The C-BASS towed underwater video array revealed new and widespread information about benthic habitat types on the West Florida Shelf allowing for diverse characterization of potential benthic habitat. Video imagery revealed a total of eight substrate variations in Steamboat Lumps, including previously unknown area densely populated by sand dollars within the Steamboat Lumps MPA. The abundance of these echinoderms can affect geologic interpretation of remote sensing data. In Madison-Swanson, 27 substrate variations were identified in video imagery, including many combinations of mixed substrate types. The variations included four new hard-bottom textures: exposed high-relief, moderate-relief, and low-relief hard bottom, as well as covered low-relief hard bottom identified by the presence of attached biota. High resolution video imagery from a towed camera array can be collected relatively rapidly along continuous transects. These continuous data in combination with remote sensing techniques are essential to identifying boundaries between potential habitat types and bottom
classifications.
The multibeam bathymetry of Steamboat Lumps and Madison-Swanson Marine Protected Areas on the West Florida Shelf provides sufficient detail to distinguish substrates with moderate-relief and high-relief hard bottom. But only with ground-truth data like C-BASS video can low-relief hard bottom substrate types be determined on 8 x 8 m grid of multibeam bathymetry and backscatter. Multibeam backscatter data provide sufficient detail to distinguish soft-bottom habitats, but beam-averaged
backscatter collected with a 95 kHz swath sonar does not provide sufficient detail to distinguish mixed-
and hard-bottom habitats. Analyses of the multibeam bathymetry data indicate that 94.5% of Steamboat
Lumps is flat versus sloping, whereas 87% for Madison-Swanson is flat versus sloping. Both marine
Towed underwater video provides sufficient detail to distinguish hard-bottom and mixed-bottom
substrate types, but variation in soft bottom substrates is not easily distinguished from video alone. Towed
underwater video may also help to distinguish thin sediment cover from exposed hard bottom. The
combination of these technologies provides the range of capabilities to distinguish variations in both soft
and hard bottom substrates of both high and low relief. The data utilized in this study can contribute to
substrate maps required for fish population estimates over large areas, but more data are required for
continuous coverage. Improvements in multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data resolution, coupled
with additional video transects from a towed video array and strategic sediment sampling, could help
achieve the goal of a near-continuous substrate map.
REFERENCES
Anderson, T. J., Cochrane, G. R., Roberts, D. A., Chezar, H., and Hatcher, G., 2007, A rapid method to characterize seabed habitats and associated macro-organisms. In Todd, B. J., Greene, G. H., ed., Mapping the Seafloor for Habitat Characterization: Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 47, p. 72-79.
Allee, R. J., David, A. W., and Naar, D. F., 2012, Two shelf-edge marine protected areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. In Harris, P. T., and Baker, E. K., ed., Seafloor Geomorphology in Benthic Habitat: Waltham, MA, Elsevier, p. 435–448.
Baker, E.K., and Harris, P.T., 2012, Habitat mapping and marine management. In Harris, P. T., and Baker, E. K., ed., Seafloor Geomorphology in Benthic Habitat: Waltham, MA, Elsevier, p. 23–34.
Brizzolara, J. L., Naar, D. F., and Murawski, S. A., 2014, Benthic habitat characterization of the West Florida Shelf using high resolution multibeam sonar and towed underwater video: Abstract presented at 2014 AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 6–9 April.
Brown, C. J., and Blondel, P., 2009, Developments in the application of multibeam sonar backscatter for seafloor habitat mapping: Applied Acoustics, v. 70, p. 1242–1247.
Brown, C. J., and Collier, J. S., 2008, Mapping benthic habitat in regions of gradational substrata: An automated approach utilizing geophysical, geological, and biological relationships: Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 78, no. 1, p. 203–214.
Brown, C. J., Sameoto, J. A., and Smith, S. J., 2012, Multiple methods, maps, and management applications: Purpose made seafloor maps in support of ocean management: Journal of Sea Research, v. 72, p. 1–13.
Brown, C. J., Todd, B. J., Kostylev, V. E., and Pickrill, R. A., 2011, Image-based classification of multibeam sonar backscatter data for objective surficial sediment mapping of Georges Bank, Canada: Continental Shelf Research, v. 31, p. S110–S119.
Capone, M. K., Swift, B. A., and Scanlon, K. M., 2002, Archive of chirp subbottom data collected during USGS cruise ORGN00005, northeastern Gulf of Mexico, 15 February-2 March 2000: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-45, 2 DVD-ROM set, Reston, Virginia
Cochrane, G. R., 2008, Video-supervised classification of sonar data for mapping seafloor habitat: Marine habitat mapping technology for Alaska: Fairbanks, University of Alaska, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, p. 185–194.
Coleman, F. C., Baker, P. B., and Koenig, C. C., 2004, A review of Gulf of Mexico marine protected
areas: Successes, failures, and lessons learned: Fisheries, v. 29, p. 10–21.
Collier, J. S., and Brown, C. J., 2005, Correlation of sidescan backscatter with grain size distribution of surficial seabed sediments: Marine Geology, v. 214, p. 431–449.
Davies, C.E., Moss, D., and Hill, M. O., 2004. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised. Report to the European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity, European Environment Agency.
October 2004, 310p. <http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/upload/EUNIS_2004_report.pdf>.
[FGDC] Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2012, FGDCSTD-018-2012. Coastal and marine ecological classification standard. Reston (VA): Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Freitas, R., Ricardo, F., Pereira, F., Sampaio, L., Carvalho, S., Gaspar, M., Quintino, V., and Rodrigues, A. M., 2011, Benthic habitat mapping: Concerns using a combined approach (acoustic, sediment and biological data): Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 92, p. 598–606.
Gardner, J. V., Dartnell, P., Mayer, L. A., Clarke, J. E. H., Calder, B. R., and Duffy, G., 2005, Shelf-edge deltas and drowned barrier-island complexes on the northwest Florida outer continental shelf:
Geomorphology, v. 64, p. 133–166.
Grasty, S. E., 2014, Use of a towed camera system for estimating reef fish populations densities on the West Florida Shelf [M.S. Thesis]: University of South Florida,
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5370
Grasty, S., Lembke, C., Hommeyer, M., Locker, S., Gray, J., and Brizzolara, J., 2017, Establishing baselines for benthic habitat and reef fish populations on the West Florida Shelf using ultra-high resolution multibeam sonar and towed video: Abstract presented at Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 6–9 February.
Greene, H. G., Yoklavich, M. M., Starr, R. M., O'Connell, V. M., Wakefield, W. W., Sullivan, D. E., McRea, J. E., and Cailliet, G. M., 1999, A classification scheme for deep seafloor habitats:
Oceanologica Acta, v. 22, p. 663–678.
Harris, P.T., 2012, Biogrography, benthic ecology, and habitat classification schemes. In Harris, P. T., and Baker, E. K., ed., Seafloor Geomorphology as Benthic Habitat: Waltham, MA, Elsevier, p.
61–77.
Harris, P.T. and Baker, E.K, 2012, Why map benthic habitats? In Harris, P. T., and Baker, E. K., ed., Seafloor Geomorphology as Benthic Habitat: Waltham, MA, Elsevier, p. 1–16.
Last, P.R., Lyne, V.D., Williams, A., Davies, C.R., Butler, A.J., and Yearsley, G.K., 2010, A hierarchal framework for classifying seabed biodiversity with application to planning and managing Australia's marine biological resources: Biological Conservation, v. 143, p. 1675–1686.
Lembke, C., Silverman, A., Butcher, S., Murawski, S., Shi, X., and Grasty, S., 2013, Development and sea trials of a new camera-based assessment survey system for reef fish stocks assessment.
MTS/IEEE OCEANS 2013. San Diego, CA. 23-26 September.
Locker, S. D., Armstrong, R. A., Battista, T. A., Rooney, J. J., Sherman, C., and Zawada, D. G., 2010,
Geomorphology of mesophotic coral ecosystems: Current perspectives on morphology,
distribution, and mapping strategies: Coral Reefs, v. 29, p. 329–345.
Lundblad, E.R., Wright, D.J., Miller, J., Larkin, E.M., Rinehart, R., Naar, D.F., Donahue, B.T., Anderson, S.M. and Battista, T., 2006, A benthic terrain classification scheme for American Samoa: Marine Geodesy, v. 29, p. 89–111.
Mallinson, D., Hine, A., Naar, D., Locker, S., and Donahue, B., 2014, New perspectives on the geology and origin of the Florida Middle Ground carbonate banks, West Florida Shelf, USA: Marine Geology, p. 54–70.
McKeown, H. A., Bart, P. J., and Anderson, J. B., 2004, High resolution stratigraphy of a sandy, ramp-type margin—Apalachicola, Florida: In Anderson, J. B., Fillon, R., ed., Late Quaternary
Stratigraphic Evolution of the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 79, p. 25–41.
McRea, J. E., Greene, H. G., O'Connell, V. M., and Wakefield, W. W., 1999, Mapping marine habitats with high resolution sidescan sonar: Oceanologica Acta, v. 22, p. 679–686.
Micallef, A., Le Bas, T. P., Huvenne, V. A. I., Blondel, P., Huehnerbach, V., and Deidun, A., 2012, A multi-method approach for benthic habitat mapping of shallow coastal areas with high-resolution multibeam data: Continental Shelf Research, v. 39-40, p. 14–26.
Roff, J. C., Taylor, M. E., and Laughren, J., 2003, Geophysical approaches to the classification, delineation and monitoring of marine habitats and their communities: Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, v. 13, p. 77-90.
Rooper, C. N., and Zimmermann, M., 2007, A bottom-up methodology for integrating underwater video and acoustic mapping for seafloor substrate classification: Continental Shelf Research, v. 27, p.
947–957.
Schimel, A. C. G., Healy, T. R., Johnson, D., and Immenga, D., 2010, Quantitative experimental comparison of single-beam, sidescan, and multibeam benthic habitat maps: ICES Journal of Marine Science, v. 67, p. 1766–1779.
Smith, M. D., Zhang, J. J., and Coleman, F. C., 2006, Effectiveness of marine reserves for large-scale fisheries management: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 63, p. 153–164.
Walker, B. K., Riegl, B., and Dodge, R. E., 2008, Mapping coral reef habitats in southeast Florida using a combined technique approach: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 24, p. 1138–1150.
Wall, C. C., Donahue, B. T., Naar, D. F., and Mann, D. A., 2011, Spatial and temporal variability of red grouper holes within Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserve, Gulf of Mexico: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 431, p. 243–254.
Wright, D. J., Lundblad, E. R., Larkin, E. M., Rinehart, R. W., Murphy, J. Cary-Kothera, L., and
Draganov, K., 2005, ArcGIS Benthic Terrain Modeler: Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon State
University, Davey Jones Locker Seafloor Mapping/Marine GIS Laboratory and NOAA Coastal
Services Center. Accessible online at: http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/btm.
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. Observation table used to characterize benthic habitat in still images from C-BASS video
Date
Shelf soft sand organic debris flat flat none flat sand with organic debris 5/8/2014
13:14:11 Continental
Shelf soft sand organic debris flat flat none flat sand with organic debris 5/8/2014
13:14:26 Continental
Shelf mixed sand
covered low relief hard
bottom flat flat attached
biota
Shelf mixed sand
covered low relief hard
bottom flat flat attached
biota
Shelf mixed sand
covered low relief hard
bottom flat flat attached
biota
Shelf mixed sand
covered low relief hard
bottom flat flat attached
biota
Shelf mixed sand
covered low relief hard
bottom flat flat attached
biota
Shelf mixed sand
moderate relief hard
bottom exposure flat attached biota
Shelf mixed sand
moderate relief hard
bottom exposure flat attached biota
flat sand with moderate relief hard bottom and attached
biota
Table 2. Table of measurements used to post-calculate layback. Second row includes equations used in Excel.
Time recorded recorded recorded recorded D2*0.514 =SQRT((([@[Winch Payout]]+6)^2)‐
[@[CBASS Depth]]^2) =F2+26 =G2/E2
15:10:41 50.9824 116 3.7 1.9018 110.83 136.83 71.95
15:10:42 50.834 116 3.7 1.9018 110.90 136.90 71.99
15:10:43 50.8997 116 3.6 1.8504 110.87 136.87 73.97
15:10:44 50.9267 116 3.6 1.8504 110.86 136.86 73.97
15:10:45 50.9396 116 3.4 1.7476 110.85 136.85 78.31
15:10:46 51.0196 116 3.4 1.7476 110.81 136.81 78.29
Figure 1. Multibeam bathymetry of Steamboat Lumps MPA (left) with USGS 95kHz multibeam and Madison Swanson MPA (right) collected with USGS 95kHz multibeam, USF 400 kHz Reson multibeam, and USF 300 kHz Kongsberg multibeam (from southwest to northeast, separated by dashed lines). MPA boundaries shown by solid black lines.
Figure 3. The Camera-Based Assessment Survey System (C-BASS) camera sled with labeled components.
Figure 4. Side by side comparison of multibeam bathymetry (left) and multibeam backscatter (right) within the Madison-Swanson MPA, with towed-video transects shown in black with associated transect numbers.
Figure 5. Side by side comparison of multibeam bathymetry (left) multibeam backscatter (right) within the Steamboat Lumps MPA, with video transects shown in
Figure 6a. Flowchart used to choose CMECS-based habitat characterizations in video observations. Flowchart created by Sarah Grasty, Alex Ilich, and Jennifer Brizzolara. Enlarged components of the flow chart to follow in parts b, c, and d.
Ledge Rock
Outcrop
Flat Hummocky(nonlinear) Sandwave
Figure 6b. Hard and mixed induration portions of the flowchart used to choose CMECS-based habitat characterizations in video observations.
Ledge
OutcropRockFigure 6c. Mixed and soft induration portions of the flowchart used to choose CMECS-based habitat characterizations in video observations.
Flat Hummocky(nonlinear) Sandwave
Figure 6d. Biologic Component modifier portion of the flowchart used to choose CMECS-based habitat characterizations in video observations.
Figure 7. Graph of C-BASS depth in meters (x-axis) vs layback time delay in seconds (y-axis). Best fit curve shown in dark blue.
y = 0.0065x
2+ 0.24x + 17.204 R² = 0.9954
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
La yback Time Dala y (s)
C‐BASS Depth (m)
Figure 8. Backscatter polygons (yellow) denoting areas of similar backscatter intensities and patterns in Steamboat Lumps MPA (left) and Madison Swanson MPA (right). Areas of similar backscatter character within each MPA are denoted with the same letter.
Figure 9. Slope analysis of Steamboat Lumps (left) and Madison Swanson (right) MPAs calculated using the Spatial Analyst tool in ArcGIS. Top panels show CMECS slope categories, bottom two panels show classes defined by Jenks Natural Breaks within each area.
Figure 10. Broad-scale Bathymetric Position Index (BPI) calculated using the BTM toolbox in ArcGIS in Steamboat Lumps MPA (left) and Madison-Swanson
Figure 11. Fine-scale BPI calculated using the BTM toolbox in ArcGIS in Steamboat Lumps (left) and Madison Swanson (right).
Figure 13. Curvature (slope of slope) calculated in the BTM toolbox for ArcGIS in Steamboat Lumps (left) and Madison-Swanson (right).
Figure 14. Substrate observations from video in Steamboat Lumps MPA shown over backscatter and backscatter polygons. Areas of similar backscatter character are denoted with the same letter.
Figure 15. Substrate observations from video in Steamboat Lumps MPA are shown over bathymetry analyses. Bathymetric analyses include bathymetry (top-left), slope (top-center), curvature (top-right), broad-scale BPI(bottom-(top-left), fine-scale BPI (bottom-center), and rugosity (bottom-right). Legend for substrate observations is shown in Figure 14.
Figure 16. Transect SL3 in Steamboat Lumps MPA shown over backscatter and backscatter polygons (A), bathymetry (B), and slope (C). D) Graph of transect depth vs longitude. Colors indicating substrate in the legend of panel A apply to all panels. Areas of similar backscatter character are denoted with the same letter.
Figure 17. The western portion of transect SL1 in Steamboat Lumps MPA shown over backscatter and backscatter polygons (A), bathymetry (B), and Slope (C). D) Graph of transect depth vs longitude. Colors indicating substrate are the same in all panels and are labeled in the legend between panels C and D. Areas of similar backscatter character are denoted with the same letter.
Figure 18a. Substrate observations from video in Madison Swanson MPA shown over backscatter and backscatter polygons. Legend for substrate observations is shown in Figure 18c. Areas of similar backscatter character are denoted with the same letter.
Figure 18b. Substrate observations from video in Madison-Swanson MPA are shown over bathymetry analyses. Bathymetric analyses include bathymetry (top-left), slope (top-center), curvature (top-right), broad-scale BPI (bottom-(top-left), fine-scale BPI (bottom-center), and rugosity (bottom-right). Legend for substrate observations is shown in Figure 18c.
Figure 18c. Legend of substrate observations from video in the Madison Swanson MPA.
Figure 19. Images from C-BASS including new hard bottom morphologies. A) Exposed high relief hard bottom with flat sand and attached biota B) Exposed moderate relief hard bottom with flat sand and attached biota C) Exposed low relief hard bottom with attached biota D) Flat sand over covered low relief hard bottom with attached biota
Figure 20. Seafloor induration from video in Madison Swanson MPA shown over backscatter and backscatter polygons. Areas of similar backscatter character are denoted with the same letter.
Figure 21. Seafloor induration observations from video in Madison-Swanson MPA are shown over bathymetry analyses. Bathymetric analyses include bathymetry (top-left), slope (top-center), curvature (top-right), broad-scale BPI left), fine-scale BPI center), and rugosity (bottom-right). Legend for seafloor induration from video is shown in Figure 18.
Figure 22. The southern portion of transect MS1 in Madison-Swanson MPA shown over backscatter and backscatter polygons (A), bathymetry (B), and slope (C). Legend for substrate observations is shown in Figure 18c. Areas of similar backscatter character are denoted with the same letter.
Figure 23. West-central portion of transect MS2 in Madison Swanson MPA shown over backscatter and backscatter polygons (A), bathymetry (B), and slope (C). Legend for substrate observations is shown in Figure 18c. Areas of similar backscatter character are denoted with the same letter.
Figure 24. East-central portion of transect MS2 in Madison Swanson MPA shown over backscatter and backscatter polygons (A), bathymetry (B), and slope (C). Legend for substrate observations is shown in Figure 18c. Areas of similar backscatter character are denoted with the same letter.
APPENDIX A:
IMAGERY FROM TOWED UNDERWATER VIDEO
Appendix A includes examples of each habitat type observed in Steamboat Lumps (Section A1)
and Madison-Swanson (Section A2). Photo captions include substrate type followed by the date and time
of the image in MMDDYYYY-HHMMSS format, which matches the image file name.
A1. Examples of substrate observations from Steamboat Lumps
Flat sand 11112013-160916 Hummocky sand 11112013-170446
Flat sand with organic detritus 11112013-163131 Hummocky sand with organic detritus 11112013-164331
Flat sand with high organic detritus
11112013-085924 Hummocky sand with high organic detritus
11112013-091724
Flat sand with echinoderms 11112013-163401 Hummocky sand with echinoderms 11112013-164331
exposed high and moderate relief hard bottom with
attached biota 06162013-135917 exposed high relief hard bottom 06162013-141017
exposed high relief hard bottom with attached
biota 06162013-132830 exposed high relief hard bottom with flat sand and attached biota 06162013-125445
exposed low and moderate relief hard bottom with
attached biota 06162013-132745 exposed low relief hard bottom 06162013-124515 A2. Examples of substrate observations from Madison-Swanson
exposed low relief hard bottom with attached
biota 06162013-123845 exposed low relief hard bottom with flat sand and attached biota 06162013-120900
exposed moderate and high relief hard bottom
with attached biota 06162013-132915 exposed moderate relief hard bottom with attached biota 06162013-132815
exposed moderate relief hard bottom with flat
sand and attached biota 06162013-130530 flat sand 06162013-101826
flat sand over covered low relief hard bottom
with attached biota 06162013-084756 flat sand with exposed high relief hard bottom and attached biota 06162013-142647
flat sand with exposed low relief hard bottom
and attached biota 06162013-095011 flat sand with exposed moderate relief hard bottom and attached biota 06162013-131330
flat sand with organic debris 05082014-131256 flat sand with shell hash 06162013-080811
hummocky sand 06162013-083026 hummocky sand over covered low relief hard bottom with attached biota 06162013-083511
APPENDIX B:
VIDEO OBSERVATION TABLES
Appendix B includes complete observation tables from Microsoft Excel. Original Excel
spreadsheets are available upon request by emailing [email protected]. Image file names are included in the tables and are located in the folder indicated in the header of each table. Spreadsheet files are named by transect number (i.e. SL1 or MS1) and date (i.e. Nov2013).
Headers are formatted as follows:
Excel Spreadsheet File Name Page # of # for that spreadsheet
File path within Brizzolara thesis folder
SL1_Nov2013_SubstrateClassification.xlsx
Brizzolara > Appendices > Files > Steamboat_Lumps > SL1_2013_11 Page 1 of 42
Image File Megahabitat
Seafloor Induration
Primary Sediment Type
Secondary Sedment Type
Meso/
Macrohabitat
Primary Bedforms
Secondary Bedforms
11112013‐074524.jpg Shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074539.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074554.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074609.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074624.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074639.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074654.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074709.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074724.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074739.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074754.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074809.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074824.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074839.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074854.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074909.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074924.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074939.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐074954.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075009.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075024.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075039.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075054.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075109.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075124.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075139.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075154.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075209.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075224.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075239.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075254.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
SL1_Nov2013_SubstrateClassification.xlsx
Substrate Component Date Time Date and Time
C‐BASS Depth(m)
Layback Time Delay (seconds) flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:45:24 11/11/2013 7:45:24 69.5383 65.32 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:45:39 11/11/2013 7:45:39 69.5435 65.33 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:45:54 11/11/2013 7:45:54 69.3742 65.14 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:46:09 11/11/2013 7:46:09 69.2589 65.01 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:46:24 11/11/2013 7:46:24 68.6781 64.35 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:46:39 11/11/2013 7:46:39 68.9371 64.64 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:46:54 11/11/2013 7:46:54 68.9403 64.64 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:47:09 11/11/2013 7:47:09 68.9376 64.64 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:47:24 11/11/2013 7:47:24 69.2542 65.00 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:47:39 11/11/2013 7:47:39 69.4489 65.22 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:47:54 11/11/2013 7:47:54 69.7991 65.62 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:48:09 11/11/2013 7:48:09 70.1674 66.05 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:48:24 11/11/2013 7:48:24 69.6824 65.49 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:48:39 11/11/2013 7:48:39 69.7146 65.53 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:48:54 11/11/2013 7:48:54 69.8971 65.74 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:49:09 11/11/2013 7:49:09 69.8198 65.65 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:49:24 11/11/2013 7:49:24 69.869 65.70 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:49:39 11/11/2013 7:49:39 69.8156 65.64 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:49:54 11/11/2013 7:49:54 70.2763 66.17 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:50:09 11/11/2013 7:50:09 70.222 66.11 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:50:24 11/11/2013 7:50:24 70.294 66.19 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:50:39 11/11/2013 7:50:39 70.1265 66.00 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:50:54 11/11/2013 7:50:54 70.2226 66.11 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:51:09 11/11/2013 7:51:09 69.8346 65.66 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:51:24 11/11/2013 7:51:24 69.4766 65.25 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:51:39 11/11/2013 7:51:39 69.1943 64.93 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:51:54 11/11/2013 7:51:54 68.9427 64.65 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:52:09 11/11/2013 7:52:09 68.9716 64.68 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:52:24 11/11/2013 7:52:24 68.6691 64.33 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:52:39 11/11/2013 7:52:39 68.2986 63.92 flat sand with organic detritus 11/11/2013 7:52:54 11/11/2013 7:52:54 68.7816 64.46
SL1_Nov2013_SubstrateClassification.xlsx
0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:46:29 28.212 ‐84.6262 28.2121 ‐84.6251 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:46:44 28.212 ‐84.6265 28.2121 ‐84.6253 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:46:59 28.2119 ‐84.6267 28.212 ‐84.6256 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:47:14 28.2119 ‐84.627 28.212 ‐84.6259 0:01:04 11/11/2013 07:47:28 28.2119 ‐84.6273 28.212 ‐84.6261 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:47:44 28.2119 ‐84.6275 28.212 ‐84.6264 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:47:59 28.2118 ‐84.6278 28.2119 ‐84.6267 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:48:14 28.2118 ‐84.628 28.2119 ‐84.6269 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:48:29 28.2118 ‐84.6283 28.2119 ‐84.6272 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:48:44 28.2118 ‐84.6285 28.2119 ‐84.6274 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:49:00 28.2118 ‐84.6288 28.2119 ‐84.6277 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:49:15 28.2117 ‐84.6291 28.2118 ‐84.6279 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:49:29 28.2117 ‐84.6293 28.2118 ‐84.6282 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:49:45 28.2117 ‐84.6296 28.2118 ‐84.6284 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:50:00 28.2117 ‐84.6298 28.2118 ‐84.6287 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:50:15 28.2117 ‐84.6301 28.2117 ‐84.629 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:50:30 28.2117 ‐84.6303 28.2117 ‐84.6292 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:50:45 28.2117 ‐84.6306 28.2117 ‐84.6295 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:51:00 28.2117 ‐84.6309 28.2117 ‐84.6298 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:51:15 28.2117 ‐84.6311 28.2117 ‐84.63 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:51:30 28.2117 ‐84.6314 28.2117 ‐84.6303 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:51:45 28.2117 ‐84.6317 28.2117 ‐84.6305 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:52:00 28.2116 ‐84.632 28.2117 ‐84.6308 0:01:06 11/11/2013 07:52:15 28.2116 ‐84.6322 28.2117 ‐84.631 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:52:29 28.2116 ‐84.6324 28.2117 ‐84.6313 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:52:44 28.2116 ‐84.6327 28.2117 ‐84.6316 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:52:59 28.2115 ‐84.633 28.2116 ‐84.6318 0:01:05 11/11/2013 07:53:14 28.2116 ‐84.6332 28.2116 ‐84.6321 0:01:04 11/11/2013 07:53:28 28.2115 ‐84.6335 28.2116 ‐84.6323 0:01:04 11/11/2013 07:53:43 28.2116 ‐84.6337 28.2116 ‐84.6326 0:01:04 11/11/2013 07:53:58 28.2115 ‐84.634 28.2116 ‐84.6329SL1_Nov2013_SubstrateClassification.xlsx
Brizzolara > Appendices > Files > Steamboat_Lumps > SL1_2013_11 Page 4 of 42
Image File Megahabitat
Seafloor Induration
Primary Sediment Type
Secondary Sedment Type
Meso/
Macrohabitat
Primary Bedforms
Secondary Bedforms
11112013‐075309.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat
11112013‐075309.jpg shelf soft sand debris flat flat flat