.4 586 595 1810 1808 -80.053 1806 25.744 -80.053 25.743 -80.052 3 25.742 3 VT-2 3 VT-2 VT-2 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 5054158Sf Dense Soft 165.8 544 1550 Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Mo Mo o41 4 Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo o14 1 Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo o90 9 Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Bu Bu Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active Active Active Not Not Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) Cancer sp-1 einhde1ui ih- bottomsame;15cmfish?;debris-5diamtwistedrope unidfish?-1 Cerianthidae-1 echinoid-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 Cancer sp.-1

Invertebrates (other) Fishes (other) bottom same bottom same;debris bottom same;endofVT-1(13:07) bottom same bottom same; bottom same rims; nocerianthids,epifaunaatall between mounds;probablynoactivetilefishburrows,obvious shafts inlargercratersorraised bottom same;moonscape,dominatedbymounds,diifficulttodifferentiate cratersfromvalleys bottom same bottom same depressions withsmall5cmdiamverticalburrows,maybecallianassa-type crustacea? camera; Bioturbation-moonscape,densemounds10-25cm,depressions 10-30cm,some Video verypoor-rovoftenflying2moffbottom,barelysee oftenchangingtiltangleof dive continuesto16:05.ThenstartsVT-2 Tape continuesattime15:50,butthisisnottransectVT-2which supposetostartat1732;this bottom same;debris-wires?Insediment bottom same bottom same bottom same cm burrowshaftsatbottom with smallshaft<5cm,nolikelytilefish; manyofthesmallerdepressions,10-20cmwithsmall2-3 tilefish burrows,noobviouslarge burrowsinlargercratersorraisedrims,somemedium bottom same;difficulttodifferentiatecratersfromvalleysbetween mounds;probablynoactive bottom same; bottom same bottom same; bottom same;15 cmCanceronmound bottom same; bottom same; obvious largeburrows inlargercratersorraisedrims; nocerianthids;virtuallymacro-epifauna; difficult todifferentiate cratersfromvalleysbetween mounds;probablynoactivetilefish burrows,no some depressions withsmall5cmdiamverticalburrows, maybecallianassa-type crustacea?, bottom same:Bioturbation-dense moonscape,densemounds10-25cm,depressions10-30 Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes burrow Cancer sp.associatedwith bioturbation VT-2;002- 001- highdensity depressions bioturbation- moundsand Tape 3:000-highdensity Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 7 of 22 T232.6 8.6 8859151Sf Dense Dense Dense Soft Soft Soft 155.1 155.1 509 153.9 509 505 1858 1856 -80.063 1854 25.760 -80.061 25.759 -80.063 3 25.759 3 VT-2 3 VT-2 VT-2 T232.4 8.5 8252143Sf Dense Soft 174.3 572 1812 -80.053 25.744 3 VT-2 T232.4 8.5 8855122Sf Dense Soft 172.2 565 1818 -80.052 25.743 3 VT-2 T232.4 8.5 8455153Sf Dense Soft 175.3 575 1814 -80.050 25.743 3 VT-2 T232.5 -80.060 25.759 3 VT-2 T232.4 8.4 8255122Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 172.2 169.2 565 555 1822 1820 -80.048 25.743 -80.052 25.743 3 3 VT-2 VT-2 T232.4 8.5 8659134Sf Dense Soft 173.4 569 1816 -80.054 25.745 3 VT-2 T232.5 8.6 8055139Sf Dense Dense Soft Dense Soft 153.9 Soft 153.6 505 504 152.7 1850 501 1848 -80.060 25.756 -80.059 1846 25.755 3 -80.064 3 25.758 VT-2 VT-2 3 VT-2 T232.4 8.5 8656134Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 163.4 167.6 536 550 1826 1824 -80.054 25.749 -80.056 25.748 3 3 VT-2 VT-2 T232.5 8.6 8454136Sf Dense Soft 153.6 504 1844 Dense Dense -80.063 25.757 Soft Soft 3 157.6 VT-2 157.0 517 515 1834 1832 -80.055 25.749 -80.058 25.751 3 3 VT-2 VT-2 T232.4 8.5 8857137Sf Dense Soft 163.7 537 1828 -80.055 25.749 3 VT-2 T232.5 8.6 8256142Sf Dense Soft 154.2 Dense 506 Soft 1842 157.0 -80.061 25.754 515 3 1836 VT-2 -80.058 25.751 3 VT-2 T232.5 8.5 8058109Sf Dense Soft 160.9 528 1830 -80.057 25.752 3 VT-2 T232.5 8.5 8853164Sf es Bu? Dense Dense Soft Soft 155.1 156.4 509 513 1840 1838 -80.059 25.753 -80.058 25.751 3 3 VT-2 VT-2 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 1852 Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth 1 5. otDense Soft 157.0 515 (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 0 3 Bu? Bu? Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo o51 5 Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo o20 2 Mo Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active cieCerianthidae?-1 Active Active Not Not Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) echinoid-1 echinoid?-1 Cancer sp.-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 Cerianthidae-1 echinoid?-1 bottomsame;8cmfish unidfish-1 Cerianthidae?-1; echinoid?-1 echinoid-1 echinoid?-1 Cerinathidae?-1;

Invertebrates (other) Fishes (other) bottom same, pits 5 cm, depressions worn and smooth; end of Tape 3; start Tape 4 bottom same,pits 5cm,depressionswornandsmooth; endofTape3;start bottom same bottom same bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; bottom same;ROVmovingslower,morelikeproperspeed;Thalassia detritus; bottom same; bottom same;debris-wires?Insediment bottom same;debris-wires?Insediment bottom same; Dominated by15-50cmdepressions, occasionalto100cm;10-20cmmoundspatchy cm ?cerianthids less common,butpatchy,surface smoother;debris-15cmobject; bottom same;mostly depressions,15-30cmto30-50 cmdepressions,smallmounds 10-15cm;5 mounds lessdense bottom same; bottom same;debris-50cmbox,fueltank? bottom same;debris-30cmroundobject bottom same; tilefish burrows,noobviousshaftsinlargercratersorraisedrims; bottom same;diifficulttodifferentiatecratersfromvalleysbetween mounds;probablynoactive stalked withfuzzytop,onlyabout 5cmtall; none appearastilefishburrows; surface appearsrough,with<5cmcerianthids?,appeartobe bottom same,mostlysmallmounds 5-15cm,occasionaldepressions15-30fewto50-75 cerianthids buttooblurrytoidentify; shafts inlargercraters,andnoraised rims;<5cmobjectsindenseclusters,maybesmall bottom same;flatter,smallermounds anddepressions,noobviousactivetilefishburrows,large epifauna; debris-treebranch? burrows, nolargeshaftsinlargercraters,andraisedrims;some relativelyflatareas;fewmacro- cm mounds,notasdenseortallprevious;depressions5-50 cm,noobviousactivetilefish much ofvideotopoorseewell;moderatedensitybioturbation- mounds anddepressions;5-15 50cm, occasional100cmdepression; definitechangeinhabitatfrombeginningofVT2. moderate bioturbation,moundslessdense;depressionsmoreabundant, 15-30cmdepressions,to Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 8 of 22 T242.6 8.6 9457198Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft Dense 169.8 Dense 167.9 557 Soft 551 Soft 1924 167.3 1922 166.7 -80.064 549 25.767 -80.061 547 25.765 4 1920 4 1918 VT-2 -80.062 VT-2 25.765 -80.062 25.765 4 Dense 4 VT-2 Dense VT-2 Soft Soft 158.8 521 157.6 517 1904 -80.064 1902 25.763 -80.064 4 25.763 VT-2 4 VT-2 T242.6 8.6 9652113Sf Dense Soft 171.3 562 Dense 1926 -80.062 Soft 25.767 Dense 4 164.9 Dense VT-2 Dense Soft 541 Dense Soft Soft 1916 163.7 Dense Soft 163.1 -80.064 537 161.8 25.765 Soft 535 161.2 4 531 1914 529 1912 160.3 -80.060 VT-2 1910 25.764 -80.063 526 1908 25.764 -80.064 4 25.761 -80.059 4 1906 25.760 VT-2 4 -80.062 VT-2 4 25.762 VT-2 VT-2 4 VT-2 T242.6 8.7 9052161Sf Dense Soft 156.1 512 1900 -80.070 25.766 4 VT-2 T242.6 8.6 9859134Sf Dense Soft 173.4 569 4 1928 -80.060 VT-2 25.767 4 VT-2 T242.6 8.5 9054150Sf Dense Soft 175.0 574 1930 -80.059 25.767 4 VT-2 T242.7 8.6 9652104Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 180.4 178.3 592 585 1936 1934 -80.063 25.771 -80.060 25.768 4 4 VT-2 VT-2 T242.6 8.5 9855114Sf Dense Soft 181.4 595 1938 -80.059 25.769 4 VT-2 T242.7 8.5 9665105Sf Dense Soft Dense 190.5 Dense 625 Soft Soft 1946 185.3 184.1 -80.058 608 25.770 604 4 1942 1940 VT-2 -80.062 25.772 -80.064 25.773 4 4 VT-2 VT-2 T242.7 8.6 9464171Sf Dense Soft 187.1 614 1944 -80.060 25.771 4 VT-2 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 9259165Sf Dense Soft 176.5 579 1932 Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? Bu? Bu? u 2 2 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 1 1 Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo o42 4 Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo o73 7 Mo Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present ciehermitcrab-1 Active Active Active Active Not Not Not Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) fenneri?-1 Chaceon

Invertebrates (other) ndfs- depressionssmoothandwithout activeburrows;15cmfishswimming unid fish-1 ndfs- bottomsame; fish5cmswimming unid fish-1 ndfs- bottomsame; videobetter,clearer,lessglare andflareup;5cmfishswimming unid fish-1 Fishes (other) bottom same;Thalassiadetritus bottom same;denseconicalmounds bottom same;debris-beercan bottom same; larger mounds10-30cmmorecommon bottom same; bottom same;debris-smallbox bottom same;detritus?-orgorgonian stalk bottom same; bottom same; as gorgonianstalks,butnonewouldbehere;debris-wiresorcables? appear tobeactivetilefishburrows;debris?-halfdozen20cmstalks orwiresstickingup,appears bottom same,some30-50cm,hadapparentshaftsatbottom, butnoraisedrims,didnot bottom same; some occurinmud bottom same;detritus?-definitebranching25cmtall,maybedead gorgonianstalk,orIsididae, large crab,possiblyChaceon,bodytoforCancer,notRochinia mostly depressions,15-30cm,to30-50,and50-100cm smallmounds10-15cm; burrows; mostconicalmoundswithapical1-2cmhole;debris-wires? insediment cm, somehadapparentshaftsatbottom,butnoraisedrims,didnot appeartobeactivetilefish bottom same-mostlysmallconicalmounds10-20cmdiam,depressions 10-30cm,some30-50 bottom same; relatively barrenofmacro-epifauna,nocerianthids bottom same,mostofthedepressionsappearsmooth,old,noburrows seeninthebottoms; just <5cmshaft,noraisedrims,not likelytilefishburrows valleys betweenmounds;mostlarger cratersappearedinactive,smooth,noobviouslargeshaft,or depressions associatedwithmounds, dominatedbymounds,diifficulttodifferentiatecratersfrom bottom same; bottom same;depressions moredense,somewith 5cmburrows. no obvious largeshaft,or just<5cmshaft, noraisedrims, notlikelytilefish burrows differentiate craters fromvalleysbetweenmounds; mostlargercratersappearedinactive, smooth, bottom same;most depressionsassociatedwithmounds, dominatedbymounds,diifficult to Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes 002- hermitcrab 001- Chaceonfenneri? mounds, depressions moonscape, 25cmconical 003- bioturbation- 75+ cmdiamdepression Tape 4-000-Bioturbation, Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 9 of 22 T242.7 8.5 0075262Sf Dense Soft Dense 236.2 Dense Soft 775 Soft 233.8 2020 Dense 767 231.0 -80.054 Dense 25.777 Soft 758 2018 4 Soft -80.056 2016 228.6 25.779 VT-2 -80.051 226.2 4 750 25.776 742 VT-2 4 2014 -80.052 VT-2 2012 25.775 -80.051 4 25.773 4 VT-2 VT-2 T242.7 8.5 9865105Sf Dense Soft 190.5 625 1948 -80.058 25.770 4 VT-2 T242.7 8.5 0071228Sf Dense Soft Dense 222.8 Soft 731 2010 219.8 -80.052 721 25.773 4 2008 -80.052 VT-2 25.772 4 VT-2 T242.7 8.5 9269148Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 194.8 192.0 639 630 1952 1950 -80.059 25.772 -80.056 25.770 4 4 VT-2 VT-2 T242.7 8.5 0670264Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 216.4 710 212.1 696 2006 -80.052 2004 25.772 -80.056 Dense 4 25.773 VT-2 4 Soft VT-2 197.2 647 1954 -80.059 25.772 4 VT-2 T242.7 8.6 0265288Sf Dense Soft 208.8 685 Dense 2002 -80.060 Soft 25.776 4 200.3 VT-2 657 1956 -80.060 25.774 4 VT-2 T242.7 8.5 0063251Sf Dense Soft Dense 205.1 Soft 673 203.0 2000 666 -80.053 25.772 1958 4 -80.057 VT-2 25.773 4 VT-2 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? 4 11 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 4 8 Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active? Active? Not Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) eaoa- ndfs- bottomsame; 5cmfishinsediment Cerianthidae?-1 unidfish-1 Decapoda?-1 nddcpd- ndfs?1bottomsame;fishinsediment,puffofsediment unidfish?-1 unid decapoda-1 longispina?-1 Bathynectes Portunidae, 1; Cancersp.-1 Unid decapoda- crassa?-1 Rochinia Unid decapoda,

Invertebrates (other) e- bottomsame;fish5-10 cm conger eel?-` unid fish?-1; eel-1 unid fish?-1; sp.-1 Physiculus Urophycis or 1 1; unidfish?- oceanicus?- eel, Conger eel-1 unid fish?-2; e- bottomsame eel-1 unid fish?-2; 1 ?-1; unidfish- Peristediidae Fishes (other) bottom same;debris-bottle bottom same; bottom same bottom same; bottom same; bottom same;crabindepression 30+ cmeel moderate bioturbation, moundsanddepressions less dense;fish10cm;detritus- can, can; asdrm osbetlfs urw,btpoal o cie ae 0c;dbi-be a 008-Urophycis? Sp. raised rim,possibletilefishburrows, butprobablynotactive;Hake?30cm;debris-beercan bottom same,smoothdepressions, 30-50cmcommon,somewith5burrowinbottom,no 10 cmfish bottom same; common; 5-10cmfish?;Thalassiadetritus?;2-eel? bottom same-flatareasmorecommon,15-25cmmounds,30-50 cm to50-100depressions bottom same;15cmfishPeristediidae?;unidfish,jack?Swimming 25cm stalk; macro-epifaunamorecommon bottom, noraisedrim,possibletilefishburrows,butprobablynotactive; detritus?-twigorIsididae conical moundslessdense;smoothdepressions,30-50cmcommon, somewith5cmburrowin Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes 004- Bathynecteslongispina 007- eel

Cancer indepression 005-Peristediidae?; 006- Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 10 of 22 T242.8 8.4 1077229Sf Dense Soft 242.9 797 2100 -80.048 25.783 4 VT-2 T242.6 8.4 0877229Sf Dense Soft Dense Dense 242.9 Dense Soft Soft 797 Dense Soft 242.9 Dense 2058 242.6 Dense Soft 797 242.9 -80.045 Soft 796 25.767 Dense Soft 797 2056 242.9 4 2054 242.9 -80.047 Soft 797 2052 25.781 242.6 -80.049 VT-2 797 25.782 -80.048 4 2050 796 25.781 242.6 4 2048 -80.046 VT-2 4 796 2046 25.780 -80.048 VT-2 25.781 VT-2 -80.048 4 2044 25.780 4 VT-2 -80.051 4 25.781 VT-2 VT-2 4 VT-2 T242.8 8.5 0276226Sf Dense Soft Dense Dense 242.6 Soft Soft 796 244.1 2042 242.3 801 -80.053 795 25.782 2040 4 2038 -80.050 25.779 -80.046 VT-2 25.778 4 4 VT-2 VT-2 T242.7 8.5 0673217Sf Dense Soft Dense 241.7 Dense Soft 793 Soft 242.3 2036 795 243.5 -80.050 25.779 799 2034 4 -80.045 2032 25.776 VT-2 -80.047 4 25.776 VT-2 4 VT-2 T242.7 8.4 0079235Sf Dense Soft Dense 243.5 Soft 799 241.7 2030 793 -80.046 25.775 2028 4 -80.048 25.776 VT-2 4 VT-2 T242.7 8.5 0674220Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 242.0 794 240.2 788 2026 -80.052 2024 25.778 -80.054 4 25.778 VT-2 4 VT-2 T242.7 8.5 0273287Sf Dense Soft 238.7 783 2022 -80.054 25.778 4 VT-2 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? u 22 12 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 00 10 Bu? Bu? Bu? u 4 6 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present cie Cancersp.-1 Active? Active? Active? Not Not Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) acr p- ndfs- bottomsame; 15cmfishswimming unidfish-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 uia p1ui ih- bottomsame, 10cmfish? unidfish?-2 Munida? Sp-1 Galatheidae- 1 Rochinia crassa- Munida? Sp.-1 Galatheidae-

Invertebrates (other) unid fish-1 bottom flat, mostly 10-30 cm mounds; few mounds 10-30 cm, few 50-100 cm; fish 5cm; bottomflat,mostly10-30cm mounds;fewmounds10-30cm,50-100cm;fish unid fish-1 ndfs?2 10cmfish?;Thalassiadetritus?;largemajidcrab-carapace, 40cmlegspan unid fish?-2 unid fish?-1 1 Cancer? Sp.- ndfs?3bottomsame;detritus-straps;30 cmeel;bottle;unidfish-10-20 unid fish?-3 er flavus?-1; Rhynchocong or oceanicus? eel, Conger Fishes (other) bottom same bottom same,moderatebioturbation bottom same;lowvideoangleshow fuzzygrowthonbottom,hydroids?,polychaetetubes? bottom same;fewlargedepressions >50cm bottom same;100cmdepression w/two5cmburrowinbottom-notlikelytilefish bottom same moderate bioturbation,flatteningout,moundsanddepressionsless dense bottom same; off bottom, endofTape4 moderate bioturbation-10-30 cmconical mound, 10-30cm depressions,few to50cm;21:01 ROV rim, possibletilefish burrows,butprobablynotactive;debris- box bottom same,mounds 10-30cmdominate,some 30-50cmwith5burrowinbottom, noraised bottom same;bottle-2 probably notactive medium depressionswith5cmburrowinbottom,noraisedrim,possible tilefishburrows,but same bottom;fewlargedepressions.most10-30cm,mounds cmdominate,some30-50 same bottom bottom, noraisedrim,possibletilefishburrows,butprobablynotactive; 10cmfish moderate tolargemounds15-30cm,patchydepressions15-50 somewith5cmburrowin moderate bioturbation-relativelyflatareasw/smallpitsandmounds <10cm,andpatchesof moderate bioturbation,flatareasbetweenmoundsanddepressions; debris-bottle? Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes 012- Rochiniacrassa bottom three 5cmburrowsin 011- 100cmdepressionw/ 010- Munida?Sp. cm Rhynchoconger flavus?,30 Conger oceanicus?or 009- unid.Eel,Congerinae, Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 11 of 22 eis62.4 8.4 1 2 5. otDense Soft 251.5 825 816 -80.046 25.746 6 Begins T362.4 8.4 3 1 4. otDense Dense Soft Dense Soft 248.4 Soft 249.6 Dense 815 Dense 819 249.0 Soft 838 Soft 817 836 -80.046 250.2 Dense 25.749 -80.043 250.2 834 Dense 25.749 821 6 Soft -80.046 821 6 Dense Soft 25.749 VT-3 832 VT-3 250.5 6 830 Dense Soft -80.046 249.6 25.749 -80.043 822 VT-3 Dense Soft 25.747 819 250.9 6 6 828 Dense Soft 823 VT-3 251.2 826 -80.043 VT-3 Soft 25.748 824 -80.045 251.2 824 25.748 6 824 -80.043 251.2 6 822 25.748 VT-3 824 -80.045 VT-3 6 820 25.747 -80.044 VT-3 6 818 25.746 -80.042 VT-3 6 25.746 VT-3 6 VT-3 VT-3 T252.8 8.5 1282244Sf Dense Soft 244.4 244.4 802 802 2112 2110 -80.052 25.785 -80.053 25.786 5 5 VT-2 VT-2 T252.8 8.5 1678232Sf Dense Dense Soft Dense Soft 242.9 243.2 Soft 797 242.3 798 795 2108 242.3 2106 -80.045 795 2104 25.781 -80.055 25.785 -80.050 5 2102 25.784 5 -80.053 VT-2 5 25.787 VT-2 VT-2 5 VT-2

5 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 0:27 Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? Bu? Active? Bu? 5 Bu? 6 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present

Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) uia p- unid fish-2 Munida? Sp.-1 Galatheidae, fenneri?-1 Chaceon unidfish-1 bottomsame;15cmfishonbottom; detritus- 20cmcan? Munida? Sp.-1 unidfish-3 Galatheidae, Munida? Sp.-1 Galatheidae, unidfish-2 Galatheidae?-1 Ophiuroid?-1; 1 Chaceon fenneri- Munida? Sp.-1; Galatheidae, unidfish-3 Munida? Sp.-1 Galatheidae,

Invertebrates (other) unid fish-2 ndfs- bottom same;video highanddark;can; fish15cm swimming;10cm fish swimming unid fish-3 bottomsame; 10-15cmfishonbottom unid fish-2 unid fish-2 2 barbatulum?- Laemonena 001-Chaceonfenneri bottomsame;15cmfishswimming;detritus- 75cmpipe;largeChaceon;10fishonbottom unid fish-2 Fishes (other) bottom same; on bottom,notmoving;offbottomcomingup;endofTransectVT-2 no viewofbottom no viewofbottom view bottom same;ROVhighup,poorview,pulledaroundbyumbilical, lotsofsedimentobscuring Start Tape5,VT-2continued;bottomsame;5cmcable?On bottom bottom same,very fewmediumdepressions30-50 cm,10-25cmmoundsmostly; 15 cmfishon codling?; debris- can? bottom same;moderate bioturbation,fewlargedepressions; metalladderwithcrab and2-3mora bottom; 10cmfish swimming;debris-stick? burrows, fewmaybeactive,some areasrelativelyflat;ROVoftentoohighupandhardtosee cm, occasionalto50+some with 5cmburrowinbottom,noraisedrim,possibletilefish moderate bioturbation,conicalmounds 10-30cm,mostwithapical1cmhole,depressions fish onbottom bottom same;galatheidw/20cm longchelae;Thalassiadetritus,mostlyindepressions;10cm bottom; can;fish10cm mostly mounds10-30cm,flatter bottom, fewlargedepressions,most10-20cm;15cmfishon view, mustbedifferentROVpilot depressions 10-30cm,someto50cm;fish15cmswimming;debris- bottles?;ROVhighup,poor at timecoordinatesstart-08:16;moderatetodensebioturbation-conical mounds10-30cm, Tape 6startsat8:09;7endscorrecttimeforVT-3,11:24; thereforewillstartloggingVT-3 likely tilefish bottom same;smallfish15cm?seen isseenin30cmdepressionwith5-10diamburrow,not mud, bioturbation;Tape5endsat08:08;datanotlogged,outofrange view oftethermanagementsystemat100ftthento800ft;6:23on deck;7:16onbottom,842ft, on bottomat00:31;tapejumpsto5:43,inmidwater;appearsbe gettingkinksoutofumbilical, next divestartingat00:27am,1/26/86;thisisnotcorrecttimefor VT-3, thereforewillnotlogdata; Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes barbatulum? under ladder 005, 006,007-Laemonena 002- ophiuroid? depressions bioturbation, moundsand Tape 6-000-dense 003, 004-burroww/fish Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 12 of 22 T362.5 8.4 2 2 5. otDense Dense Soft Soft 252.1 251.8 827 826 924 922 -80.040 25.759 -80.043 25.761 6 6 VT-3 VT-3 T362.5 8.4 2 2 5. otDense Soft 251.8 826 920 -80.042 25.759 6 VT-3 T362.6 8.4 1 2 5. otDense Dense Soft Soft 251.2 824 250.9 823 918 -80.044 916 25.760 -80.045 6 25.758 VT-3 6 VT-3 T362.5 8.4 1 2 5. otDense Soft Dense 250.5 Dense Soft Dense 822 Soft 250.2 Dense Soft 914 821 250.2 Soft -80.045 249.0 25.759 821 912 817 248.1 6 -80.045 910 25.759 814 VT-3 908 -80.045 6 25.761 -80.048 906 25.760 VT-3 6 -80.048 6 25.759 VT-3 VT-3 6 VT-3 T362.5 8.4 0 1 4. otDense Soft Dense 248.4 Dense Soft 815 Soft 249.0 Dense 904 Dense 817 247.8 Dense Soft -80.047 Soft 25.756 813 902 Soft 248.4 6 -80.047 249.6 900 25.757 815 VT-3 249.0 -80.044 819 6 25.755 817 858 VT-3 6 856 -80.045 854 25.755 -80.045 VT-3 25.756 -80.045 6 25.756 6 VT-3 6 VT-3 VT-3 T362.5 8.4 5 1 4. otDense Soft Dense Dense 249.0 Soft Soft 817 249.0 248.4 852 817 -80.046 815 25.754 850 6 848 -80.045 25.754 -80.047 VT-3 25.753 6 6 VT-3 VT-3 T362.5 8.4 4 1 4. otDense Soft 247.5 812 846 -80.049 25.754 6 VT-3 T362.5 8.5 4 1 4. otDense Dense Soft Dense Soft 248.7 Soft 816 248.4 249.0 815 844 817 -80.050 842 25.753 840 -80.043 6 25.751 -80.045 25.750 VT-3 6 6 VT-3 VT-3 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 0 5 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 2 Bu? 5 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or u43Atv?Cancer?Sp.-1 Active? 3 4 Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active? Active Not Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) Cancer? Sp.-1 emtca?1unidfish-4 hermit crab?-1 pirie?1ui ih- bottomsame;fishinshadows20cm? unidfish?-1 Ophiuroidea?-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 unid fish-1 bottom same; debris- glass, line; Crab in 20 cm depression; 10 cmfishswimming bottomsame;debris-glass,line;Crabin20cmdepression;10 unidfish-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 acr p- ndfs- bottomsame;fish10 cm unidfish-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 hermit crab-1, fenneri?-1 Chaceon fenneri?-1 Chaceon Cancer? Sp.-1; 1 Cancer borealis-

Invertebrates (other) ndfs-2bottom same;fish-10cm bottomsame;fish-10cm unid fish-2 unid fish-2 ndfs- bottomsame;10cmfishswimming;debris-20 bottomsame;10cmfishswimming unid fish-3 unid fish-2 iau?1bottomsame;15cmfishonbottom;Thalassiadetritus vivanus?-1 Lutjanus bottomsame,noraisedrim,donotappeartobetilefishburrows; 10cmfish unid fish-4 bottomsame;debris-bottle?;10cmfish unid fish-1 Fishes (other) bottoms same;now videoanglelowandcloseto bottom bottom same bottom same bottom same bottom same,onelarge100cmdepressionwithraisedrim,cansee bottom 15 cmfishonbottom; 10cmfishswimming; fish bottom same;10 cmfish;somedepressionsseen with5cmburrowinbottom;rov highoffbottom; medium depressions 30-50cm;Thalassiadetritus dense bioturbation-mostlysmall to mediummounds10-30cm,smalldepressions10-20few bottom same,veryfewmediumdepressions 30-50cm,somewith5cmburrows;detritus-can bottom same;5cmdiamcableor rope,10-20ftlong bottom same; bottom same;debris-cloth,beercan moderate bioturbation,mostly10-25cmmounds,veryfewmedium depressions30-50cm bottom, onewithraisedrim,possibletilefishburrow,fewmaybeactive; bottle bottom same,densesmall10-30cmdepressions,occasionalto50+ cm,somewith5cmburrowin Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes 008- debris,cloth 010- Cancerborealis silk snapper,15cm 011, 012-Lutjanusvivanus?, several 5-10cmburrows 009- Cancerindepression, Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 13 of 22 T362.7 8.4 0689227Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 252.7 252.7 829 829 1006 1004 -80.043 25.770 -80.043 25.770 6 6 VT-3 VT-3 T362.6 8.4 0088224Sf Dense Soft Dense Dense 252.4 Soft Dense Soft Dense 828 252.1 Soft 252.1 Dense 1000 Soft 827 Dense -80.042 827 252.1 Soft 25.769 252.4 958 Soft 827 6 956 -80.042 828 252.4 25.767 -80.041 VT-3 252.4 954 25.767 828 6 952 -80.041 828 6 25.767 -80.043 VT-3 950 25.766 VT-3 6 948 -80.045 6 25.769 -80.041 VT-3 25.765 VT-3 6 6 VT-3 VT-3 T362.6 8.4 0288224Sf es e u Active 2 4 Bu Yes Dense Soft 252.4 828 1002 -80.042 25.769 6 VT-3 T362.6 8.4 4 2 5. otDense Dense Dense Soft Dense Soft Dense Soft 252.1 Dense Soft 250.9 Soft 827 252.4 Dense Soft 823 252.4 828 946 252.1 Soft 828 252.4 944 -80.044 827 942 25.768 -80.042 828 250.9 940 25.766 -80.045 6 938 25.765 -80.040 823 6 936 25.764 VT-3 -80.042 6 25.764 -80.042 VT-3 6 934 25.765 VT-3 6 -80.044 VT-3 6 25.765 VT-3 -80.039 VT-3 6 25.761 -80.044 25.763 VT-3 6 6 VT-3 VT-3 T362.6 -80.042 25.762 6 -80.042 25.762 VT-3 6 VT-3 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 932 930 928 926 Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth 2 5. otDneB?bottomsame; unidfish-1 Bu? Bu? Dense Dense Soft Soft 252.4 251.8 828 826 2 5. otDneB?unidfish-4 Bu? Bu? Dense Soft Dense 252.1 Soft 827 251.2 824 (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Active? Bu? 6 Bu? Bu? 5 Bu? Bu? u Active Bu? 2 Bu? Bu? 3 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present

Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) acr p- unidfish-4 Cancer? Sp.-1 bottomsame;fish-10-15cm unidfish-4 hermit crab?-1 unid decapod-1 enr?1ui ih1moderatebioturbation, occasionalmediumdepressions30-50cm;debris-20cmrock? 1 unidfish-1 Chaceon fenneri- fenneri?-1 Chaceon unidfish-3 Munida? Sp.-1 Galatheidae, enr?2unidfish-2 fenneri?-2 Chaceon

Invertebrates (other) ndfs- bottomsame;fish-15 cm bottomsame;fish-15 cm unid fish-1 unid fish-2 unid fish-5 ndfs- bottomsame;fish-10cm unid fish-1 bottomsame;debris-20 cmblock,1mpipe;fish-10-15 unid fish-3 ndfs- bottomsame;fish-15cm bottomsame;fish-10cm unid fish-1 unid fish-1 unid fish-2 ndfs- bottomsame;fish-10-15cm; goodviewofangleChaceoncarapace unid fish-1 bottomsame;debris-25cmsticks?;fish-15cm,10 2 barbatulum?- Laemonema Fishes (other) bottom same; bottom same; rov pulled off bottom again at 9:45, up to 790 ft, then back on bottom at 9:46 bottom same;rovpulledoffagainat9:45,upto790ft,then backonbottomat bottom same; associated withdepression, depressionlargerthan alltherestseen. numerous 1-3cm burrowaroundentranceofmain burrow,75cmdepressionbeside it,nomound rim, sideofburrow nearlyverticalwithapparentoblique burrowthatthefishdarted intoheadfirst, probably golden tile insidelargedepression~1.5 m diameter,appearselongate,no distinctraised depressions 10-20 cm,fewmediumdepressions 30-50 cm;fish-four1550+cm tilefish bottom same-dense tomoderatebioturbation-mostly smalltomediummounds10-30 cm,small tilefish; fish-10-15cm bottom same,severalmedium30-50tolarge50-75cmdepressions, donotlookactive,maybe away; detritus-can 20 cm,fewmediumdepressions 30-50 cm;Thalassiadetritus;fish-10-15cmonbottom,swim dense tomoderatebioturbation- mostly smalltomediummounds10-30cm,depressions10- flat bottom,notinburrows bottom same,largedepressionelongate,active,rim,maybetilefish; fish-10-15cm;Chaceonon 20 cm,fewmediumdepressions30-50cm;Thalassiadetritus;debris- 1mpipe;fish-15cm dense tomoderatebioturbation-mostlysmallmediummounds 10-30 cm,smalldepressions10- fish- 10cm off bottom,812ft,ROVcomingup,noaudiodescription,upto806 ft;then9:35backonbottom; then dartawayincloudofsedimentwhenrovis1-2m bottom same;fish-10cm,15cm;mostfishinallvideosaresmall 10-15cm,restingonbottom, Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes 016- Chaceonfenneri chamaeleonticeps, 30+cm Lopholatilus 018-021- Golden tilefish, 015- Munida?Sp. 017- Cancersp. 014- Chaceonfenneri barbatulum?, 15cm 013-Laemonema Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 14 of 22 T372.7 8.4 0483209Sf Dense Dense Soft Dense Soft 250.9 Soft 823 251.8 251.5 826 1044 825 -80.040 1042 25.777 1040 -80.041 7 25.777 -80.043 25.778 VT-3 7 7 VT-3 VT-3 T372.7 8.4 0885215Sf Dense Soft 251.5 825 1038 -80.041 25.777 7 VT-3 T372.7 8.4 0687221Sf Dense Soft 252.1 827 1036 -80.040 25.776 7 VT-3 T372.7 8.3 0488224Sf Dense Soft 252.4 828 1034 -80.039 25.776 7 VT-3 T372.7 8.4 1032 -80.043 25.778 7 VT-3 T372.7 8.3 0883209Sf Dense Dense Soft Dense Soft Dense 250.9 Soft 252.4 Soft 823 828 1030 252.1 1028 251.2 -80.040 827 1026 25.775 -80.039 824 25.775 -80.043 7 1024 25.775 7 1022 -80.039 VT-3 7 25.773 -80.040 VT-3 25.773 VT-3 7 7 VT-3 VT-3 T372.7 8.4 0086218Sf Dense Soft 251.8 826 1020 -80.043 25.773 7 VT-3 T372.7 8.4 0887221Sf Dense Soft 252.1 827 1018 -80.043 25.773 7 VT-3 T372.7 8.4 0685215Sf Dense Soft 251.5 Dense 825 Dense Dense Soft 1016 Soft -80.043 Soft 252.7 25.772 252.7 7 829 252.7 829 VT-3 829 1014 1012 -80.038 1010 25.771 -80.042 25.771 -80.042 7 25.770 6 VT-3 6 VT-3 VT-3 T362.7 8.4 0889227Sf Dense Soft 252.7 829 1008 -80.041 25.770 6 VT-3 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? Bu? Bu? u Active? 2 3 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or n/a n/a n/a u01Active? 1 0 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u46Active 6 4 Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present

Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) acr p1ui ih1bottomsame;fish-10-15 cm bottom same;fish-10-15 cm unid fish-1 unidfish-4 Cancer? Sp-1 Cancer sp.-1 uia p- unid fish-6 Munida? Sp.-1 Galatheidae, einhde1ui ih1bottomsame;debris- 5-20cmunid,lid unid fish-1 Cerianthidae-1 fenneri?-1: Chaceon fenneri?-1 Chaceon Cerianthidae-1; Munida? Sp.-1 Galatheidae,

Invertebrates (other) unid fish-2 unid fish-1 unid fish-2 bottom same, few large depressions, possible tilefish, poor view inside; fish 10-20cm bottomsame,fewlargedepressions, possibletilefish,poorview unid fish-2 ndfs- debris-can;offbottomagain, wentupto700ftthenbackbottom unid fish-2 bottomsame;fish-10-15cm unid fish-4 ndfs- bottomsame;fish-10-15cm;rovoffpartoftime unid fish-2 striped fish-1 unid fish-2, etor?1bottomsame;fish-10cm;50+cmstingray,triangularhead,longtail1m? centroura?-1 Dasyatis Dasyatidae, stingray, unid fish-3; ndfs- bottomsame;debris-bottle?;fish-15cm unid fish-1 greeneye-1, shortnose us agassizi, Chloropthalm Fishes (other) bottle, fish-10-15 cm bottom same, mostlysmall depressionsand mounds,one largedepression, possiblyactive; debris- off bottom off bottom;onbottom10:25 bottom same,rovpulledoff to800ft,backontransectat10:25:35 20 cm,fewmediumdepressions 30-50 cm;Thalassiadebrisindepressions;fish-10-15cm dense tomoderatebioturbation- mostly smalltomediummounds10-30cm,depressions10- hydroids?, wormtubes?;fish-10 cm back onbottom,resumetransect 10:36;bottomsame,1-2cmfuzzystuffgrowingonbottom, off bottom bottom same;endofTape6;start7,transectVT-3cont. Thalassia detritusindepressions eroded sides,couldnotseedefiniteburrowatbottom;strippedfish- 15-20cm;unidfish-10-15 bottom same,mostlymounds10-30cm,largedepressionsappear active,mostelongate,steep bottom same Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes centroura? Dasyatidae, Dasyatis Tape 7-000-stingray, greeneye agassizi, shortnose 022- Chloropthalmus Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 15 of 22 T372.8 8.4 1681272Sf es e u11Active 1 1 Dense Dense Bu Dense Soft Dense Soft Yes Soft 248.4 Dense Soft 248.1 815 248.1 Soft 814 247.8 814 1124 813 1122 247.2 Dense -80.045 1120 25.787 -80.045 811 1118 25.786 -80.043 Soft 7 25.784 -80.042 7 1116 25.783 VT-3 7 248.4 Dense -80.046 VT-3 7 249.0 25.785 VT-3 815 VT-3 Soft 7 817 1114 VT-3 1112 249.6 -80.042 25.785 -80.044 819 25.784 7 7 1110 VT-3 -80.043 VT-3 25.783 7 VT-3 T372.9 8.4 1889296Sf Dense Dense Soft Dense Soft 249.6 Soft 819 249.3 249.6 818 1108 819 -80.045 1106 25.797 1104 -80.043 7 25.782 -80.045 25.782 VT-3 7 7 VT-3 VT-3 T372.8 8.4 1282205Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft Dense 250.5 Dense 251.2 Soft 822 Dense Soft 824 Dense 1102 251.5 Dense Soft 1100 251.5 -80.045 Soft 825 25.782 -80.042 Soft 825 251.8 25.781 7 1058 251.5 7 826 1056 252.1 -80.043 VT-3 825 25.779 -80.044 VT-3 827 1054 25.781 7 1052 -80.041 7 1050 25.779 -80.041 VT-3 25.779 -80.041 VT-3 7 25.779 7 VT-3 7 VT-3 VT-3 T372.8 8.4 0880230Sf Dense Soft 253.0 830 1048 -80.044 25.780 7 VT-3 T372.7 8.4 0680230Sf Dense Soft 253.0 830 1046 -80.042 25.778 7 VT-3 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m) Soft, Rock ubeDense Rubble Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 1 2 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Bu Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) Cerianthidae?-1 unid fish-1 bottom same; 10 cm fish; debris- 15 cm unid; maybe be numerous smallcerianthids bottomsame;10cmfish;debris-15unid;maybe benumerous unidfish-1 Cerianthidae?-1 acr p- ndfs- bottomsame;fish-10-15cm unidfish-3 Cancer? Sp.-1 Cancer sp.-1 bottomsame;fish-10-15cm;detritus-bottle unidfish-4 unid decapod-1 hermit crab?-1 Cerianthidae-1 Ophiuroidea- 1; bottomsame;fish-10-15cm;debris-bottle unidfish-6 Munida? Sp.-1 Galatheidae,

Invertebrates (other) unid fish-2 ndfs- bottomsame; fish-10-20cm; bottomsame; fish-10-15cm unid fish-3 unid fish-4 bottomsame;fish-10-15cm;debris-20cmunid unid fish-4 ndfs- bottomsame;fish-10-15cm unid fish-2 ndfs- bottomsame;fish-10-15cm; unid fish-2 bottomsame;fish-10-15cm;detritus-can bottomsame;fish-10-15cm; unid fish-3 bottomsame;fish-10-15cm; unid fish-1 unid fish-3 ndfs- bottomsame;fish-10-15cm unid fish-3 1 barbatulum?- Laemonema Fishes (other) end ofTape7, ofTransectVT-3 11:14:29 outofdebrisfield,bottom soft; on bottomagain,continuetransectat11:04:45;same bottom same;Crabwalking,aprondown,gravid?;offat11:03 fish- 10cm slight rim,fishdivesintoburrowshaft atbottom,noadjacentmounds,relativelyflatbottom;unid fish bydepression,goldentilefish 30-50cm?,bumponforeheadvisible,burrow50-75round, depressions 10-20cm,fewmedium depressions30-50cm;rov2moffbottom,videodark;large bottom same,moderatebioturbation- mostlysmalltomediummounds10-30cm, field- numerousunidobjects10-20 cm,10%coverover10marea;Hake?-15-20cm bottom w/rockrubble;fish-10-15 cm;debris-bottle,20cmunid;50unidconicalshape;debris depressions; 1-2cmfuzzyonbottom-hydroids?,polychaetetubes? 20 cm,fewmediumdepressions30-50noneobviouslyactive tilefish;Thalassiadebrisin dense tomoderatebioturbation-mostlysmallmediummounds 10-30 cm,smalldepressions10- Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes depression 001- Thalassiadetritusin tilefish andburrow chamaeleonticeps, golden 007-012- Lopholatilus or concretedebris? 005, 006-debrisfield,rock Laemonema barbatulum?; 002- uniddebris;003,004- Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 16 of 22 eis82.3 8.6 6048196Sf es u2 cieCerianthidae- 7 Active 5 25 Bu Dense Soft 139.6 458 1610 -80.068 25.736 8 Begins T482.4 8.6 6247193Sf Dense Soft 139.3 457 1642 -80.068 25.740 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6044184Sf Dense Soft 138.4 454 1640 -80.065 25.738 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6844184Sf Dense Soft 138.4 454 1638 -80.060 25.735 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6644184Sf Dense Soft 138.4 454 1636 -80.064 25.737 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6444184Sf Dense Soft 138.4 454 1634 -80.064 25.736 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6248196Sf Dense Soft 139.6 458 1632 -80.064 25.736 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6048196Sf Dense Soft 139.6 458 1630 -80.066 25.738 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6841105Sf Dense Soft 140.5 461 1628 -80.066 25.737 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6643111Sf Dense Soft 141.1 463 1626 -80.064 25.736 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6441105Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 140.5 141.4 461 464 1624 1622 -80.061 25.734 -80.062 25.734 8 8 VT-4 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6044114Sf Dense Soft 141.4 464 1620 -80.067 25.737 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6444184Sf es ubottomsame;rov pulledoffbottom Cerianthidae-3 Bu Bu Dense Soft Dense Dense 142.6 Soft Soft 468 138.4 1618 138.4 454 -80.066 454 1616 25.737 1614 -80.063 8 1612 25.735 -80.063 25.733 -80.063 VT-4 8 25.733 8 VT-4 8 VT-4 VT-4 VT-4 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u1 cieCerianthidae-4 Active 3 15 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u2 Active 7 22 Bu Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present

Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) Cerianthidae-2 Cerianthidae-1 Cerianthidae-5 Cerianthidae-6 Cerianthidae-2 large Cerianthidae-1 numerous small; Cerianthidae?- Cerianthidae- 3 Cerianthidae- 1 Cerianthidae- 7 small? large, numerous Cerianthidae- 2

Invertebrates (other) p- bottomsame;fish-15 cm ? Sp.-1 Ancylopsetta ae?, Paralichthyid flat fish, a,btih1bottomsame,maybenumeroussmallcerianthids dae, batfish-1 Ogcocephali Fishes (other) bottom same bottom same; debris-bucket bottom same bottom same;virtuallynosmallfish bottom same,maybenumerous small cerianthids bottom same bottom same;mostlyoff bottom same Thalassia debrisoftenindepressions; mounds, manyofthelargerdepressions appearactive,thatishavehighrimandsteepsides; bioturbation- moderatetodense, mostlydepressions5cmto50cm,some50-100fewconical burrows, largeonesappearactive,somewithraisedrim;debris-cup bottom same,numerous50-75+cmdepressions,mostlycircular, not oval,potentialtilefish cm cerianthid? back onbottom,resumetransect16:18:20;bottomsame;15cmcerianthids andnumeroussmall5 off bottom conical mounds bioturbation- moderatetodense,mostlydepressions5cm50cm, some50-75cm,veryfew down, bottominandoutofview,muchistoodark have highrimandsteepsides;Thalassiadebrisoftenindepressions; controlofrovterrible,upand 50 cm,some50-100fewconicalmounds,manyofthelarger depressions appearactive,thatis during thattime;flatsedimentbottom;bioturbation-moderatetodense, mostlydepressions5cmto process thedatathatdoesnothavecoordinatesasthereisnoway todeterminewheretherovwas Note: Tape8startsattime13:59,thecoordinatelogdoesnotstart unitl1610;thereforewewillnot Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes 005- Cerianthidae batfish 004- Ogcocephalidae, 003- 50-75cmdepression 002- 30-50cmdepressions; Cerianthidae; 10 cmpits;001- Tape 8-000-bioturbation,5- Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 17 of 22 T492.4 8.6 7248196Sf Dense Soft 139.6 458 1702 -80.065 25.741 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7048196Sf Dense Soft 139.6 458 1700 -80.065 25.741 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 6848196Sf Dense Soft 139.6 458 1658 -80.062 25.740 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 6648196Sf Dense Soft 139.6 458 1656 -80.065 25.740 9 VT-4 T482.4 8.6 6448196Sf Dense Soft 139.6 458 1654 -80.062 25.740 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6247193Sf Dense Soft 139.3 457 1652 -80.062 25.738 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6048196Sf Dense Soft 139.6 458 1650 -80.062 25.738 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6847193Sf Dense Soft 139.3 457 1648 -80.065 25.739 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6647193Sf Dense Soft 139.3 457 1646 -80.061 25.739 8 VT-4 T482.3 8.6 6447193Sf Dense Soft 139.3 457 1644 -80.063 25.738 8 VT-4 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Bu u68Active 8 6 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u1 4Active 14 13 Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present

Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) einhde unidfish-1 Cerianthidae- 2 einhde unidfish-1 Cerianthidae- 3 einhd?unidfish- 3 cerianthids? abundant 5cm Cerianthidae- 3; cerianthids? patches ofsmall Cerianthidae- 2; small large, abundant, Cerianthidae- 1 small large, abundant, Cerianthidae- 2 grandis?-1; Tethyaster small large, abundant, Cerianthidae- 1 small large, abundant, Cerianthidae- 1 small large, abundant, Cerianthidae- 2 small large, abundant, Cerianthidae- 3

Invertebrates (other) ? Sp-1 Ancylopsetta ae? or Paralichthyid flat fish, unid fish-4, ndfih1bottomsame;fish-10cm unid fiish-1 Fishes (other) 100+ cm diam,verydeep andsteepsided, likelytilefish,but noneseen bottom same; largeunid flat fish-20-25cm; videoterribly fuzzy; densefields oflargedepressions fish- 10-15cm interference, numerical overlayonvideoveryblurry frominterference,difficulttoid anythingsmall; off bottomandtoo darkforgoodvisibilityofbottom; videoveryblurry,appearstohave electrical 15-25 cmconical mound;Thalassiadebrisoftenin depressions;controlofrovterrible, often1-2m raised rims,steeper sides,manyhave5-10cmburrows inbottowwhenvisiblevideo; occasional mounds, manyof thelargerdepressionsappearinactive, smoothed;activeonesappear tohave bioturbation- moderatetolow,mostly depressions5cmto50cm,some50-100fewconical 50 cmpipe?Orcable? bottom same,mostlargerdepressions appearsmooth,maybenotactive,noraisededges;debris dark androvoffbottom,numerical overlayfuzzyduetoelectricalinterference 16:56:34- StartTape9,continue Transect VT-4;bottomsame;unidfish10cm;muchofvideois Transect VT-4. bottom same;unidfish-10-15cm, 10cmflatfish;16:55-endofTape8;Start9,continue bottom same;15-20cmstarfish cerianthids bottom same;moderatedensityofdepressions,fewconicalmounds; denseclustersofsmall bottom same,occasional25cmconicalmounds burrow shaftsatbottom larger depressionsappearactive,thatishavehighrimandsteep sides, circulartooblong,oblique bottom same;relativelyflatbetweendepressions,numerous5-75 cmdepressions,manyofthe Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes flat fish Tape 9- 000- unidfish20 cm grandis? 006,007- Tethyaster Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 18 of 22 T492.4 8.6 7455122Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 172.2 166.1 565 545 1734 1732 -80.060 25.745 -80.060 25.743 9 9 VT-4 VT-4 T492.4 8.5 7650137Sf Dense Soft 173.7 570 1736 -80.058 25.746 Dense 9 Soft VT-4 158.5 520 1728 1726 -80.062 25.744 -80.061 25.743 9 9 VT-4 VT-4 T492.4 8.5 7055131Sf Dense Soft 163.1 535 1730 -80.057 25.742 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7257145Sf Dense Soft 154.5 507 1722 -80.064 25.744 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.5 7850137Sf Dense Soft 173.7 570 1738 -80.059 25.745 9 VT-4 1724 -80.062 25.743 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7843103Sf Dense Soft 150.3 493 1718 -80.061 25.743 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7050124Sf Dense Soft 152.4 500 1720 -80.064 25.744 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7648187Sf Dense Soft 148.7 488 1716 -80.061 25.742 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7443172Sf Dense Soft 147.2 483 1714 -80.064 25.744 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7247154Sf Dense Soft 145.4 477 1712 -80.063 25.742 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7042139Sf Dense Soft 143.9 472 1710 -80.065 25.743 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7846120Sf Dense Soft 142.0 466 1708 -80.066 25.743 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7649199Sf Dense Soft 139.9 459 1706 -80.063 25.740 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.6 7447193Sf Dense Soft 139.3 457 1704 -80.063 25.740 9 VT-4 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m) otDense Soft otDense Soft Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Mo Mo Mo o04 0 Mo Mo Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu u1 Active 5 11 Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Bu Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) echinoid?-1 Cancer? Sp.-1; 1 Rochinia crassa- cerianthid numerous small Cerianthidae?- cerianthid numerous small Cerianthidae?- einhdui ih2bottomsame;depressionslessdense,butstillcommon;fish-15cm;video stillterribleblurry unidfish-2 cerianthid numerous small Cerianthidae?- cerianthid numerous small Cerianthidae?- einhdui ih3bottomsame;fish-15-20cm? unidfish-3 cerianthid numerous small Cerianthidae?- cerianthid numerous small Cerianthidae?- einhd?ui ih1bottom same;fish10cm unidfish-1 cerianthids? numerous small Cerianthidae- 2;

Invertebrates (other) ndfs- bottomsame;fish-10-15cm unid fish-2 ndfs- bottomsame;unabletoread overlay;fish10cm unid fish-1 Fishes (other) bottom same bottom same;25cmstalkedobject, tooblurry bottom same bottom same,unabletoreadoverlay bottom same;tooblurrytoidentify bottom same apparent burrow; blackurchin? dense moundsand depressions,mostofthedepressions appearworn,smoothsides, andno bottom same;giantspidercrab,too blurrytoid extremely blurry and numericaloverlaydifficultto read;cerianthidsaregone larger cratersor raised rims;Thalassiadebrisoften indepressions;electronicnoise makesvideo 100 cmcommon, mostsmoothandworn;probably noactivetilefishburrows,obvious shaftsin by mounds,diifficulttodifferentiate cratersfromvalleysbetweenmounds,mostdepressions30- bioturbation, increasing,moonscape- dense;large25-50cmconicalmoundsabundant,dominated bottom same; have raisedrims,steepersides,many5-10cmburrowsinbottow whenvisibleinvideo bottom same,someofthelargerdepressionsappearinactive,smoothed; activeonesappearto bottom same; bottom same; Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes 001- Rochinacrassa Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 19 of 22 T492.4 8.5 7051140Sf Dense Soft 174.0 571 1740 -80.059 25.745 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.5 1746 -80.055 25.744 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.5 1742 -80.059 25.745 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.5 7063168Sf Dense Dense Soft Soft 186.8 Dense 185.9 613 Soft 610 1750 1748 180.4 -80.054 25.745 -80.056 592 25.745 9 9 1744 VT-4 -80.059 VT-4 25.745 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.5 7260120Sf Dense Soft 192.0 630 1752 -80.057 25.747 9 VT-4 T492.4 8.4 8874246Sf Dense Dense Dense Soft Soft Dense Soft 214.6 213.1 Soft 704 210.6 699 691 1808 207.0 1806 Dense -80.049 679 1804 25.747 Dense -80.052 25.748 -80.055 Soft 9 1802 25.749 Soft 9 -80.050 VT-4 9 198.1 25.746 VT-4 195.1 VT-4 9 650 640 VT-4 1756 1754 -80.058 25.749 -80.059 25.748 9 9 VT-4 VT-4 T492.5 8.4 8871289Sf Dense Dense Soft Dense Soft Dense 228.9 Dense Soft 228.0 Soft 751 Dense Soft 748 226.8 1828 225.2 Dense Soft 744 1826 224.0 -80.049 739 25.751 -80.049 Soft 735 1824 222.2 25.751 9 1822 -80.051 9 729 1820 220.7 25.752 -80.052 VT-4 25.751 -80.052 VT-4 9 724 1818 25.751 9 -80.051 VT-4 9 1816 25.750 VT-4 -80.051 VT-4 9 25.749 Dense VT-4 9 1810 VT-4 Soft -80.054 25.749 203.9 9 669 VT-4 1800 -80.056 25.748 1758 9 -80.056 25.748 VT-4 9 VT-4 T492.5 8.5 8479292Sf Dense Soft Dense 219.2 Soft 719 218.2 1814 716 -80.053 25.750 1812 9 -80.050 25.748 VT-4 9 VT-4 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m) otDense Soft otDense Soft otDense Soft Dense Soft Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 1 3 Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Mo Mo o03 Mo Mo 0 Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo o16 1 Mo Mo Mo Mo Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active? Active? Active Not Not Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) acr p- ndfs- bottomsame;fish10cm unidfish-2 Cancer? Sp.-1 Cancer? Sp.-1 enr?1ui ih1bottomsame;fish10cm unidfish-1 fenneri?-1 Chaceon fenneri?-1 Chaceon fenneri?-1 Chaceon fenneri?-1 Chaceon

Invertebrates (other) ndfs?1bottomsame; unid fish?-1 ndfs?1bottomsame;fish15cm unid fish?-1 ndfs?1bottomsame,unabletoreadoverlay; debris-1mcable?;fish-10-15cm,blur unid fish?-1 Fishes (other) bottom same bottom same,unabletoreadoverlay bottom same bottom same,unabletoreadoverlay bottom same bottom same;noanimalsseen less densebioturbation, moundsanddepressions common,butflatbottombetween bottom same; bottom same; bottom same; bottom same no obviousshaftsinlargercratersorraisedrims most depressions30-100cmcommon,smoothandworn;probably noactivetilefishburrows, bottom same;dominatedbymounds,diifficulttodifferentiatecraters fromvalleysbetweenmounds, cerianthids, fewfish whenever thebottomisruggedwithdensemounds,therelittleepifauna activity,fewcrabs,no bottom same,moonscape,depressionsdonotappeartobeactive fishholes,noburrows,rims; bottom same,unabletoreadoverlay bottom same,unabletoreadoverlay;crabwalkingnotinburrow blurry, nottilefish to beactivefishholes,somewithapparent5cmburrows,norims; someunidobjectinburrow,too bottom same,moonscape,denselargemoundsanddepressions; mostdepressionsdonotappear bottom same;moderate densityofmounds,depressions, notasdenseearlier bottom same; video continuestobetooblurry identify;overlayblurry bottom same;noobviousactivetilefish burrows,mostsmoothanderoded,somedohaveburrows; active fishholes,butsomewithapparent 5cmburrows,norims bottom same;moonscape,butlesser densityofmounds;mostdepressionsdonotappeartobe Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 20 of 22 T41 575-0001916 -80.050 25.755 10 VT-4 T41 576-0021914 -80.052 25.756 10 VT-4 T41 578-0031912 1910 -80.053 25.758 -80.053 25.758 10 10 VT-4 VT-4 T410 VT-4 T41 575-00010 6 3. otDense Soft 232.9 764 233.2 1906 765 1904 Dense -80.050 Dense 25.755 -80.050 1902 Dense 25.755 10 Soft Dense Soft -80.050 10 Dense VT-4 25.755 Soft Dense 233.2 VT-4 Soft 10 232.9 Soft 232.3 765 VT-4 Soft Dense 764 232.9 Dense 762 232.6 1900 764 1858 232.6 Soft -80.054 763 1856 Soft -80.053 25.759 763 1854 25.758 -80.048 232.6 10 1852 25.754 -80.052 232.0 9 1850 25.756 763 -80.048 VT-4 9 25.754 761 -80.050 VT-4 9 25.755 1848 VT-4 9 1846 VT-4 9 -80.050 VT-4 25.755 -80.051 VT-4 25.757 9 9 VT-4 VT-4 T492.5 -80.050 25.755 9 VT-4 T492.5 8.5 8076235Sf Dense Soft 233.5 766 1840 -80.053 25.757 -80.052 25.756 9 9 VT-4 VT-4 T492.5 8.5 8873226Sf Dense Soft 232.6 763 1838 -80.053 25.754 9 VT-4 T492.5 8.4 8670216Sf Dense Dense Dense Soft Soft Soft 231.6 231.6 760 230.7 760 757 1836 1834 -80.047 1832 25.753 -80.048 25.752 -80.047 9 25.751 9 VT-4 9 VT-4 VT-4 T492.5 8.5 8074298Sf Dense Soft 229.8 754 1830 -80.050 25.753 9 VT-4 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees) 1908 1844 1842 Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth 6 3. otDense Soft 232.6 763 6 3. otDense Soft 233.8 767 (ft) Depth (m) okRbl Dense Rock Rubble Soft, with Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes') Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 6 1 Bu? Bu? Bu? Bu? u 1 2 Bu? Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present Active? Active Not Not Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft) Decapoda?-1

Invertebrates (other) unid fish?-1 Fishes (other) rov pulled offbottom,bottom notvisible rov pulledoffbottom, bottomnotvisible rov pulledoffbottom, bottomnotvisible rov pulledoffbottom, bottomnotvisible bottom same;Tape9ends1859; startTape10,continueTransectVT-4. bottom same; bottom same;stillerratic bottom same; bottom same;stillerratic bottom same;stillerratic rov stilloffbottom incloudsofsediment rov pulledoffbottom, bottomnotvisible bottom same bottom same bottom same bottom; electronic interferencegone,videooverlay clear;rovnavigationstillerratic bioturbation moderate-flatmudsurface appearslumpy,maybeunderlyingdebris,tetherstillon appears tobeacableisrovtether draggingonbottom mud clumps?,<10mwide,10% cover, maybefromrovdragging;offbottomagain;what maybe whererovdriftedacrossthe bottom;debris-smalldebrisfield,lumps10cmdiam,rocksor burrow; bottomappearmorelumpy, maybematerialundersediment;somemoundswithflattops, worn, noneseenwithburrow, withraisedrimorsteepsides,probablynotactivetilefish few to50cmconicalmoundscommon, depressions10-50,occasional50-100cm,allsmoothand transect continues;bottomsame; moderatebioturbationmoundsanddepressions;15-30cmdiam, rov stoppedonbottom; mounds appearoldandnotactive,morerounded,asconical, no apparentapicalhole off bottomincloudofsediment;roverratic;same-moderate bioturbation,manyofthe backwards, COGchangingoreratic bottom same;bioturbationmoderate;rovveryerratic,troublewith navigation,hittingbottom,going bottom same bottom same smooth anderoded;electronicinterferencecontinues bottom same;verysparse,patchymoundsanddepressions,none appearactivetilefishburrows, difficult toread;fish-20cm depressions; electronicnoisecontinues-makesvideoextremelyblurry andnumericaloverlay raised rimorsteepsides;flatareas2-4mbetweenlargemounds; Thalassiadebrisoccasionalin depressions 10-50,occasional50-100cm,allsmoothandworn,only fewseenwithsmallburrow, bioturbation decreasing,moderatedensity-15-30cmdiam,fewto 50cmconicalmoundscommon, Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes ROV tetheronbottom mud orrockclumps?;001- Tape 10-000-debrisfield, Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 21 of 22 T41 577-0011918 -80.051 25.757 10 VT-4 ROV Dive Number

DVD Number (= Tape Number)

Latitute (Decimal Degrees)

Longitude (Decimal Degrees)

Time (Local) (Hours:Minutes) Depth (ft) Depth (m)

Bottom Type: Soft Bottom or Rock Rubble (No other Substrates were Observed)

Bioturbation (dense, sparse, or none)

Golden Tilefish Observed (if 'Yes')

Tilefish Burrow Status: Potential Tilefish Burrows (Bu) or Probable (Bu?) Tilefish Burrows Present (>30 cm); Mo = Dense Mounds Not From Tilefish

Number of Medium Burrows (30-50 cm diam), If Present

Number of Large Burrows (51–100+ cm diam), If Present

Large and/or Medium Burrow Activity: Active or Not Active (filled in, no shaft)

Invertebrates (other) Fishes (other) rov pulledoffbottom,bottomnotvisible;endofcoordinates;VT-4; rovbeingrecoveredat1921 Notes- habitat,invertebrates,fishes Video Capture(DVD Tape:Photo No.) Page 22 of 22