OCS Study 

MMS 2007-015 

 

Archaeological and Biological Analysis 

of World War II Shipwrecks 

in the Gulf of Mexico 

Artificial Reef Effect in Deep Water 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 
OCS Study 

MMS 2007-015 

Archaeological and Biological Analysis 

of World War II Shipwrecks 

in the Gulf of Mexico 

Artificial Reef Effect in Deep Water 

Authors 

R. Church 

D. Warren 

R. Cullimore 

L. Johnston 

W. Schroeder 

W. Patterson 

T. Shirley 

M. Kilgour 

N. Morris 

J. Moore 

Prepared under MMS Contract 

1435-01-03-CT-73095 (M03PC00012) 

by 

C & C Technologies, Inc. 

730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd. 

Lafayette, Louisiana 70508 

Published by 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

New Orleans

April 2007 
iii 

DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared under a contract between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and C & C 

Technologies, Inc. with Subcontractors, Droycon Bioconcepts, Inc., University of West Florida, University of 

Alabama/Dauphin Island Sea Lab, University of Alaska, and the PAST Foundation. This report has been technically 

reviewed by the MMS, and has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents 

necessarily reflect the views and policies of the MMS, nor does mention of the trade names or commercial products 

constitute endorsement of recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review and compliance with the 

MMS editorial standards. 

REPORT AVALIBILITY 

Extra copies of this report may be obtained from the Public information Office (Mail Stop 5034) at the following 

address: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Public Information Office (MS 5034) 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 

Telephone: (504) 736-2519 or 

 1-800-200-GULF 

CITATION 

Suggested Citation: 

Church, R., D. Warren, R. Cullimore, L. Johnston, W. Schroeder, W. Patterson, T. Shirley. M. Kilgour, N. Morris, 

and J. Moore. 2007. Archaeological and Biological Analysis of World War II Shipwrecks in the Gulf of 

Mexico: Artificial Reef Effect in Deep Water. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-015. 387 pp. 

ABOUT THE COVER 

The cover art was drawn by Andrew Hall, a research associate with the PAST Foundation, Columbus, Ohio. 
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................................ix

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................................xvii

PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................1

1.1. Project Objectives..................................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Archaeological Objectives..................................................................................................1

1.1.2 Biological Objectives..........................................................................................................1

1.2 Geographic Overview............................................................................................................................3

1.3 Project Organization ..............................................................................................................................4

2.0 Historical Background.....................................................................................................................................7

2.1 World War II in the Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................................7

2.2 Oil and Gas Development and Shipwreck Discovery............................................................................8

2.3 Regulatory Role of the Minerals Management Service .........................................................................8

3.0 Methods...........................................................................................................................................................9

3.1 Survey Methodology..............................................................................................................................9

3.1.1 Support Vessel and Remote Operated Vehicle ...................................................................9

3.1.2 Marine Survey ....................................................................................................................9

3.1.3 Sampling Equipment ........................................................................................................14

3.2 Archaeological Methods......................................................................................................................15

3.2.1 Field Methods...................................................................................................................15

3.2.2 Exceptions to the Survey Plan ..........................................................................................16

3.3 Biological Methods..............................................................................................................................16

3.3.1 Field Methods .................................................................................................................................16

SITE REPORTS ..........................................................................................................................................................27

4.0 VIRGINIA SITE.............................................................................................................................................27

4.1 Historical Background of the Tanker Virginia.....................................................................................27

4.2 Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................28

4.3 Geographical Setting............................................................................................................................29

4.4 Discussion of Archaeological Findings ...............................................................................................31

4.4.1 Physical Site .....................................................................................................................31

4.4.2 Site Preservation ...............................................................................................................34

4.5 Discussion of Biological Findings.......................................................................................................34

4.5.1 Microbiology ....................................................................................................................34
vi 

4.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology ........................................................................................................35

4.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology...........................................................................................................46

4.6 Sediment Core Analysis.......................................................................................................................50

5.0 HALO SITE...................................................................................................................................................51

5.1 Historical Background of the Tanker Halo..........................................................................................51

5.2 Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................52

5.3 Geographical Setting............................................................................................................................54

5.4 Discussion of Archaeological Findings ...............................................................................................54

5.4.1 Physical Site .....................................................................................................................54

5.4.2 Site Preservation ...............................................................................................................58

5.5 Discussion of Biological Findings.......................................................................................................58

5.5.1 Microbiology ....................................................................................................................58

5.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology ........................................................................................................59

5.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology...........................................................................................................67

5.6 Sediment Core Analysis.......................................................................................................................76

6.0 GULFPENN SITE.........................................................................................................................................77

6.1 Historical Background of the Tanker Gulfpenn...................................................................................77

6.2 Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................79

6.3 Geographical Setting............................................................................................................................79

6.4 Discussion of Archaeological Finding.................................................................................................82

6.4.1 Physical Site .....................................................................................................................82

6.4.2 Site Preservation ...............................................................................................................88

6.5 Discussion of Biological Findings.......................................................................................................89

6.5.1 Microbiology ....................................................................................................................89

6.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology ........................................................................................................90

6.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology.........................................................................................................100

6.6 Sediment Core Analysis.....................................................................................................................109

7.0 DEUSTCHE KREIGSMARINE (DKM) U-166 SITE................................................................................111

7.1 Historical Background of DKM U-166 .............................................................................................111

7.2 Previous Investigations......................................................................................................................115

7.3 Geographical Setting..........................................................................................................................130

7.4 Discussion of Archaeological Findings .............................................................................................132

7.4.1 Physical Site ...................................................................................................................132

7.4.2 Site Preservation .............................................................................................................134

7.5 Discussion of Biological Findings.....................................................................................................134

7.5.1 Microbiology ..................................................................................................................134

7.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology ......................................................................................................136

7.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology.........................................................................................................139
vii 

7.6 Sediment Core Analysis.....................................................................................................................144

8.0 ROBERT E. LEE SITE ................................................................................................................................145

8.1 Historical Background of the Freighter Robert E. Lee ......................................................................145

8.2 Previous Investigations......................................................................................................................148

8.3 Geographical Setting..........................................................................................................................152

8.4 Discussion of Findings – Archaeology ..............................................................................................155

8.4.1 Physical Site ...................................................................................................................155

8.4.2 Site Preservation .............................................................................................................162

8.5 Discussion of Biological Findings.....................................................................................................162

8.5.1 Microbiology ..................................................................................................................162

8.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology ......................................................................................................164

8.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology.........................................................................................................165

8.6 Sediment Core Analysis.....................................................................................................................169

9.0 ALCOA PURITAN SITE .............................................................................................................................171

9.1 Historical Background of the Freighter Alcoa Puritan ......................................................................171

9.2 Previous Investigations......................................................................................................................173

9.3 Geographical Setting..........................................................................................................................177

9.4 Discussion of Archaeological Findings .............................................................................................178

9.4.1 Physical Site ...................................................................................................................178

9.4.2 Site Preservation .............................................................................................................184

9.5 Discussion of Biological Findings.....................................................................................................184

9.5.1 Microbiology ..................................................................................................................184

9.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology ......................................................................................................185

9.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology.........................................................................................................187

9.6 Sediment Core Analysis.....................................................................................................................189

10.0 ANONA SITE ..............................................................................................................................................191

10.1 Historical Background of the Steam Yacht Anona ............................................................................191

10.2 Previous Investigations......................................................................................................................192

10.3 Geographical Setting..........................................................................................................................197

10.4 Discussion of Findings – Archaeology and Biology..........................................................................197

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................199

11.0 SHIPWRECK DEBRIS DISTRIBUTION MODEL...................................................................................199

12.0 MICROBIOLOGY......................................................................................................................................205

13.0 INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY...................................................................................................................209

14.0 VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY.......................................................................................................................217
viii 

15.0 CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................................................221

15.1 Archaeology.......................................................................................................................................221

15.2 Biological...........................................................................................................................................222

16.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................225

APPENDIX A ...........................................................................................................................................................235

Temperature Profile

Salinity Profile

Density Profile

Dissolved Oxygen Profile

Sound Velocity Profile

APPENDIX B............................................................................................................................................................255

Science Logs

APPENDIX C............................................................................................................................................................363

Sediment Core

Chemical Analysis Data
ix 

LIST OF FIGURES 

PAGE 

Figure 

1.1 Overview Map.................................................................................................................................................3

1.2 Project Area Map. ...........................................................................................................................................4

3.1 Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the Virginia site..........................................................................10

3.2 Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the Halo site. ..............................................................................11

3.3 Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the Gulfpenn site. .......................................................................12

3.4 Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the U-166 and Robert E. Lee sites..............................................13

3.5 Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the Alcoa Puritan site.................................................................13

3.6 Sediment push core taken using the Triton XL ROV....................................................................................14

3.7 The vertebrate and invertebrate traps in the basket about to be lowered off the stern of HOS 

Dominator. ....................................................................................................................................................15

3.8 Multi-chambered rusticle collection container. .............................................................................................15

3.9 Digital images of a) a 270-millimeter slimehead, Hoplostethus occidentalis, collected at the 

Gulfpenn, b) opening the fish’s opercular cavity and exposing the gills, c) scraping the gills free of 

the braincase, c) opening the otic capsule, e) removing the right sagitta, and f) a pair of extracted 

sagittae...........................................................................................................................................................23

3.10 a) Region of transverse section made through the core of a 683-millimeter TL red snapper sagitta 

and b) the resulting thin section. Five opaque zones are apparent in the thin section. ..................................25

3.11 Plot of Reader 1 opaque zone counts versus Reader 2 opaque zone counts for otolith sections of 84 

adult fish from 37 different species sampled from among all sites in this study. Symbol-color 

combinations are unique for each species sampled. ......................................................................................26

4.1 SS Virginia, United States Coast Guard photograph taken two months prior to the vessel’s loss. ...............27

4.2 The second SS Virginia, U.S. Coast Guard photograph taken on June 24, 1944. .........................................28

4.3 Side scan sonar image of the Virginia site, 2001...........................................................................................29

4.4 Virginia site overview map. ..........................................................................................................................30

4.5 Starboard side of Virginia’s bridge telegraph. Drawing indicates the handle’s position...............................32

4.6 Photo mosaic of Virginia’s bow with close-up of the damaged area and close-up of the starboard 

bow hawsehole from a starboard view. .........................................................................................................33

4.7 Siratus beauii found on the Virginia wreck...................................................................................................37

4.8 Stichopathes sp. cf. S. pourtalesi black wire coral. .......................................................................................39
x 

4.9 Extremely dense concentrations of Stichopathes sp. cf. S. pourtalesi...........................................................39

4.10 The densely branched, fan-shaped, black thorny coral Antipathes furcata. ..................................................40

4.11 Small cluster of Antipathes furcata. ..............................................................................................................40

4.12 Antipathes furcata in association with a Stichopathes sp. cf. S. pourtalesi assemblage................................41

4.13 A piece of a Madracis myriaster colony. ......................................................................................................41

4.14 Colonies of Madracis myriaster and Pourtalosmilia conferta on a standpipe ..............................................42

4.15 An example of the sturdy, thick, irregular shaped form of Madracis myriaster with sunken 

corallites. .......................................................................................................................................................42

4.16 Examples of Pourtalosmilia conferta............................................................................................................43

4.17 Examples of Oculina varicosa. .....................................................................................................................43

4.18 The cup coral Paracyathus pulchellus...........................................................................................................44

4.19 Section of a branch from a colony of Muricea pendula. ...............................................................................44

4.20 Oculina varicosa colony near the top of the main superstructure at a depth of ~73 m. ................................45

4.21 Large Muricea pendula colony on top of the main superstructure at a depth of ~71.0 meters. ....................45

4.22 (a) A vermilion snapper and (b) a red snapper associated with the Virginia.................................................48

4.23 (a) A scamp associated with the Virginia and (b) rock sea bass and vermilion snapper samples 

collected in fish traps.....................................................................................................................................48

4.24 Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at Virginia........................................................................49

4.25 Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling at 

Virginia. ........................................................................................................................................................49

4.26 Total length versus estimated age (sagittal otolith opaque zone counts) in three reef fish species 

collected at the Virginia. ...............................................................................................................................50

5.1 Tanker Halo, photograph by the United States Coast Guard, May 1, 1942. .................................................51

5.2 Drawing of Oil Tank Steamer similar to Halo, built by the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation ..............51

5.3 Side scan sonar and subbottom profiler images for Halo..............................................................................52

5.4 Halo site overview map.................................................................................................................................53

5.5 Bow (starboard view) of Halo.......................................................................................................................55

5.6 Halo site plan. ...............................................................................................................................................56

5.7 Nets tangled around Halo’s stern. .................................................................................................................57

5.8 Halo’s stern section with key components labeled........................................................................................57
xi 

5.9 Possible capsized lifeboat, lying 14.3 meters off the port bow. ....................................................................58

5.10 Voltages (millivolts) detected on bio-battery coupons deployed on Halo.....................................................59

5.11 Examples of the cover and structure provided by clusters and assemblages of Madracis myriaster. ...........62

5.12 Madracis myriaster colonies living on the sediment adjacent to Halo’s hull. ..............................................63

5.13 Large, solitary colony of Pourtalosmilia conferta. .......................................................................................63

5.14 Structurally complex cover resulting from the co-occurrence of Madracis myriaster and

Pourtalosmilia conferta.................................................................................................................................63

5.15 A complex habitat formed by Madracis myriaster and Pourtalosmilia conferta in association with 

other encrusting epibenthic fauna..................................................................................................................64

5.16 (a) Thesea sp. cf. T. grandiflora and (b) Thesea sp. cf. T. rubra. ..................................................................64

5.17 Placogorgia rudis..........................................................................................................................................65

5.18 A cluster of Placogorgia rudis colonies on the main superstructure.............................................................65

5.19 A cluster of Placogorgia rudis colonies on top of the standing portion of the mast on the aft deck.............66

5.20 Large colonies of Placogorgia rudis on the deck of HOS Dominator..........................................................66

5.21 Thesea sp.......................................................................................................................................................67

5.22 (a) Amberjack, and (b) a large Warsaw grouper over or adjacent to Halo....................................................73

5.23 (a) A batfish adjacent to Halo. Three species of Anthiinae basses captured with the ROV suction 

sampler are pictured in panel (b). From top to bottom are a yellowfin bass, roughtongue bass, and 

red barbier. ....................................................................................................................................................73

5.24 Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at the Halo. ......................................................................74

5.25 Stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling at Halo. Filled 

symbols are species-specific mean values.....................................................................................................74

5.26 Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling 

away from Halo.............................................................................................................................................75

5.27 Size at age estimates for reef-associated fishes captured at Halo..................................................................75

5.28 Size at age estimates for Anthiinae basses captured at Halo.........................................................................76

5.29 Size at age estimates for benthic and demersal fishes captured away from Halo. ........................................76

6.1 Tanker Gulfpenn, photograph taken by the United States Coast Guard. .......................................................77

6.2 Architectural drawing of the tanker Agwihavre or “Gulfpenn,” by the Sun Shipbuilding Company, 

July 8, 1920. ..................................................................................................................................................78

6.3 Side scan sonar image of Gulfpenn from the TAMU deep-tow system. .......................................................79
xii 

6.4 Gulfpenn site overview map..........................................................................................................................80

6.5 Bow of the Gulfpenn. ....................................................................................................................................82

6.6 Site drawing of Gulfpenn’s main structure....................................................................................................83

6.7 Top of Gulfpenn’s superstructure showing the bridge telegraph lying across the exposed deck 

frame supports...............................................................................................................................................84

6.8 Breach in the hull along the vessel’s starboard side......................................................................................85

6.9 Foot of the main mast lying on the deck. ......................................................................................................85

6.10 Remains of the docking helm control on the aft deckhouse..........................................................................86

6.11 Possible section of the vessel’s detached stern..............................................................................................87

6.12 a) Vent hood lying near the separated stern section. b) Vent hood lying near the northern extent of 

the debris field...............................................................................................................................................87

6.13 Lifeboat from Gulfpenn in the debris field (Photo mosaic)...........................................................................88

6.14 Gulfpenn’s main stack, lying to the vessel’s starboard side (Photo mosaic). ................................................88

6.15 Voltages (millivolts) detected on bio-battery coupons deployed on Gulfpenn..............................................89

6.16 Eumunida picta collected from Gulfpenn......................................................................................................92

6.17 Pourtalosmilia conferta attached near the top of the extant mast. ................................................................94

6.18 Tubular ecotype growth form of Lophelia pertusa........................................................................................95

6.19 Lophelia pertusa growing on (a) the starboard bower anchor, (b) the starboard hull below the main 

superstructure, and (c) the starboard aft side of the main superstructure from the second (lifeboat) 

deck down to the bulwarks............................................................................................................................96

6.20 Lophelia pertusa growing on (a) a davit on top of forward starboard corner of the aft deckhouse 

and (b) a mast and booms on the aft deck. ....................................................................................................97

6.21 Lophelia pertusa colonizing deck piping and a catwalk on the port side of the aft deck. .............................97

6.22 (a) Aggregating colonies of Lophelia pertusa on the railing and upper hull along the starboard 

foredeck. (b) Solitary Lophelia pertusa colony on railing along starboard aft deck. ....................................98

6.23 Looking down on the upper cluster of coalescing Lophelia pertusa colonies...............................................98

6.24 Examples of horizontal surfaces with no Lophelia pertusa colonization: (a) the stern end of the aft 

deck; and (b) the collapsed main stack..........................................................................................................99

6.25 Lophelia pertusa colonizing forward portion of the aft deck beneath a coral encrusted mast and 

boom..............................................................................................................................................................99

6.26 Large Lophelia pertusa colony growing on sediment adjacent to the hull..................................................100
xiii 

6.27 Small Lophelia pertusa colonies growing on (a) wreckage in the debris field 106 meters northwest 

of Gulfpenn and (b) an upright piece of metal rod in the debris field 70 meters west of Gulfpenn.............100

6.28 (a) Blackbelly rosefish, (b) Atlantic thornyhead, (c) slimeheads, and (d) deepwater tonguesole 

over or adjacent to Gulfpenn. ......................................................................................................................105

6.29 Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at Gulfpenn. Sample sizes indicated for each 

species. ........................................................................................................................................................106

6.30 Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling 

from Gulfpenn. ............................................................................................................................................106

6.31 Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling 

away from Gulfpenn. Filled symbols are species-specific mean values......................................................107

6.32 Results of stable isotope analysis of invertebrate tissue samples collected during biological 

sampling at Gulfpenn. Filled symbols are species-specific mean values. ...................................................107

6.33 Size at age estimates for fishes captured over the Gulfpenn........................................................................108

6.34 Size at age estimates for fishes captured away from the Gulfpenn..............................................................109

7.1 U-166 at sea in early 1942...........................................................................................................................111

7.2 Schematic of a Type IXC U-boat. ...............................................................................................................112

7.3 Oberleutnant zur See Hans-Günther Kuhlmann..........................................................................................113

7.4 An undated photograph of PC-566..............................................................................................................113

7.5 High-resolution side scan sonar image of U-166, 2001...............................................................................116

7.6 Bathymetric data collected in 2001 showing the U-166 wreck site.............................................................117

7.7 Artistic representation of how a Long BaseLine (LBL) positioning correlates with a Global 

Positioning System (GPS)...........................................................................................................................118

7.8 Microbiological experiments with BARTS and etch tests and test platforms. ............................................119

7.9 The "Lucas Stein" with rusticles from U-166..............................................................................................120

7.10 Site drawing of U-166’s bow. .....................................................................................................................121

7.11 U-166 images showing indentation and damaged area near the forward torpedo-loading hatch. ...............122

7.12 Overhead view of the 105-mm forward deck gun.......................................................................................122

7.13 Overhead view of U-166's conning tower bridge........................................................................................123

7.14 Starboard side of conning tower and 20-mm deck gun on Wintergarten....................................................123

7.15 U-166’s aft deck of showing the 37-mm gun and intact deck railing..........................................................124

7.16 View showing aft torpedo hatch on stern wreckage....................................................................................124
xiv 

7.17 A 0.6-meter long section of U-166’s bulkhead found in the debris field (Artifact No. 60). .......................125

7.18 Pressurized cylinder from U-166 (Artifact No. 47).....................................................................................129

7.19 A Dräger Lung from the U-166 (Artifact No. 127).....................................................................................130

7.20 U-166 site overview map. ...........................................................................................................................131

7.21 Hull remains in large crater located during 2004 investigations. ................................................................133

7.22 Remains of a uniform from U-166 site........................................................................................................133

7.23 Photo mosaic of U-166’s bow. ....................................................................................................................134

7.24 Two red deep-sea crabs (Chaceon quinquedens) found at the U-166 site...................................................137

7.25 (a) Cutthroat eels around a chevron fish trap, (b) a large unknown Ophidiiform fish over the ship, 

and (c) a six-gill shark near a chevron fish trap at U166.............................................................................141

7.26 Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at U-166. ........................................................................142

7.27 Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling at 

the deep wreck sites of U-166 and Robert E. Lee........................................................................................143

7.28 Results of stable isotope analysis of invertebrate tissue samples collected during biological 

sampling at U-166 and Robert E. Lee. ........................................................................................................143

7.29 Size at age estimates for fishes captured at U166 and Robert E. Lee sites..................................................144

8.1 Robert E. Lee while in service to the Old Dominion Line. .........................................................................145

8.2 Page 6 and 7 of the Eastern Steamship Line Brochure, May 24, 1941. Page 6 shows the deck 

layout and page 7 shows the schedules and fares for SS George Washington and SS Robert E. Lee. ........146

8.3 Robert E. Lee, early 1942............................................................................................................................147

8.4 Robert E. Lee, Deep-tow side scan sonar image, 1986. ..............................................................................149

8.5 120 kHz side scan sonar image of Robert E Lee, from the 2001 “grid survey” with C- Surveyor I

AUV. ...........................................................................................................................................................150

8.6 410 kHz side scan sonar image of Robert E Lee, from the 2001 “site specific survey” with CSurveyor I AUV. .........................................................................................................................................150

8.7 The telegraph from the bridge of the Robert E. Lee as found in 2001. .......................................................151

8.8 Lifeboat from Robert E. Lee, documented during the 2003 ROV Investigation. ........................................152

8.9 Robert E. Lee site overview map.................................................................................................................153

8.10 Robert E. Lee’s bow and both bower anchors. ............................................................................................155

8.11 Looking down on the remaining forward structure of the promenade deck................................................156

8.12 The gun mounted on Robert E. Lee's stern..................................................................................................157
xv 

8.13 Shoes and Other Textiles in the Northern Debris Field...............................................................................158

8.14 Dishes off the Starboard Side of the Vessel. ...............................................................................................158

8.15 Bathroom Stalls found in the Northern Debris Field...................................................................................159

8.16 Section of Bridge debris located to the starboard side of the vessel............................................................159

8.17 (a) Bridge signal bell, (b) Engine Order Telegraph lying across the Base of the Rudder Controls, 

and (c) Close-up of the Rudder Controls’ Face...........................................................................................160

8.18 One of many vent hoods found within the debris field. ..............................................................................160

8.19 Engine Order Telegraph stands upright south of Robert E. Lee..................................................................161

8.20 The second of two telegraphs found on a deck section in the southern debris field....................................161

8.21 Two lifeboats in the southern debris field. ..................................................................................................162

8.22 Voltages (millivolts) detected on bio-battery coupons deployed on Robert E. Lee.....................................163

8.23 (a) A purple belly skate, (b) a thickbeard grenadier. ...................................................................................168

8.24 (a) Brotula (Cataetyx laticeps), and (b) distate cuskeel from video captured adjacent to Robert E. 

Lee...............................................................................................................................................................168

8.25 Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at the Robert E. Lee. ......................................................168

9.1 Alcoa Puritan, United States Coast Guard Photograph, November 11, 1941 .............................................171

9.2 Side scan sonar image of Alcoa Puritan from the FGSI DeepTow II system .............................................174

9.3 Multibeam image of Alcoa Puritan from FGSI DeepTow II system. .........................................................174

9.4 120 kHz side scan sonar image of Alcoa Puritan from the C-Surveyor I AUV..........................................175

9.5 410 kHz side scan sonar mosaic image of Alcoa Puritan from the C-Surveyor I AUV..............................175

9.6 Alcoa Puritan site overview map. ...............................................................................................................176

9.7 105-mm shell damage on Alcoa Puritan’s starboard side. The breach is approximately 47 

centimeters across. ......................................................................................................................................178

9.8 Mosaic of the vessel’s port side torpedo damage just below the superstructure’s aft section. ....................179

9.9 Two views of the ship’s windlass................................................................................................................179

9.10 Starboard views of the buckling at Alcoa Puritan’s bow. ...........................................................................179

9.11 The top of the foremast laying over the No. 1 hold.....................................................................................180

9.12 On the port stern quarter the word “ALCOA” is visible with the word “NEW” beneath, and on the 

starboard stern quarter the word “PURITAN” is visible with the word “YORK” beneath.........................180

9.13 105-mm shell casing found near Alcoa Puritan wreck site.........................................................................181
xvi 

9.14 Top of one of the masts from Alcoa Puritan found embedded in the seafloor in the wreck’s 

northern debris field. ...................................................................................................................................182

9.15 Bridge telegraph or rudder control from Alcoa Puritan within the northern debris field............................182

9.16 Chair found lying on the seafloor within the northern debris field. ............................................................183

9.17 Hatch cover section found lying on the seafloor north of the wreck site. ...................................................183

9.18 Voltages (millivolts) detected on bio-battery coupons deployed on Alcoa Puritan. ...................................185

9.19 (a) a tripod fish and (b) a halosaur captured during video sampling at Alcoa Puritan................................189

10.1 Steam Yacht Anona circa 1906-1915. .........................................................................................................191

10.2 Out board profile of the steam yacht Anona, drawn by the George Lawley and Sons Corporation, 

April 20, 1904. ............................................................................................................................................192

10.3 Cabin plan and elevation drawing of the steam yacht Anona, by the George Lawley and Sons 

Corporation, June 8, 1904. ..........................................................................................................................192

10.4 High-resolution side scan image of Anona..................................................................................................193

10.5 Fledermaus multibeam image of Anona wreck site.....................................................................................194

10.6 Profile drawing of trail board on Anona’s bow. ..........................................................................................194

10.7 Detailed floral scrollwork depicting a plant on Anona’s bow. ....................................................................195

10.8 Extant decking and exposed piping on Anona’s forecastle. ........................................................................195

10.9 Debris on Anona’s deck; the rectangular object in the upper right may be a condenser or small 

engine. .........................................................................................................................................................196

10.10 Filtered image of Anona’s steering mechanism and internal framing. ........................................................196

10.11 Hull profile of Steam Yacht Anona.............................................................................................................197

10.12 Waterline view of Steam Yacht Anona. ......................................................................................................197

11.1 Debris field scattered out from a wreck site. Based on Robert E. Lee’s debris field...................................199

11.2 Scattered debris trail leading to the wreck site. Based on Gulfpenn’s debris field......................................200

11.3 Dense debris field way from the wreck site. Based on Alcoa Puritan’s debris field...................................200

11.4 Debris field distribution at the U-166 site. ..................................................................................................201

11.5 Debris distribution graph.............................................................................................................................202

13.1 Changes in average meiofauna density (number per 10 cm2) with bathymetric depth...............................210

13.2 Changes in species richness with depth (meter) among the wreck sites......................................................211

13.3 The spider crab Rochinia crassa was abundant at the Gulfpenn site...........................................................212
xvii 

LIST OF TABLES 

PAGE 

Table 

1.1 Project Principal Investigators.........................................................................................................................5

1.2 Project Field Personnel....................................................................................................................................5

1.3 Other Key Personnel. ......................................................................................................................................6

3.1 Position of Metal Coupons on Bio-Battery Deployed 2004..........................................................................17

3.2 Proposed Classification of Deep Sea Attached and Associated Microbiological Growths 

on Steel Shipwrecks ......................................................................................................................................18

3.3 Properties of Chevron (large) and Baitfish (small) Fish Trap Deployments Adjacent 

(ship) to and 300 Meters from (distant) Shipwreck Sites. .............................................................................20

3.4 Properties of Transects Flown by the ROV to Document the Fish Community Over, 

Adjacent to, and 300 Meters from Shipwrecks. ............................................................................................21

3.5 Total Video Time Analyzed for Fishes Presence from ROV Video During Shipwreck Site 

Visits for Biological and Archeological Sampling.†

......................................................................................24

3.6 Analysis of International Atomic Energy Agency Standard Reference Materials for δ13C, 

δ15N, and δ34S................................................................................................................................................25

4.1 ROV Navigation Fix Points at Virginia ........................................................................................................31

4.2 Gravimetric Elemental Composition of a (C1) Rusticle from Virginia.........................................................34

4.3 Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over and Distant 

(300 m) from the Virginia Site. .....................................................................................................................35

4.4 Density of meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2) from Sediment Cores Collected Adjacent to 

(Core A) and Progressively More Distant (Cores B to D) from Virginia......................................................36

4.5 Crustaceans, Mollusks, and Polychaets Collected from The Virginia Site. ..................................................36

4.6 List of Scleractinia, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea Found on the Tankers Virginia, Halo

and Gulfpenn. ................................................................................................................................................38

4.7 Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video From 

Biological Transects Over, Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from (distant) the 

Virginia. ........................................................................................................................................................46

4.8 Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video at Virginia From Sampling Other 

than Biological Transects. Location Indicates if Video was Collected Over or Away from 

the Ship..........................................................................................................................................................47

4.9 Estimated Total Fish Lengths Observed on ROV Video at the Virginia Site with Both 

ROV-mounted Lasers Striking Them............................................................................................................47
xviii 

4.10 Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (large) and Baitfish (small) Fish Traps Deployed Adjacent 

to (wreck) and 300 meters Away from (distant) Virginia. ............................................................................48

4.11 Virginia Core Analysis..................................................................................................................................50

5.1 ROV Navigation Fix Points at Halo..............................................................................................................54

5.2 Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of a Brown Rusticle (C1) from Halo.........................................................58

5.3 Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over, Adjacent and 

Distant (300 m) from the Halo site................................................................................................................60

5.4 Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2) from Sediment Cores Collected Adjacent to 

(Core A) and Distant (Core C) from Halo.....................................................................................................60

5.5 Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the Halo Site Including Number and Proximity to 

Wreck, Substrate and Depth..........................................................................................................................61

5.6 Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected with the 

ROV During Biological Sampling Over, Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from 

(distant) at Halo.............................................................................................................................................68

5.7 Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at Halo During Sampling Other 

than Biological Transects. .............................................................................................................................69

5.8 Estimated Total Lengths of Fishes Observed on Video at Halo....................................................................71

5.9 Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (Large) and Baitfish (Small) Fish Traps Deployed Adjacent 

to (Ship) and 300 Meters from (Distant) Halo. .............................................................................................71

5.10 Fishes Caught with the ROV Suction Sampler During Biological Sampling at the Halo.............................72

5.11 Halo Core Analysis. ......................................................................................................................................76

6.1 ROV Contacts from Figure 6.4. ....................................................................................................................81

6.2 Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of Brown Rusticles (C1) from Gulfpenn’s Port and 

Starboard Side ...............................................................................................................................................90

6.3 Density (Number Per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over, Adjacent 

and Distant (300 m) from the Gulfpenn Site. ................................................................................................91

6.4 Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2) From Sediment Cores Collected Adjacent to 

(Core A) and Progressively More Distant (Cores B And C) from Gulfpenn.................................................91

6.5 Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the Gulfpenn Site, Including Number and 

Proximity to Wreck, Substrate, and Depth....................................................................................................93

6.6 Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV video During 

Biological Transect Over, Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from (Distant) Gulfpenn. ..........................101

6.7 Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at the Gulfpenn on Other than 

Biological Transects....................................................................................................................................102

6.8 Estimated Total Lengths of Fishes Observed on Video at the Gulfpenn.....................................................104
xix 

6.9 Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (large) and Baitfish (small) Fish Traps Deployed Adjacent 

to (ship) and 300 Meters Away From (distant) Gulfpenn............................................................................104

6.10 Fishes Caught with the ROV Suction Sampler at Gulfpenn........................................................................104

6.11 Gulfpenn Core Analysis. .............................................................................................................................109

7.1 Artifact Table from 2003 Survey ................................................................................................................126

7.2 ROV Navigation Fix Points at U-166 .........................................................................................................132

7.3 Status of Bio-Deterioration of the Coupons on Platforms IA, U-166..........................................................135

7.4 Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of a White Rusticle (C2) from U-166......................................................136

7.5 Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over, Adjacent, 

and Distant (300 m) from the U-166 Site....................................................................................................137

7.6 Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2) from Sediment Cores Collected Adjacent to 

and Away from U-166.................................................................................................................................137

7.7 Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the U-166 Site, Including Number and Proximity 

to Wreck, Substrate, and Depth...................................................................................................................138

7.8 Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video During 

Biological Sampling Over, Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from (Distant) U-166...............................139

7.9 Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at U-166 on Other than 

Biological Transects....................................................................................................................................140

7.10 Estimated Total Lengths of Fishes Observed on Video at U-166. ..............................................................140

7.11 Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (Large) and Baitfish (Small) Fish Traps Deployed Adjacent 

to (Ship) and 300 Meters Away from (Distant) U-166................................................................................141

7.12 Fishes Caught with the ROV Suction Sampler at U-166. ...........................................................................141

7.13 U-166 Core Analysis...................................................................................................................................144

8.1 ROV Navigation Fix Points at Robert E. Lee..............................................................................................154

8.2 Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of a Brown Rusticle (C1) from Robert E Lee..........................................163

8.3 Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over, Adjacent and 

Distant (300 m) from the Robert E. Lee Site...............................................................................................164

8.4 Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2) from Sediment Cores Collected Adjacent to 

and Away from Robert E. Lee.....................................................................................................................164

8.5 Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the Robert E. Lee Site, Including Number and 

Proximity to Wreck, Substrate, and Depth..................................................................................................165

8.6 Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video Over, 

Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from Robert E. Lee..............................................................................166
xx 

8.7 Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at Robert E. Lee on Other than 

Biological Transects....................................................................................................................................166

8.8 Estimated Total Fish Lengths Observed on Video at Robert E. Lee. ..........................................................167

8.9 Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (Large) and Baitfish (Small) Fish Traps Deployed Adjacent 

to (Ship) and 300 meters Away from (Distant) Robert E. Lee. ...................................................................167

8.10 Fishes Caught with the ROV Suction Sampler at Robert E. Lee.................................................................167

8.11 Robert E. Lee Core Analysis. ......................................................................................................................169

9.1 ROV Navigation Fix Points at Alcoa Puritan .............................................................................................177

9.2 Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of a Brown Rusticle (C1) from Alcoa Puritan ........................................184

9.3 Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over, Adjacent, 

and Distant (300 m) from the Alcoa Puritan site. .......................................................................................186

9.4 Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2) from Sediment Cores Collected Adjacent to 

and Away from Alcoa Puritan. ...................................................................................................................186

9.5 Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the Aloca Puritan site, Including Number and 

Proximity to Wreck, Substrate, and Depth..................................................................................................187

9.6 Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video During 

Biological Sampling Over, Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away (distant) from Alcoa 

Puritan.........................................................................................................................................................188

9.7 Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at Alcoa Puritan on Other Than 

Biological Transects....................................................................................................................................188

9.8 Estimated Total Fish Lengths Observed on Video at Alcoa Puritan...........................................................189

9.9 Alcoa Puritan Core Analysis.......................................................................................................................189

11.1 Shipwreck Debris Distribution....................................................................................................................202

11.2 Avoidance Criteria Estimates......................................................................................................................203

12.1 Semi-Quantitative Dominance of Attached Organisms on the Project Shipwrecks....................................205

12.2 Average Millivolts Recovered from Bio-battery Coupons..........................................................................207

12.3 Deployment of Mark II Steel Test Platforms in Ship Cluster, 2004............................................................208

13.1 List of Micromollusks Identified from Four Shipwreck Sites.....................................................................213
1 

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

During World War II German U-boats wreaked havoc on merchant shipping along the American Coast. The Gulf of 

Mexico contains one of the greatest concentrations of Allied vessels lost to German U-boats worldwide. These 

casualties include oil tankers, cargo vessels, passenger ships, and fishing boats. The significant role played by these 

vessels and their crews during an important period in American and World history, paired with their presence on the 

seafloor for over 50 years makes them eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, 

a Presidential Proclamation signed January 19, 2001, states that “the United States will use its authority to protect 

and preserve sunken state craft of the United States and other nations, whether they are located in the waters of the 

United States, a foreign nation, or in international waters” (Bush 2001). Since many of these vessels carried U.S. 

Navy gun crews and were chartered by the United States government to transport oil and fuel for the war effort, 

many are likely to be considered “state craft.” At present, the remains of eighteen (18) such vessels and the only 

known German U-boat sunk in the Gulf, U-166, have been identified in Federal waters as a result of the United 

States Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS) required oil industry surveys. Taken 

together, these sites represent an underwater battlefield, and a vital historical resource documenting a little studied 

area in a crucial period in American History. These sites preserve information vital to scholarly and popular 

understanding of the U-boat war’s impact in the Gulf of Mexico, on the American home front, and the global 

conflict. In addition, these sites represent artificial reefs from well-documented dates of a similar time period 

thereby offering biologists a unique opportunity to study the “artificial reef effect” of man-made structures in 

deepwater (USDI MMS 2004). 

This multidisciplinary study focuses on the biological and archaeological aspects of seven World War II era 

shipwrecks in the north-central portion of the Gulf of Mexico. Six of the vessels (Virginia, Halo, Gulfpenn, Robert 

E Lee, and Alcoa Puritan) were lost to wartime activity between early April and late July 1942. The seventh vessel, 

the Steam Yacht Anona, was lost to an accident in 1944 after all the U-boats had left the Gulf of Mexico. All seven 

shipwrecks were discovered during Oil and Gas surveys and reported to the MMS as required by Federal 

regulations. Water depth at the investigation sites ranges from 87 to 1,964 meters. Each shipwreck was investigated 

to determine site boundaries, National Register eligibility, preservation state and stability, and the potential for manmade structures or objects to function as artificial reefs in deepwater. 

1.1. Project Objectives 

1.1.1 Archaeological Objectives 

 1. Confirm each shipwreck identity and establish its type and date of construction, nationality, 

ownership (past and present), use history, mission, and cargo at time of loss. 

 2. Determine each vessel’s past and present condition, state of preservation, assess any 

environmental impact caused by the wreck, and make observations relating to its deterioration and 

future research potential. 

 3. Determine the visible extent of the debris fields surrounding each casualty. 

 4. Analyze imagery and historical documentation to determine nomination eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

 5. Assess the impacts of bio-fouling communities to these shipwrecks to determine the site’s 

stability. 

 6. For vessels determined to be eligible for nomination, prepare a National Register nomination 

form. 

1.1.2 Biological Objectives

 1. Characterize the environment at each site (e.g. water depth, bottom sediment type, currents, etc.) 

2. Determine the biological effects of shipwreck artificial reefs at selected sites, and include detailed 

imagery surveys of the sites at a variety of scales. 

3. Determine the extent of physical and biological modification of sediments in the immediate area 

of wreck sites compared to sediment conditions at sites distant from wreck areas. Sampling will 

include sediment coring close to and distant from wrecks to determine any “artificial reef effect.” 
2 

4. Conduct limited sampling of fauna attached to hard substrate for taxonomic and other potential 

analyses such as isotope studies. 

5. Analyze imagery and sample collection to address spatial heterogeneity of any fouling community 

and motile fish and invertebrate association with wrecks. 

Microbiological 

The main focus of the microbiological component of this investigation was the form and level of microbial activities 

observable through imaging and detection using three different methodologies. On-site experiments were deployed 

to examine the rates at which ship’s metals are compromised by microbial activities and the functional ability of the 

indigenous microbes to manipulate and impress electrical charges through biofouling. These experiments used both 

steel test platforms and bio-battery platforms with each being deployed on four wreck sites (Halo, Gulfpenn, Robert 

E Lee, and Alcoa Puritan). Recovered concretion and rusticle samples were the subject of laboratory investigations 

to determine the microbial loadings and chemical composition. Additionally, laboratory investigations were 

conducted to determine differences related to depth and potential nutrient loading at the wreck sites. This report 

includes an interpretation of the on-site observations and subsequent laboratory investigations. A prime interest was 

the determination of whether there were significant differences between the ships in the form of attached 

microbiological growths from dendritic concretions (shallower depths) to very mixed growths including aggressive 

sea anemone populations (deeper depths) to a virtual dominance of rusticles and concretious growths on the deepest 

ship Alcoa Puritan, at 1,964 meters. 

Marine Invertebrates 

The primary objective of the invertebrate component was quantifying the use of deep-water shipwrecks by 

macrofaunal invertebrates. Geological or biogenic outcrops of hard substrate are rare in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico; shipwrecks represent hard substrate and might best be considered as surrogates for artificial reefs. 

Considering the rarity of hard substrate, the question is whether macroinvertebrate assemblages colonizing 

shipwrecks will differ from fauna adjacent to the wrecks. Do invertebrate fauna (or their larvae), specialized for 

attachment and utilization of hard substrates, exist in sufficient quantity to represent distinct faunal assemblages? A 

related question addressed colonization rates by fauna on hard substrate in the otherwise level bottom, soft habitat. 

Determining the age of many invertebrates is notoriously difficult because of the lack of retention of structures with 

ontogeny. Shipwrecks of known age provide a ‘natural’ experiment to answer questions about colonization rates, 

growth rates of individuals and community development. Another question concerned the effect of depth on 

invertebrate diversity and abundance. Is bathymetric zonation evident for species, faunal assemblages, or different 

life history stages? With these considerations in mind, the objectives of the invertebrate portion of the study were 

to: 1) compare the composition, species richness, and abundance of macroinvertebrate assemblages associated with 

the shipwrecks, to the adjacent macroinvertebrate fauna on level bottom sediments away from the shipwrecks; 2) 

compare differences in composition, species richness, and abundance of macroinvertebrates as a function of 

bathymetry. 

Marine Vertebrates 

The goal of the marine vertebrate component of the project was to document the utilization of deep-water 

shipwrecks as fish habitats. Artificial reefs in shallow (< 100 meters) continental shelf environments have been 

studied extensively in the last few decades because of their hypothesized positive effect on rebuilding depleted fish 

stocks by alleviating hardbottom habitat limitation. A growing scientific debate has ensued, however, as to whether 

artificial reefs in shallow environments produce novel biomass or merely aggregate fishes from surrounding natural 

habitats (Bohnsack 1989). In the northern Gulf of Mexico, this debate has centered around the ecology of 

commercially exploited species and the fact that artificial reefs constitute only a small percentage (i.e., < 5%) of the 

total hardbottom habitat on the shelf (Bohnsack 1989; Bortone 1999; Parker et al. 1983; Patterson et al. 2001a and 

2001b; and Patterson et al. 2003). It seems there is greater potential for hardbottom habitat to be limiting to 

structure-associated fishes in the southeastern U.S. slope rather than shelf environments due to the perceived paucity 

of hardbottom substrates beyond the upper slope (Gardner et al. 2001; Reed 2002; Sulak et al. 2001). Few data on 

deepwater hardbottom habitats and their associated fish communities in the northern Gulf of Mexico exist to 

evaluate the hypothesis that habitat is limiting for structure-associated fishes. Therefore, the objectives of this 

portion of the study were to 1) examine the community structure of fishes associated with deepwater shipwrecks in 
3 

the northern Gulf of Mexico; 2) perform gut content analysis to examine trophic structure within the fish 

community; 3) analyze stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen in fish tissue to estimate source(s) of carbon to wrecks 

and corroborate trophic structure inferred from gut content analysis; and, 4) estimate age and growth rates of 

abundant species via examination of otolith microstructure. 

1.2 Geographic Overview 

The Gulf of Mexico is a semi-enclosed small ocean basin that formed by Late Triassic to Early Jurassic rifting 

followed by Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous seafloor spreading. The Gulf has been receiving sediment influx 

dominated by the Mississippi River since Late Jurassic. Sediments accumulated along the Gulf of Mexico’s 

northern margin during the Mesozoic and the Cenozoic have attained a thickness in excess of 14.9 kilometers. 

Rapid deposition along the northern margin of the Gulf of Mexico during the Tertiary and the Quaternary resulted in 

the accumulation of particularly thick sedimentary sequences and an up to 296 kilometers basinward migration of 

shelf edge since the Cretaceous at an exceptionally high rate of 4.8 to 5.9 millimeters/year (Coleman et al. 1991). 

Figure 1.1. Overview Map. 

Mississippi Canyon and Fan Region 

The Mississippi Canyon is the conduit for source materials moving seaward into the Mississippi Fan. Bouma 

describes the Mississippi Canyon as a major erosional and partially filled structure. Initial development of this 

canyon is suggested to have begun about 50,000 to 55,000 years ago in the middle continental slope and 

retrogressed onto the shelf 25,000 to 27,000 years before present. Retrogressive large scale slumping on an unstable 

shelf-slope area during a sea level low stand or during the initial sea level rise are believed to have caused the 

canyon to widen and lengthen further up-shelf. Several other smaller scale canyons create fans by similar processes 

east and west of the Mississippi Canyon on the shelf-slope area (Bouma et al. 1985). 

In the east-central Gulf of Mexico, a large regional, deep-water feature exists that is identified as the Mississippi 

Fan. This feature was the subject of the Deep Sea Drilling Project Leg 96 in 1983 and was interpreted as a channellevee-overbank complex. The Fan is approximately 560 kilometers long and up to 600 kilometers wide. It extends 

southeast from the base of the continental slope at a depth of approximately 300 meters, across the continental rise 

and onto the abyssal plain, to a point roughly halfway between the Campeche Escarpment and the Florida 

Escarpment. The Mississippi Fan is bounded by the Texas Louisiana Slope region to the west and the Florida 

Escarpment to the east. Water depths for the Mississippi Fan range from approximately 300 meters at the base of 

the slope to 3,200 meters on the abyssal plain. The fan has been described as a broad arcuate submarine fan 

comprised of a number of fan lobes separated by pelagic oozes or muddy sediment (Bouma et al. 1985). 
4 

In 1989, following an examination of the most recently deposited fan lobe Bouma and others suggested a sea-level 

driven model which effectively divided the Mississippi fan into three sections for descriptive purposes: upper fan, 

middle fan, and lower fan. The upper Fan has a slightly convex shaped surface with a wide channel at its apex 

flanked by laterally discontinuous reflectors believed to be overbank deposits. The middle fan holds the greatest 

accumulation of sediment and is imaged on sonar data as a leveed, sinuous channel complex that averages 1.2 to 2.5 

kilometers in width. Less prominent channel complexes that undergo rapid channel abandonment define the lower 

fan. It can be assumed similar fans have been active during the geologic past in the entire Mississippi Canyon, 

Atwater Valley, and Lund Areas. Channel deposits consist of fining upward turbidite sequences (gravel to clay size) 

with the base of the gravel representing the time of the episodic event (Bouma et al. 1989). 

Figure 1.2. Project Area Map. 

1.3 Project Organization 

The MMS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Ocean Exploration (NOAA OE) 

organized the study under the auspices of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). C & C 
5 

Technologies, Inc. (C & C), the primary contractor for the study oversaw the survey and archaeological analysis. C 

& C contracted the following organizations and individuals for the biological analysis: Droycon Bioconcepts, Inc. 

(DBI), William Schroeder with the University of Alabama/Dauphin Island Sea Lab (UA/DISL), University of West 

Florida (UWF) and University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF). C & C contracted the PAST Foundation (PAST) for the 

educational outreach component of the project. PAST partnered with Montana State University to provide the 

media team for field operations. C & C made agreements with Texas A&M University and the University of Rhode 

Island for two PhD candidates in deepwater archaeology and a molecular biologist from The Institute for Genomic 

Research (TIGR) to participate in the study. The Key Personnel for the project are listed in the following tables. 

Table 1.1 

Project Principal Investigators. 

Personnel Title Organization 

Robert Church, MA Chief Scientist/Marine Archaeologist P.I. C & C 

Daniel Warren, MA Marine Archaeologist Co-P.I. C & C 

Roy Cullimore, PhD Microbiologist P.I. DBI 

Lori Johnston, MS Microbiologist Co-P.I. DBI 

Thomas C. Shirley, PhD Invertebrate Zoologist P.I. UAF 

William Schroeder, PhD Invertebrate Zoologist Co-P.I. UA/DISL 

William Patterson, PhD Vertebrate Zoologist P.I. UWF 

Annalies Corbin, PhD Education Outreach Director PAST 

Dennis Aig, PhD Film Producer/Media Coordinator MSU 

Table 1.2 

Project Field Personnel. 

Personnel Title Organization 

Government 

Jack Irion, PhD Contract officer Technical Representative MMS 

Daniel "Herb" Leedy, MS Biologist MMS 

Michael Overfield, MA Cruise Coordinator NOAA 

Ian Zelo Project Specialist NOAA 

Archaeology 

Robert Church, MA Chief Scientist/Archaeologist P.I. C & C 

Peter Hitchcock, MA Archaeology Intern (PhD Candidate) TAMU 

James Moore, MA Archaeology Intern (PhD Candidate) URI 

Biology 

Lori Johnston, MS Microbiologist, Field-P.I. DBI 

William Schroeder, PhD Invertebrate Zoologist Co-P.I. UA/DISL 

William Patterson, PhD Vertebrate Zoologist P.I. UWF 

Nicole Morris Vertebrate Zoologist (MS Candidate) UWF 

Aaron Baldwin, MS Invertebrate Zoologist, Field P.I. UAF 

Morgan Kilgour Invertebrate Zoologist (MS Candidate) UAF 

Garry Myers, MS Molecular Biologist TIGR 

Education and film 
6 

Personnel Title Organization 

Dennis Aig, PhD Film Producer/Media Coordinator PAST/Hunter Neil/MSU 

Keene Haywood, PhD Assistant Producer/Film Intern (MFA Candidate) MSU 

Korey Kaczmarek Sound Mixer/PA MSU 

Lansing Dreamer Director of Photography MSU 

Survey 

Ryan Larsen Surveyor (Acoustic Specialist) C & C 

John Petterson Surveyor (Acoustic Specialist) C & C 

ROV 

Joey Lekovich ROV Superintendent Sonsub, Inc. 

Mike Stephens ROV Supervisor Sonsub, Inc. 

Phillip Spearman ROV Supervisor Sonsub, Inc. 

Chris Talasek ROV Pilot & Technician Sonsub, Inc. 

Wes Fenner ROV Pilot & Technician Sonsub, Inc. 

Lucas Cribley ROV Operator Sonsub, Inc. 

Bryan Whipple ROV Operator Sonsub, Inc. 

Table 1.3 

Other Key Personnel. 

Personnel Title Organization 

Tony George Geophysicist/Geosciences Manger C & C 

Kimberly Eslinger, MA Marine Archaeologist C & C 

Bruce Samuel, MS Marine Geologist C & C 

Lynn Samuel Marine Geologist C & C 

Charlie Broussard Cartographer C & C 

Tim Badeaux Cartographer C & C 

Shelley Smith, PhD Education Outreach Coordinator PAST 

Dave Ball, MA Senior Marine Archaeologist MMS 

Chris Horell, PhD Marine Archaeologist MMS 
7 

2.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

2.1 World War II in the Gulf of Mexico 

Three factors have influenced the Gulf of Mexico’s role in trade, economic development, and maritime commerce: 

exploration, warfare, and natural resources. Deep canyons mark the Gulf region’s submerged bottomlands. Natural 

resources around the Gulf of Mexico including cotton, tobacco, and petroleum products have driven the Gulf’s 

economy and shipping since the sixteenth century. Shipping routes follow traditional patterns, and shipwrecks are 

often found near those trade routes. The Gulf of Mexico is no exception, and shipwrecks from the age of 

exploration through modern day have been located near traditional shipping lanes (Garrison et al. 1989). 

World War I saw an increase in Gulf of Mexico tanker traffic as petroleum products became more important to 

American industry. The Gulf’s maritime community was affected little during the First World War, but World War 

II was different. During World War II, several German U-boats operated in the Gulf of Mexico using shipping lanes 

and navigational beacons to locate and torpedo unsuspecting prey (Blair 2000:467, 498). 

In 1942, the world was at war and Germany controlled most of Europe. Hitler launched Operation Drumbeat under 

Admiral Karl Dönitz’s command. Using Germany’s Unterseebootes (U-boats), Operation Drumbeat brought the 

war to United States coastlines, just as in World War I. The U-boat mission was simple: disrupt Allied supply lines. 

World War II U-boats struck shipping along the Atlantic coast, and infiltrated the United State’s undefended 

backyard - the Gulf of Mexico. U-boat’s specifically targeted tankers carrying valuable petroleum products from the 

Gulf coast to American refineries and abroad. During the early war years Americans had a false sense of security 

created by the vast oceans that kept the war at a distance. When U-boats entered the Gulf of Mexico many German 

commanders noted coastal lights burned as in peacetime. 

The spring of 1942 was an opportune time for U-boats in the Gulf of Mexico. The Commander of the Gulf Sea 

Frontier had not yet ordered mandatory convoys and naval escorts. Likewise, many merchantmen sailing Gulf 

waters were unarmed and unaware of the U-boat threat. Until July 1942, the Gulf remained a German pond where 

the U-boats hunted and attacked at will (Blair 2000: 588). 

U-507, under Korvettenkapitän Harro Schacht’s command, claimed the first vessel sank in Gulf waters on May 4, 

1942 when she torpedoed the freighter Norlindo off Key West Florida (Wiggins, 1995). Norlindo’s sinking 

unleashed a wave of destruction in the Gulf of Mexico. Korvettenkapitän Harro Schacht’s crew aboard U-507 sank 

eight vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, making it one of the most successful U-boats in this theater of war. U-507’s 

fourth victim was the cargo freighter, Alcoa Puritan. U-507 also sank the tanker, Virginia on May 12 (Schacht 

1942: 13, 32, 52). In May 1942, U-506 joined the Gulf campaign, sinking the tankers, Gulfpenn on May 13 and 

Halo on May 20, and six other merchant vessels (Würdemann 1942: 12, 22, 30). 

Within twelve months, twenty-four German U-boats entered the Gulf. Seventeen U-boats sent 56 merchant vessels 

to the bottom and badly damaged 14 others (Church et al. 2002). U-166, commanded by Kapitänleutnant HansGünther Kühlmann, joined the fray in July. U-166 took position off the Mississippi River’s mouth in operational 

area DA-90. The U-boat’s mission was to lay mines and attack merchant shipping (War Diary 1942: 36, 53, 92; and 

Blair 2000: 633). Although the nine TMB mines were successfully laid only a few hundred yards off the jetties in 

the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River, none detonated. Kühlmann sank the passenger freighter SS Robert E. 

Lee approximately 45 miles southeast of the Mississippi River on July 30, 1942. PC-566, the naval vessel escorting 

the freighter then sank U-166 (Blair 2000: 633; and USS PC-566 1942). Deep water and conflicting first hand 

accounts from 1942 hid U-166’s actual location for nearly 60 years. Although 75 percent of all U-boats were sunk 

by the war’s end, only one was lost in the Gulf of Mexico, U-166 (Blair 2000:704). 

By July 1942, the United States increased efforts to protect shipping in southern waters. Coastal lights were shut 

off, lighthouse beacons were dimmed, and strict information blackouts enacted. Aerial reconnaissance and radio 

listening posts helped American naval and Coast Guard units track the U-boat threat. Merchant vessels were 

ordered to travel in convoys with naval escorts. These efforts diminished the number of vessels sunk by U-boats by 

August 1942 and turned the tide of the U-boat threat in American coastal waters. For 56 ships, the American 

response to German U-boat attacks in the Gulf of Mexico came too late. Hundreds of merchant mariners lost their 

lives and ships to German torpedoes. Many tankers became floating bombs when torpedoes ignited the petroleum 
8 

products in the holding tanks leaving the crews either entombed in a fiery hull, or afloat in the blaze. The Gulf of 

Mexico war zone was a submerged and surface war front for military and non-military vessels alike. The German 

U-boat freely hunted these waters until late 1942, when American antisubmarine measures improved and helped 

turn the tide (Blair 2000: 696). 

2.2 Oil and Gas Development and Shipwreck Discovery 

The oil and gas industry by far supports the largest percentage of commercial marine surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The increased interest in developing deepwater prospects has also led to significant advances in marine survey 

technology and equipment such as sophisticated deep-tow survey systems, improved Remote Operated Vehicle 

(ROV) technology, Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV), and precision acoustic positioning systems. The 

development and use of these systems has made easier the identification of potentially significant shipwrecks, 

biological life forms, and geological formations. The increased deepwater oil and gas exploration in the Gulf’s 

deepwater areas has also increased shipwreck discoveries. The shipwrecks investigated for this study were found on 

oil and gas related surveys and further significant discoveries can be expected as the search for natural resources 

moves into increasingly deeper waters. 

2.3 Regulatory Role of the Minerals Management Service 

Increases in deepwater oil and gas exploration, development, and production coexist with the development of new 

technologies that reduce operational costs and risks and the discovery of high volume oil and gas reserves. 

Examples of extraordinary solid platforms include the Cognac and Bullwinkle platforms in 311 meters (1,023 feet) 

and 412 meters (1,353 feet) of water, respectively. The use of subsea completions is rapidly increasing. The 

number of subsea completions have risen from 4 per year in 1990 to 23 in 2001 with more than half of these 

occurring in deepwater (>300 meters) (USDI MMS 2004). 

Expanding deepwater commercial development brings increasing challenges for managing Submerged Cultural 

Resources on the Outer Continental Shelf and Slope. The MMS requires a clearer understanding of the size of 

debris fields that can be expected around deepwater wrecks, as well as their state of preservation and research 

potential to fulfill obligations stipulated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 

800). This information is critical for determining disturbance avoidance areas. Part 36 CFR 800.4(c) states that “the 

Agency Official shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that may be affected by 

(an) undertaking and gather sufficient information to evaluate the eligibility of these properties for the National 

Register.” Sufficient documentation must be provided to the MMS on each site to carry out an adequate evaluation 

of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria (USDI MMS 2004). 

The MMS played an instrumental role in the development of the Rigs-to Reefs program in the Gulf of Mexico. The 

Agency’s efforts led to the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 and publication of the National Artificial 

Reef Plan in 1985. Converting offshore oil and gas structures is well accepted as beneficial to fisheries on the 

continental shelf of the entire Gulf of Mexico. Forty-nine (49) structures have been converted to artificial reefs from 

a total of 383 structure removals between 1999 and June 2002. In the near future, decisions will be required for the 

removal of structures located in waters beyond the continental shelf. Current guidelines outlined in 30 CFR Part 

250.1728 allow the MMS Regional Supervisor to approve alternate plans for removal of structures when the water 

depth is greater than 800 meters (2,624 feet). Removal options for shallower depths have previously relied on the 

concept that the structure left behind serves a positive fisheries enhancement or other beneficial environmental 

function. The MMS now needs information that will help describe the ecological role (if any) man-made structures 

may have in the deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico (in this case, greater than 91.4 meters (300 feet) (USDI MMS 

2004). 
9 

3.0 METHODS 

3.1 Survey Methodology 

Each site was systematically investigated using an acoustically positioned Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) 

following a pre-established survey grid (See Section 3.3 Archaeological Methodology). The ROV survey was 

designed to maximize the efforts and time for both the archaeological and biological studies. It carried the necessary 

equipment (See Section 3.2) to obtain high quality imagery, accurately measure artifacts and biological organisms, 

document seafloor conditions or features, and analyze water column attributes (e.g. depth, temperature, pH, salinity, 

etc.). Detailed visual inspections provided needed data to document each wreck’s cultural and biological 

characteristics. Although different specific elements were of interest to the biologists and the archaeologists, the 

video footage collected was used for both the biological and archaeological studies undertaken. 

A monitoring station was available for all key personnel during each of the comprehensive shipwreck inspections to 

insure video data was adequate to meet study objectives. A minimum of one archaeologist and one biologist were 

available at all times to monitor and document the investigations ensuring important features were not missed. 

Direct communication was available between each scientist and the ROV operators during operations. Video 

footage was recorded continuously during ROV operations at each site and digital still photographs or screen 

captures were taken of pertinent archaeological and biological features. 

3.1.1 Support Vessel and Remote Operated Vehicle 

ROV operations were conducted from Sonsub’s vessel M/V HOS Dominator. Dominator is 72.54 meters in length, 

16.46 meters at the beam, and displaces 1,815 gross tons. The vessel is powered by a 4,520 horsepower caterpillar 

engine with two 800 horsepower bow thrusters and one 800 horsepower stern thruster. There is 752 m2

 of deck 

space and a 30-ton stern mounted A-frame. The vessel was fitted with three science labs and additional crew 

quarters to accommodate the project’s science personnel. 

Triton’s XL 2500-meter ROV was utilized for this project. The Triton XL is a 100-horsepower system measuring 

3.13 meters long by 1.50 meters wide and 1.84 meters high. It utilizes a bottom enter (top hat) tether management 

system. It was equipped with multiple cameras forward and aft, a five-function and a seven-function manipulator, 

and sector scanning sonar. The ROV was also equipped with a variety of other specialized equipment and sensors 

(See Section 3.2.3 Sampling Equipment). 

3.1.2 Marine Survey 

Survey control was maintained using the C-Nav globally corrected differential GPS. C-Nav’s GPS receiver 

combines a dual-frequency geodetic grade GPS receiver with an integrated L-BAND communication RF detector 

and decoder integrated into a microprocessor. Using a series of reference stations around the globe C-Nav provides 

accuracies on the order of 0.1 meters. The technique, developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab for the National 

Aeronautics Space Administration, uses a global network of reference stations to track the entire constellation of 

GPS satellites. The GPS observations are transmitted via the internet to a network control center where the satellite 

orbital corrections and clock-offset values are calculated and modeled in real-time. These corrections are 

universally valid and can be applied to GPS measurements from any location on earth (C & C Technologies, Inc. 

2005). 

Survey personnel tracked the ROV using a Sonardyne, Inc. model 7784 Ultra-Short BaseLine (USBL) acoustic 

tracking system mounted on a through-hull ram. The system measures a beacon’s range and direction relative to the 

transceiver’s known location and orientation. The USBL transducer head contains three or more elements that can 

both transmit an interrogation and receive the acoustic reply. The elements are positioned in a phased array 

describing an equilateral triangle in which the separations between each element are known (C & C Technologies, 

Inc. 2005). 

The support vessel’s position was established using C-Nav. The ROV’s position was acoustically triangulated from 

the vessel position using the USBL system. Navigation control was processed on a PC using WinFrog integrated 

navigation software. The ROV’s positioning accuracy was calculated at each site using a static accuracy test (only 
10 

one test was conducted at the U-166 and Robert E. Lee sites because of their proximity and similar water depth). 

The overall accuracy of the signal was calculated as a percentage of water depth at each shipwreck site and is 

included in the discussion. 

At the Virginia site an accuracy test (scatter plot) was conducted in 87.5 meters of water depth. While the ROV 

hovered stationary, 80 USBL positions were recorded with an average standard deviation of 0.28 meters. The 

maximum deviation of all recorded positions from the mean position was 1.08 meters. Thus, the survey accuracy at 

the Virginia site is calculated to be between 0.32 percent (.0032) to 1.24 percent (.0124) of water depth (Figure 3.1). 

At the Halo site an accuracy test (scatter plot) was conducted in 146.3 meters of water depth. While the ROV 

hovered stationary, 283 USBL positions were recorded with an average standard deviation of 0.26 meters. 

Maximum deviation of all recorded positions from the mean position was 1.17 meters. Thus, the survey accuracy at 

the Halo site is calculated to be between 0.18 percent (.0018) and 0.80 percent (.0080) of water depth (Figure 3.2). 

Figure 3.1. Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the Virginia site. 
11 

Figure 3.2. Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the Halo site. 

At the Gulfpenn site an accuracy test (scatter plot) was conducted in 550 meters of water depth. While the ROV 

hovered stationary, 265 USBL positions were recorded with an average standard deviation of 0.35 meters. 

Maximum deviation of all recorded positions from the mean position was 1.97 meters. Thus, the survey accuracy at 

the Gulfpenn site is calculated to be between 0.06 percent (.0006) and 0.36 percent (.036) of water depth (Figure 

3.3). 
12 

Figure 3.3. Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the Gulfpenn site. 

At the U-166 and Robert E. Lee sites an accuracy test (scatter plot) was conducted in 1,457.3 meters of water depth. 

While the ROV hovered stationary, 64 USBL positions were recorded with an average standard deviation of 0.56 

meters. Maximum deviation of all recorded positions from the mean position was 2.48 meters. Thus, the survey 

accuracy at the U-166 and Robert E. Lee sites is calculated to be between 0.04 percent (.0004) and 0.17 percent 

(.0017) of water depth (Figure 3.4). 

At the Alcoa Puritan site an accuracy test (scatter plot) was conducted in 1,963.4 meters of water depth. While the 

ROV hovered stationary, 527 USBL positions were recorded with an average standard deviation of 1.03 meters. 

Maximum deviation of all recorded positions from the mean position was 4.73 meters. Thus the survey accuracy at 

the Alcoa Puritan site is calculated to be between 0.05 percent (.0005) and 0.24 percent (.0024) of water depth 

(Figure 3.5). 
13 

Figure 3.4. Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the U-166 and Robert E. 

Lee sites. 

Figure 3.5. Scatter plot of USBL position accuracy at the Alcoa Puritan site. 
14 

 3.1.3 Sampling Equipment 

A Seabird Seacat CTD profiler with dissolved oxygen sensor was used to measure temperature, salinity, density, and 

dissolved oxygen (CTD and DO2 profiles and data are provided in Appendix A). The CTD profiler was mounted to 

the ROV to provide continual real time data logging and sensor communication at each site. 

The ROV was equipped with multiple cameras for navigation, tether management, and biological collection 

monitoring. The three main cameras used for scientific data collection included the West Tech SD3000 Digital Still 

Camera, Kongsberg Simrad OE14-121 3CCD color camera, and two Remote Ocean Systems (ROS) Color Cameras. 

Both the SD3000 digital still camera and OE14-121 3CCD camera malfunctioned during the expedition and could 

not be repaired. As a result, the majority of the video data was collected with the ROS Color Cameras. 

Sediment core samples were collected at each site. Sediment core samples were taken with the ROV using a push 

core sampler (Figure 3.6). The push core samplers were lowered to and recovered from the seafloor using a drop 

basket sent down on a cable from HOS Dominator. The ROV retrieved each core labeled barrel from a holster on 

the basket (3.6 a & b), took the core at the designated location (3.6 c & d), and then return the core to its 

corresponding holster. 

A variety of methods were employed for biological sampling. A total of four vertebrate and five invertebrate traps 

were deployed at each site. The traps were lowered to the seafloor in the same basket as the push cores and then set 

by the ROV at designated locations (Figure 3.7). A suction sampler, attached to the ROV, was used to collect small 

vertebrates and invertebrates. The sampler intake nozzle was held by the ROV’s five-function manipulator. The 

samples were deposited into a clear collection box fixed to the aft portion of the ROV. Operators monitored the 

contents using a camera mounted above the box. Some samples, such as coral and rusticles were collected with the 

seven-function manipulator or by using collection containers carried in the manipulator claws. The Sonsub crew 

constructed many of the collection devices in the field. One specifically built for collecting rusticles is shown in 

Figure 3.8. 

 a) b) 

 c) d) 

Figure 3.6. Sediment push core taken using the Triton XL ROV. 
15 

Figure 3.7. The vertebrate and invertebrate traps in the basket about to be lowered off the stern of HOS 

Dominator. 

Figure 3.8. Multi-chambered rusticle collection container. 

3.2 Archaeological Methods 

3.2.1 Field Methods 

Standardized investigation methods were used at each study site. The archaeologist’s priorities varied depending on 

whether previous inspections had positively identified the shipwreck. At unidentified shipwreck sites (e.g. Virginia, 

Halo, and Gulfpenn sites) the first priority was vessel identification, mapping the site boundaries/extent, and 

producing an accurate site plan. At previously identified shipwreck sites the priority was mapping the site 

boundaries/extent and producing an accurate site plan. Site maps were produced using real-world coordinates to 

allow importation into a GIS database. 

The investigation methodology used all available information and survey data for each site to plan field operations. 

The survey data included side scan sonar, magnetometer, subbottom profiler, bathymetric data, and video footage. 
16 

Previously acquired survey data was key to determining the “expected” boundaries of each site and developing an 

efficient survey plan. 

The ROV surveys began with a comprehensive visual inspection of the wreck’s main structure, documenting 

pertinent vessel features for later analysis. The ROV then conducted a systematic survey of the seafloor around the 

main wreckage. The area survey extended at least 30 meters beyond the observed debris field, but was not less than 

33,500 m2

 centered near the main wreck structure per the MMS project specifications, except at the Virginia and 

Alcoa Puritan sites (See Section 3.3.2 Exceptions to the Survey Plan). Fifteen meter line spacing was maintained to 

the greatest extent possible during the area survey. The ROV was acoustically tracked using an Ultra Short Base 

Line System (USBL) to minimize coverage gaps. The operators flew the ROV along pre-established track lines at 

an altitude of 1 to 3 meters depending on visibility. Video imagery was collected continuously along each survey 

line and sector-scanning sonar was monitored to insure any outlying debris was investigated. Investigation lines 

were extended to document additional materials observed outside the planned survey area. When key artifacts were 

encountered the ROV hovered over the object as operators took close-up video images and a position fix. The ROV 

then resumed the grid survey repeating this process for each new target. 

Following the systematic area survey, video mosaic lines were run over the wreck’s main structure and key site 

features. In some cases a complete plan view mosaic was impossible because of entanglement hazards. In this 

event, plan view mosaics of key wreck site features and vessel profile mosaics were attempted. 

3.2.2 Exceptions to the Survey Plan 

Extremely poor visibility at the Virginia site made an area survey and a main structure mosaic impractical. Poor 

visibility and entanglement hazards also prevented mosaicing all of Halo’s remains. In August 2004, Tropical 

Storm Bonnie, followed by Hurricane Charlie, entered the Gulf of Mexico. The storm tracks cut short operations at 

the Alcoa Puritan site and canceled planned operations at the Anona site. 

3.3 Biological Methods 

3.3.1 Field Methods 

Microbiological Field Methods 

Two Mark IB steel test platforms were deployed on U-166 in 2003. These platforms included a mixture of metal 

and wood coupons. Metal coupons included three low carbon steel, high carbon steel, and aluminum coupons, along 

with mahogany and oak coupons. For the metal coupons, one was the control while a second was twisted 

longitudinally through 180 degrees and the third was subjected to hammering at 3,000 psi. One platform was placed 

within the bow’s severely damaged section forward of the explosion point. The second platform was placed on the 

deck members in front of the conning tower of the submarine’s stern section. Due to stability problems with the 

Mark IA platforms, which were set vertically on sites during various other projects, the Mark IB platforms were laid 

laterally so the coupons formed a shallow staircase. Both platforms were examined in-situ for bio-deterioration. 

Mark II steel test platforms were deployed on four ships in 2004. These platforms were an improved version of the 

Mark I platforms, which suffered several key design failures related to stability, cross growth of rusticles between 

coupons as well as between the ABS supporting panels, and losses to rusticle growth assessment due to spent 

rusticles breaking off and gathering under the platform. Mark II steel coupons were hung vertically within separate 

enclosures to prevent connective (bridging) growth and allow all spent rusticles to drop into a confining chamber. 

To study the importance of the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) on rusticle growth the coupons were placed with 

one major surface directly exposed to the marine environment (oxidative). A vertical ABS tube confined the 

coupon’s other large vertical surface, rendering it more reductive. To improve stability the platform was weighted 

with pea gravel inside an ABS pipe beneath the platform. 

Ships lost at sea have the potential to develop significant electro-magnetic forces (EMF) where electrically 

dissimilar metals are in close proximity. The EMF could be particularly significant in the ship’s electrical 

generating and battery rooms. Given that EMF are likely present within a shipwreck, they are a potentially 

important factor driving the ship’s deterioration from two primary points of view: (1) strong EMF is likely to affect 
17 

the location of rusticle activity with a tendency for these organisms to cluster at anodic sites; and (2) the rate of 

metal loss from the structure is likely to be severely compromised by any electrolysis associated with EMF. To 

examine EMF potential, biological batteries were deployed on several vessels in the study. 

The biological batteries consisted of sixteen 1" x 1" coupons of various 1/4" metal alloys. The coupons were 

arrayed laterally on a plastic supporting frame with each having an intimate contact with the neighboring coupons. 

Arrangement of the metals (Table 3.1) was based on attempting to gain the maximum electrochemical differences 

between neighboring coupons. 

The biological battery platforms were deployed on four wrecks while the ROV work was performed at those sites 

(one to three days). The primary objectives were to determine whether there was any biological focusing of activity 

(observable as slimes or encrusted growths), and whether there were detectable voltages when the platforms were 

recovered. 

A 6" x 6" mild steel coupon coated with "Royal Copper,” a mixture of copper flakes in an epoxy binder, was also 

tested. The coating is used widely on surface vessels to prevent fouling on the hull’s exterior and between the 

double hulls. Many ships are now treated with this hard non-leaching and abrasion-resistant coating. Given the 

extreme nature of the deep-sea environment at Alcoa Puritan, the microbiologists decided to separately deploy a 

Royal Copper coupon at that location at the same time as the bio-battery. Exposure time at the site was two days 

before the coupon was recovered. 

Table 3.1 

Position of Metal Coupons on Bio-Battery Deployed 2004. 

C12L14 

Low Carbon Steel Brass 

Cast Iron 

65-45-12 

Ductile 

iron 

1045 

Carbon Steel 

HR 

Flat Bar 

ZA12 4140 

Alloy steel 

Stainless Steel 

T-316 

Stainless Steel 

T-304 

EN30B 

Ni-Cr-Mo alloy 

Aluminum 

6061 

Aluminum 

Bronze 

954 

01 

Tool 

Steel 

Beaver 

Tool 

Steel 

Copper 

D2 

Tool 

Steel 

Note: the array in the table reflects the relationship of the coupons to each other. 

An initial challenge for biologists is to develop a unique and robust classification system for the types of microbially 

influenced growths (MIG) visible on the various shipwrecks in the cluster. While, over the course of history, 

extensive systems for biota classification have been developed, no such attention has been directed to the MIG that 

range in form from tight encrustations through various commonly layered forms of biofilm to a range of suspended 

particulate structures dominating the biocolloids in the marine environment. A novel classification system for the 

MIG based primarily upon form and function will allow a qualitative and semi-quantitative evaluation for each 

vessel that is part of this investigation. A common feature of all of the MIG accounted for is that the growth is 

either directly attached to some viewable part of the ships’ structure, or located in a fixed position in close proximity 

to the ships’ hull or superstructures. Based upon this limitation a MIG classification is proposed that will utilize the 

characteristics listed in Table 3.2. 

From examination of video imagery from the project wreck sites, it is apparent that the six ships included in the 

2004 study exhibited different forms of microbiological infestation when classified in the manner presented in Table 

3.2. Each ship will be assessed by the qualitative and semi-quantitative level of the various microbial groups 
18 

observed associated with the shipwreck with emphasis on determining the similarities and differences among the 

ships. 

Laboratory Microbiological Methods 

Evaluation of the bio-batteries was performed immediately upon recovery. Each coupon’s metal surfaces were 

tested using a Model DM-301 multimeter. Any coupon combination showing a charge was recorded. This 

methodology allowed scientists to measure the electrical potentials being created at the millivolt (mV) level between 

the coupons. During bio-battery recovery, composite rusticle samples from different areas of the ship were collected 

for ICP (Inductively Coupled Plasma) analysis using an AES (atomic emissions spectrometer). ICP-AES analysis 

was conducted under the standard methods ISO 17025 as a part of the Canadian Association for Environmental 

Analytical Laboratories (CAEAL). 

Table 3.2 

Proposed Classification of Deep Sea Attached and Associated Microbiological Growths on Steel Shipwrecks 

Type Characteristics Common Name 

C1 Iron rich encrustation that coats a surface but can also 

hang down from a supporting iron structure 

Brown rusticle 

C2 Aluminum, calcium or silicate rich encrustation that coats 

a surface but can also hang down from a supporting iron 

structure 

White rusticle 

C3 Amorphic concretion that tends to attach to a surface with 

diffuse or dendritic (finger-like) extensions into the water 

Dendritic and amorphous 

slimes 

C4 Columnar concretious structures commonly resembling 

tubes often with extensive branching and resembling tree 

branches in form 

Microbial Concretions 

B1 Biofilms forming a thin generally tightly attached growth 

that can include fungal mats that generally do not become 

thick nor develop as encrusted growth 

Slimes 

B2 Stable biocolloidal structures that have a clear form and 

appear to be attached to nearby solid objects including 

various forms of life. Generally these structures last a 

matter of hours before spontaneously dispersing. 

Blobs 

B3 Stable biocolloidal structures that have some control of 

buoyancy and appear to float within the water at a 

relatively constant height above the sea floor. 

Slime clouds 

B4 Dense particles that contain microbes as an intrinsic part 

of the structure and adopt a distinctive form as a sphere, 

thread, irregularly shaped object, or a long often spirally 

shaped structure. 

Sea snow 

Invertebrate Zoology Methodology 

Scientific observers interpreted video and recorded notes during each ROV dive. The videos were reexamined later 

in more detail for substrate type, slope, depth, biological data, and identification and biota counts. To standardize 

methodology and allow count comparisons between research groups, the videos analyzed for macroinvertebrates 

were the same as those analyzed for vertebrate zoology; attributes of the transects, including number, location, 

lengths, and widths are in Table 3.3. Voucher specimens collected with the ROV or in traps were identified prior to 

quantification for many organisms recorded on the videos. Substrate type was determined by estimation of particle 

size, following the Wentworth scale when applicable, at each 30-second interval or per linear distance of transect. 

These categories may include soft substrate including sand, silt, possibly clay and granules, (<4 millimeter particle 

size), pebble (4-64 millimeters), cobble (64-264 millimeters), boulder (>264 millimeters), and wall (near or vertical 

bedrock). All substrate was tentatively identified as silty clay. Slope was estimated by determining the distance of 
19 

the 20-centimeter laser separation on the video screen and the submersible’s distance off the bottom. Slope was 

classified into categories, e.g., flat (0°), 1° -10° slope, 11°-20° slope, 21°-30° slope, 31°-40° slope, 41°-50° slope, 

50°-75° slope, and walls (>75°). Most slopes were flat or low angles. 

Sediment cores were collected at varying distances from the wreck site’s main structure (e.g., near, midway, and 

far). The cores were collected in such a manner as to have minimum disturbance of the surficial sediments, i.e. the 

sediment-water interface, where smaller biota are typically most abundant. The upper 5 centimeters of a subsample 

of each core was examined for meiofauna, metazoans that pass through a 500-μm mesh sieve but are retained on a 

63-μm mesh sieve. Staining with Rose Bengal was used for quantitative extraction and identification of meiofauna. 

Another core subsample extending to 5 centimeters depth was sieved for macroinfauna, those metazoans retained on 

a 500-μm mesh sieve. Comparisons of meiofaunal assemblages were analyzed for distance from wreck sites, 

between sites, and by depths. Sediment cores were also used to verify substrate types estimated from photography 

and the sample’s degree of enduration. 

All macrofaunal species observed from videos were identified to the lowest possible taxon, or placed in broad 

categories when identification was not possible. For some taxa such as large crabs, sex and reproductive state was 

recorded, when distinguishable. In addition, the number, sizes, and distribution patterns of the sessile megafauna 

(e.g., Lophelia pertusa, gorgonians, and antipatherians) on the various wrecks were compared to similar 

assemblages that occurred on natural substrates at comparable depths. Other relevant observations included 

observations of macroinvertebrates coincident with other taxa for consideration of predator-prey or commensal 

relationships. Species richness, diversity, and abundance of macrofauna were calculated for each wreck site and 

comparisons made for distance from the wreck, between sites, and with depth and other hydrographic variables. 

Numerical classification techniques, e.g., multivariate techniques such as clustering and ordination, were utilized for 

analytical comparisons of assemblages within and between sites after all video identifications were made. 

Collection of voucher specimens is crucial to validation of species identification for many taxa. Sessile, sedentary 

or slow moving macroinvertebrates were collected with the ROV’s manipulator, placed in a basket, and brought to 

the surface for examination, photographic documentation, narcotization, and fixation, as appropriate for each taxon. 

Specimens or subsamples were preserved in ethyl alcohol or frozen to facilitate their potential use in genetic and 

other studies. Appropriate measurements for specimens of different taxa were recorded to the nearest millimeter 

with vernier calipers. Identification of some macrofauna required dissection in the laboratory. Final identification 

of some specimens required submission to individual taxonomic experts. 

Although it was not logistically feasible to collect larger macrofauna with traps suitable for deployment with the 

ROV, some smaller macrofauna such as shrimps, isopods, and amphipods, were collected with small baited traps. 

Small, inverted-cone, minnow traps equipped with small mesh (e.g., 0.250 millimeter) were effective for collecting 

both smaller invertebrates and fish at depth. The fish traps were perhaps the most effective method of collecting 

motile macroinvertebrates, especially crustaceans. Voucher specimens collected with baited traps were treated in a 

manner similar to those collected with the manipulator arm. 

Vertebrate Zoology Methodology 

Community structure of fishes associated with shipwrecks was examined to determine if significant differences in 

the fish community existed among the wrecks, and to test if significant differences existed over ships versus nearby 

natural bottom habitats. Community structure was estimated primarily with video from ROV transects. Using 

ROV-collected video to estimate fish community structure at deep wreck sites suffers from similar limitations to 

video collected with divers or ROV’s in shallower environments. Some fishes may avoid the ROV because of the 

noise it generates, or its lights may cause fishes to move away from a sampling transect when the ROV approaches. 

Other fishes may be attracted to the noise and lights. Small cryptic species may be overlooked because of scale of 

sampling and the ROV’s altitude as transects are flown. Turbidity may also affect video sampling of small siteattached fishes, as well as large gregarious ones. In high turbidity environments, thus low visibility, fishes 

maintaining a moderate distance from the ROV might not be seen. A secondary effect of high turbidity is the ROV 

pilot may fly transects at higher altitude to avoid contact with the wreck, which is mainly detected with sonar and 

not video when visibility is poor. Despite video sampling limitations, others have successfully utilized video to 

examine community structure of deep-sea ichthyofauna (e.g., Felley and Vecchione 1995; Krieger and Wing 2002). 

In the current study, trap and suction sampler voucher specimens aided species identification seen on the video. 
20 

Sampling the fish community during primary visits to all wreck sites followed a standard methodology. (Note: Fish 

sampling during second and third visits to sites was conducted principally to collect additional tissue and otolith 

samples and did not precisely follow methods described below). Once the archaeological survey of a given wreck 

was completed, two standard Marine Resources Monitoring Assessment and Prediction Program (MARMAP) 

chevron fish traps (dimensions = 150 centimeter width x 180 centimeter length x 60 centimeter height; opening = 

44.5 centimeter x 10 centimeter; mesh = 5 centimeter plastic coated wire) and two small baitfish traps (dimensions = 

75 centimeter width x 75 centimeter length x 50 centimeter height; opening = 10 centimeters x 10 centimeters; mesh 

= 2.5 centimeter plastic coated wire) were baited with menhaden and squid, and fished for between 5 and 15 hours 

(Table 3.3). One small and one large trap were set immediately adjacent to the wreck and the second pair of traps 

was set approximately 300 meters away from the wreck. While traps were soaking, ROV transects (n = 3) were 

flown over the ship’s long axis. Video was also recorded over transects immediately adjacent to the wreck (n = 3) 

and approximately 300 meters away from it (n = 3) to estimate the biological communities at varying distances 

(over, adjacent, and distant) from the ship’s main structure (Table 3.4). During biological transects, attempts were 

made to sample encountered fishes with the ROV’s suction sampler. The size of the suction sampler opening 

limited sampling to fishes less than 12.5 centimeters deep or wide. 

Table 3.3 

Properties of Chevron (large) and Baitfish (small) Fish Trap Deployments Adjacent (ship) to and 300 Meters from 

(distant) Shipwreck Sites. 

Wreck Site Date Trap Type Location Time Start Time End Total Time Fished 

(hh:mm) 

Virginia 31 July – 1 Aug Large Ship 11:38 0:01 12:23 

 Large Distant 8:11 21:17 13:06

 Small Ship 13:13 0:43 11:30

 Small Distant 8:48 21:01 12:13 

Halo 2 Aug – 3 Aug Large Ship 18:35 4:55 10:20 

 Large Distant 17:00 6:07 13:07 

 Small Ship 19:04 4:42 9:38

 Small Distant 17:08 6:00 12:52 

Halo (2) 14 Aug Large Ship-bow 0:17 8:32 8:15

 Large Ship-stern 0:09 8:13 8:04 

Gulfpenn 4 Aug Large Ship 8:00 23:45 15:45 

 Large Distant 7:18 22:16 14:58 

 Small Ship 8:15 23:43 15:28

 Small Distant 7:14 21:55 14:41

Gulfpenn (2) 11 Aug – 12 Aug Large Ship 19:25 6:00 10:35 

Robert E Lee 8-Aug Large Ship 13:36 2:00 12:24 

 Large Distant 12:05 3:28 15:23 

 Small Ship 13:23 1:57 12:34

 Small Distant 12:11 3:28 15:17

U-166 6 Aug – 7 Aug Large Ship 18:15 23:12 4:57 

 Large Distant 17:22 0:24 7:02 

 Small Ship 18:34 23:17 4:43

 Small Distant 17:18 0:37 7:19 

Alcoa Puritan 9 Aug Large Ship 2:49 13:52 11:03 

 Large Distant 1:19 14:42 13:23 

 9 Aug Small Ship 2:51 14:05 11:14 

 Small Distant 1:25 15:01 13:36 

(X) Designates the number of visit. 
21 

Table 3.4 

Properties of Transects Flown by the ROV to Document the Fish Community Over, Adjacent to, and 300 Meters 

from Shipwrecks. 

Site Transect 

Line 

Relation 

to Ship Date Time Start 

Time 

End 

Total 

Time 

Distance 

m 

Average 

Width m 

Total 

Area m2

Virginia 321 Over 31 Jul 3:59:47 4:26:03 0:26:16 162.80 2.19 357.20 

 322 Over 31 Jul 3:34:23 3:58:55 0:24:32 163.10 2.19 357.90 

 323 Over 31 Jul 3:02:56 3:30:40 0:27:44 171.00 1.71 291.90 

 300 Distant 31 Jul 5:31:47 5:42:28 0:10:41 151.50 1.07 161.60 

 301 Distant 31 Jul 5:22:25 5:32:58 0:10:33 151.80 1.28 194.30 

 302 Distant 31 Jul 5:08:43 5:22:00 0:13:17 152.70 1.16 176.90 

Halo 119 Over 1 Aug 22:35:01 22:42:38 0:07:37 15.20 1.73 26.30 

 120 Over 1 Aug 16:11:09 16:17:54 0:06:45 59.40 2.23 132.80 

 121 Over 1 Aug 18:34:53 18:49:14 0:14:21 53.00 2.88 152.60 

 122 Adjacent 2 Aug 4:41:53 4:51:28 0:09:35 137.50 1.52 209.00 

 123 Adjacent 2 Aug 5:04:01 5:08:59 0:04:58 138.40 1.39 192.40 

 124 Adjacent 2 Aug 5:22:47 5:27:55 0:05:08 135.90 1.24 168.50 

 138 Distant 2 Aug 10:57:08 11:32:14 0:35:06 178.90 1.02 182.10 

 139 Distant 2 Aug 11:35:50 12:15:32 0:39:42 147.50 0.94 138.50 

 140 Distant 2 Aug 12:19:30 13:04:24 0:44:54 139.00 1.02 141.50 

Gulfpenn 225 Over 4 Aug 6:39:18 6:41:37 0:02:19 28.70 2.54 72.70 

 226 Over 4 Aug 4:22:18 4:49:47 0:27:29 136.90 3.66 500.60 

 227 Over 4 Aug 5:51:29 6:00:24 0:08:55 65.20 6.43 419.70 

 222 Adjacent 4 Aug 9:29:13 9:38:13 0:09:00 142.30 4.04 574.90 

 223 Adjacent 4 Aug 8:02:39 8:13:48 0:11:09 142.00 3.05 433.10 

 224 Adjacent 4 Aug 7:47:13 7:53:49 0:06:36 145.10 4.11 596.40 

 200 Distant 4 Aug 22:45:32 23:07:38 0:22:06 160.60 2.47 397.10 

 201 Distant 4 Aug 23:09:57 23:29:56 0:19:59 161.50 2.15 348.10 

 202 Distant 4 Aug 23:31:24 23:51:34 0:20:10 163.10 2.00 326.50 

R.E. Lee 420 Over 7 Aug 7:11:43 7:25:26 0:13:43 114.50 8.89 998.80 

 415 Adjacent 7 Aug 12:55:19 13:07:56 0:12:37 121.30 4.31 522.80 

 416 Adjacent 7 Aug 12:05:32 12:21:06 0:15:34 122.20 5.99 732.00 

 417 Adjacent 7 Aug 11:40:20 11:49:55 0:09:35 118.90 6.67 793.10 

 438 Distant 8 Aug 0:49:28 1:07:43 0:18:15 207.90 5.42 1,127.50

 439 Distant 8 Aug 1:10:35 1:38:55 0:28:20 229.20 7.14 1,636.90

 440 Distant 8 Aug 1:43:54 2:01:17 0:17:23 226.80 4.91 1,112.80

U-166 1 Over 6 Aug 7:24:33 7:40:00 0:15:27 55.50 4.11 228.30 

 2 Over 6 Aug 7:40:00 8:11:58 0:31:58 51.80 4.18 216.50 

 3 Over 6 Aug 8:20:39 8:29:12 0:08:33 3.00 6.22 19.00 

 446 Distant 6 Aug 13:29:09 13:35:12 0:06:03 57.90 2.52 146.20 

 447 Distant 6 Aug 13:37:15 13:44:20 0:07:05 61.00 2.88 175.60 

 448 Distant 6 Aug 14:38:45 14:42:56 0:04:11 57.60 2.38 137.00 

Alcoa P. 519 Over 9 Aug 15:35:19 15:44:16 0:08:57 10.40 11.43 118.50 

 520 Over 9 Aug 12:53:01 13:00:01 0:07:00 114.00 8.63 984.30 
22 

Site Transect 

Line 

Relation 

to Ship Date Time Start 

Time 

End 

Total 

Time 

Distance 

m 

Average 

Width m 

Total 

Area m2

 521 Over 9 Aug 14:26:47 14:27:43 0:00:56 6.10 1.34 8.20 

 516 Adjacent 9 Aug 20:03:01 20:14:23 0:11:22 132.90 5.05 671.10 

 517 Adjacent 9 Aug 19:25:33 19:39:18 0:13:45 131.40 3.16 415.20 

 518 Adjacent 9 Aug 18:18:21 18:29:22 0:11:01 131.40 4.32 567.60 

 500 Distant 9 Aug 22:18:09 22:57:08 0:38:59 167.90 5.94 998.20 

 501 Distant 9 Aug 23:01:11 23:28:05 0:26:54 150.00 6.85 1,028.00

 502 Distant 9 Aug 23:33:57 23:53:24 0:19:27 142.30 6.18 879.40 

Fish traps were collected from the seafloor and brought to the surface upon completion of biological transects. 

Fishes were removed from traps and placed on ice until biological samples were extracted. Similarly, fishes 

collected with the ROV suction sampler were removed from the sampler basket and placed on ice. Individuals from 

both collection systems were identified to species and measured to standard and total length. Following species 

identification, three types of biological samples were extracted from each individual. Otolith samples for age 

estimation were removed from the braincase with steel chisels and forceps, and then stored in centrifuge tubes or 

small plastic Ziploc bags (Figure 3.9). Stomachs were extracted and preserved with 10% buffered formalin in 

plastic bottles for gut content analysis. Last, up to 100 grams of muscle tissue was dissected from each fish’s lateral 

white musculature for stable isotope analysis. Samples were placed in plastic Ziploc bags and frozen after skin was 

removed. Samples larger than 5 grams were subsampled such that approximately half the sampled tissue was frozen 

and the other half preserved with ethanol in plastic bottles as a backup. 

Fish Community Structure 

Scientific personnel analyzed the video in the Fisheries Laboratory at the University of West Florida with a 

computer system dedicated to estimating fish community structure from video. Fishes were identified to the lowest 

taxonomic level possible and enumerated using the Min/Max Method developed by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service for analysis of Southeast Assessment and Monitoring Program Reef Fish Survey video (USDC, NMFS 

1989). Fish of a given species were counted two different ways with this method. The most fish seen in any video 

frame is the estimate of the minimum number of individuals present, or the min count. The total number observed 

throughout a transect’s video constitutes the estimate of the maximum number of fish present, or the max count. 

The max count is likely an accurate estimate of inactive, site-attached or benthic fishes occurring along a transect. 

For gregarious species that follow the ROV, the min count is likely to be more accurate than the max count because 

double counting is avoided for fishes moving with the ROV and in and out of the video. Total length was estimated 

for fishes observed whose profile was hit by both ROV-mounted lasers. This was accomplished by dividing the 

length of the fish on the video monitor by the measured distance between lasers on the monitor and then multiplying 

by the known distance between lasers (12.7 centimeters). 
23 

Figure 3.9. Digital images of a) a 270-millimeter slimehead, Hoplostethus occidentalis, collected at the Gulfpenn, 

b) opening the fish’s opercular cavity and exposing the gills, c) scraping the gills free of the braincase, 

c) opening the otic capsule, e) removing the right sagitta, and f) a pair of extracted sagittae. 

Video analysis was performed for biological transects and for all video footage collected at each site (Table 3.5). 

Statistical tests of community structure were performed on transect data, and the additional video was analyzed 

mainly to document other species present at sites but not seen in the biological transect video. For transects, fish 

density was estimated by dividing min or max count estimates by the area covered on a given transect. Density 

derived from max counts was used for most species to provide statistical analysis of community structure, however, 

there were a few species on the shallower sites that obviously followed the camera. Density estimates computed 

5mm 
24 

from min counts were used in statistical analysis for those species. Once density estimates were computed, analysis 

of similarity (ANOSIM) was used to test for differences in fish community structure among wreck sites and transect 

locations (Clarke 1993; Clarke and Gorey 2001). Density data first were square root transformed. A Bray-Curtis 

similarity matrix then was computed among all transects with the Primer software package (Clarke and Gorey 

2001). Last, a two-way nested ANOSIM model was computed with site (wreck) and transect locations nested within 

the site as factors. Results were evaluated at a significance level of 5%. 

Table 3.5 

Total Video Time Analyzed for Fishes Presence 

from ROV Video During Shipwreck Site Visits for Biological and Archeological Sampling.† 

Site-Visit Biological Transect Time 

(hh:mm:ss) 

Additional Video Time 

(hh:mm:ss) 

Virginia 1:53:03 22:19:58 

Halo 2:48:06 36:39:39 

Halo (2) Not applicable 8:39:20 

Gulfpenn 2:07:43 38:55:13 

Gulfpenn (2) Not applicable 10:58:51 

Gulfpenn (3) Not applicable 4:10:13 

Robert E Lee 2:16:19 36:51:55 

U166 1:13:17 15:28:37 

Alcoa Puritan 2:25:21 28:04:50 

†

 Multiple visits to single sites were analyzed separately. 

(X) Designates the number of visit. 

Diet and Stable Isotope Analysis 

Gut contents were identified to lowest taxonomic level possible with the aid of a dissecting microscope. Prey were 

separated by taxa, dried, and weighed. The mean percent of total diet that prey taxa constituted was plotted to 

compare differences among fishes captured at each site. 

Gut content analysis provided direct evidence of fish diet but only yielded information of prey consumed within a 

time span of hours to days. Stable isotope analysis of muscle tissue, on the other hand, integrates a diet signature 

over a time span of weeks to months (Fry and Sherr 1984; and Fry 1988). Another advantage of using a stable 

isotope approach to infer diet and trophic position of deep sea fishes is that fishes coming from depths even as 

shallow as the outer shelf tend to have everted stomachs due to gas bladder expansion, thus gut contents are lost. 

When possible, combining stable isotope analysis with gut content analysis allows one to investigate the source(s) of 

production, trophic level, and specific diet of a given species. 

Sample preparation for stable isotope analysis of muscle tissue occurred at the Center for Environmental Diagnostics 

and Bioremediation at the University of West Florida. All frozen muscle samples (n = 113) were lost because of a 

power failure during Hurricane Ivan in September 2004. Therefore, the backup samples preserved in ethanol (n = 

79 fish and 28 invertebrates) were processed and analyzed. Fish samples were removed from the ethanol and 

associated bone removed. Likewise, shell was removed from all but the smallest invertebrate samples. All samples 

were rinsed with distilled water for 30 seconds and placed in glass vials to soak in distilled water for 24-48 hours. 

Samples were removed from vials, rinsed again with distilled water, and placed in pre-weighed aluminum drying 

cups. Cups were weighed and placed in a drying oven where samples were dried at 60° C for 48 hours or until dry. 

Dried samples were weighed and stored in glass vials. Stable isotopes of C, N, and S were analyzed by IsoAnalytical, a contract analytical chemistry laboratory in Cheshire, England, with a Europa Scientific GSL/Geo 20-20 

isotope ratio mass spectrometer. Analytes included δ13CV-PBD (δ13C), δ15NAir (δ15N), and δ34SV-CDT (δ34S). 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standard reference materials (SRMs) were run periodically to assess 

machine performance (Table 3.6). Analytical precision was estimated from duplicate analysis of 20 randomly 
25 

selected samples. Mean difference (± SD) between replicate sample runs was 0.05 ‰ (± 0.18) for δ13C, 0.03 ‰ (± 

0.11) for δ15N, and -0.03 ‰ (± 0.32) for δ34S. 

Table 3.6 

Analysis of International Atomic Energy Agency Standard Reference Materials for δ13C, δ15N, and δ34S. 

Analyte IAEA SRM Accepted Value Replicates Mean Analysis Value (± SD) 

δ 13CV-PBD IAEA-CH-6, Cane Sugar -10.43 ‰ 8 -10.39 ‰ (± 0.10) 

δ 13CV-PBD IA-R005, IA-Beet Sugar -26.03 ‰ 8 -26.02 ‰ (± 0.04) 

δ15NAir IAEA-N1, Ammonium Sulfate 0.40 ‰ 6 0.21‰ (± 0.10) 

δ15NAir IAEA-R007, Ammonium Sulfate 7.39 ‰ 6 7.09‰ (± 0.05) 

δ 34SV-CDT IA-R027, Whale Baleen 16.30 ‰ 12 16.45 ‰ (± 0.34) 

 

Stable isotope analysis results were used to infer source of production and trophic position of fish and invertebrate 

samples. Typical oceanic phytoplankton ranges of -20 to -18 ‰ for δ13C, 5 to 9 ‰ for δ15N, and 18 to 20 for δ34S 

were assumed (Fry 1988; MacAvoy et al. 2002) for the northern Gulf. Trophic fractionation (enrichment) from prey 

to consumer was assumed to average 1 ‰ for δ13C and 3 ‰ for δ15N (Fry et al. 1984; Fry and Sherr 1984; Fry 

1988); fractionation was assumed not occur for δ34S (Connolly et al. 2004). Thus, trophic level was inferred from 

apparent enrichment of δ13C and δ15N values. Values of δ34S were used to estimate if the source of production for 

shelf species was pelagic or benthic, as benthic production imparts a δ34S signature depleted relative to pelagic 

phytoplankton (Connolly et al. 2004). In the deep ocean, both δ13C and δ34S were used to infer the relative 

importance of chemosynthetic versus phytoplankton production as the base of the food web. MacAvoy et al. (2002) 

reported consumers associated with western Gulf seep environments where significant sulfate reduction occurred 

had very depleted δ13C (~ -30 ‰) and δ34S (~ -7 ‰) values, while an area with significant production from 

methanogenic bacteria imparted depleted δ13C (~ -55 ‰) and δ15N values (~ -12 ‰). 

Age Estimation 

Sagittal otoliths were extracted from adult and juvenile fishes collected with traps and the ROV suction sampler. 

Sagittae were prepared for age estimation by first embedding them sulcus side down in epoxy resin. Once the epoxy 

hardened, samples were mounted on microscope slides and sectioned with an Isomet slow-speed diamond-bladed 

saw, with the resultant thin sections being approximately 500 μm thick. Sections were secured to microscope slides 

with Cryastalbond thermal setting epoxy. Final preparation included polishing first with 3200 grit sandpaper and 

then 0.3 μm alumina suspension on a felt polishing cloth. Opaque zones in otoliths were counted by two readers 

under a microscope with reflected and transmitted light (Figure 3.10). 

Figure 3.10. a) Region of transverse section made through the core of a 683-millimeter TL red snapper sagitta and 

b) the resulting thin section. Five opaque zones are apparent in the thin section. 
26 

Juveniles of several Anthiinae bass species were captured over Gulfpenn with the ROV suction sampler (see section 

6.5.3). Otoliths from those individuals were mounted sulcus side up on microscope slides with epoxy. Otoliths 

were sanded to near the core with 3200 grit sandpaper and then polished with 0.3-μm alumina suspension on a felt 

polishing cloth. Daily growth rings were counted by two readers as above. 

Opaque zone formation has been validated in previous studies as forming on an annual basis for adults of several 

species captured during this study. For other species, annual opaque zone formation has only been validated for 

congeners or fishes within the same family. Ageing precision in this study was estimated by computing the average 

percent error (APE) between the two reader counts of opaque zones in both adult (hypothesized annuli) and juvenile 

(hypothesized daily formation) otoliths (Campana et al. 1995). In total, otoliths were prepared for 97 fish; 84 adults, 

and 13 juvenile Anthiinae basses. Average percent error among all samples was 3.61% (Figure 3.11). Typically, 

production-ageing facilities aim to produce APEs of less than 5 percent. The APE we report should be viewed as 

remarkable given the diversity of species (n = 37) sampled. Therefore, we are confident in the high precision of 

opaque zone counts for otoliths prepared in this study. The issue of whether opaque zones accurately reflect age 

(verification or validation) is discussed for individual taxa in wreck-specific vertebrate zoology sections. 

Figure 3.11. Plot of Reader 1 opaque zone counts versus Reader 2 opaque zone 

counts for otolith sections of 84 adult fish from 37 different 

species sampled from among all sites in this study. Symbol-color 

combinations are unique for each species sampled. 

Methodology for Core Samples 

At the designated sites, core samples were obtained for hydrocarbon component analysis. Each sample was tested 

for benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, hydrocarbon C6-36, and the total petroleum hydrocarbon content. An 

accredited/certified laboratory was used for the organic chemistry analysis. Methods followed the recognized 

procedures from sources such as Environment Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and CANMET. 

The use of core samples for this analysis would indicate if any hydrocarbons have impacted the surrounding area. 

This impact could be benign, but the determination of the extent of hydrocarbons leaching from the sunken 

structures is still important for biological interpretation. These hydrocarbons either cause a beneficial or detrimental 

effect on the surrounding biota. Core samples were taken at four specific sites at the sunken structures: directly 

beside the structure, 30 meters, 152 meters, and 305 meters away. Samples taken by the ROV were brought to the 

surface and preserved for analysis. 
27 

SITE REPORTS 

4.0 VIRGINIA SITE 

4.1 Historical Background of the Tanker Virginia

Figure 4.1. SS Virginia, United States Coast Guard photograph taken two months prior to the vessel’s loss 

(Courtesy of Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, Virginia). 

Welding Shipyards, Inc. of Norfolk, Virginia constructed the bulk carrier Virginia (Official Number 40389) in 1941. 

The vessel was 501 feet (152.8 meters) long and 69.8 feet (21.3 meters) at the beam. Virginia, completed in March 

1941, was the first ship delivered by the yard. National Bulk Carriers, Inc., a shipping firm established in 1936 by 

Daniel K. Ludwig, owned the tanker. Ludwig, who eventually became the owner of the world’s largest bulk 

carrying fleets, founded Welding Shipyards, Inc. in 1940 soon after the beginning of World War II. The yard 

consisted of one berth 590 feet (180 meters) long and employed around 800 men. All vessels constructed at the yard 

were welded together and no riveting was employed during ship construction (Sawyer and Mitchell 1974). 

During its short existence, Virginia was primarily utilized for carrying oil and petroleum. On May 12, 1942 the 

tanker transited from Baytown, Texas to Baton Rouge, Louisiana loaded with 180,000 barrels of gasoline. The 

weather was fair with calm seas and a light breeze. Virginia stopped near the sea buoy at the Southwest Pass of the 

Mississippi River waiting for a “bar pilot” to take her into the river (Burch 1942b). 

The bar pilots were rowed to the ship from the pilot boat in a yawl boat, or a dory. The bar pilot then took the ship 

over the sand and mud bar at the river’s mouth and up to Pilot Town. There the bar pilot exchanged with a river 

pilot who took the ship on up river. The same procedure was done in reverse for vessels coming down river and 

heading out to sea (Michell 2004). 

Bar pilots Captain Albro Michell and Captain Paterson, who were working from the pilot boat Jenny Wilson on May 

12, 1942, recalled the events related to Virginia’s loss. When Jenny Wilson was along the leeward side of Virginia, 

“not along side the ship, but right close,” the pilot was lowered down in the dory to cross to the tanker. Just as the 

dory was crossing, two of three torpedoes passed under the pilot boat and struck Virginia. The first torpedo struck 

aft along the port side at the No. 8 tank, breaching the hull and spilling gasoline onto the sea. Within two minutes a 

second and third torpedo struck the ship causing tremendous explosions. Virginia was immediately engulfed in 

flames as the gasoline-filled tanker exploded. The flames spread over the water, surrounded the tanker, and made it 

nearly impossible for many of the crew to escape. Portions of the pilot boat and some of her crew were also covered 

with gasoline, but Jenny Wilson managed to escape the flames. The pilots circled the burning tanker searching for 
28 

survivors. Out of a crew of forty-one only 14 men survived the encounter. Captain Michell learned two days later 

from a newspaper that his brother was among those lost (Michell 2001; Michell 2004; Peterson 2003; and Burch 

1942b). 

The vessel was still ablaze the following day. Witnesses reported the partially submerged superstructure was still 

visible in the flames. U-506, commanded by Kapitänleutnant Erich Würdemann, was waiting 56 kilometers away to 

rendezvous with U-507 and wrote in his logs that he could see the glow of a burning tanker. Würdemann correctly 

guessed the flames were from a ship that the commander of U-507, Kapitänleutnant Harro Schacht had sunk 

(Schacht 1942; and Würdemann 1942). 

In November 1942, Welding Shipyards launched another tanker of the same type and configuration as Virginia. The 

new tanker, hull no. 11, was given the name Virginia, to replace the one that was lost. The two tankers were similar 

in appearance except that the new tanker had guns mounted fore and aft (Figure 4.2). 

Figure 4.2. The second SS Virginia, U.S. Coast Guard photograph taken on June 24, 1944 (Courtesy of Mariner’s 

Museum, Newport News, Virginia). 

4.2 Previous Investigations 

Marine archaeologist Dr. Rob Floyd identified a large shipwreck near the Mississippi River as the Virginia during 

an oil and gas survey in 2001. Gulf Ocean Services, Inc. conducted a survey of the area in the summer of 2003 for 

the Remington Oil and Gas Corporation. Sonar, magnetometer, and bathymetry data collected during the survey 

revealed a partially buried wreck with a debris scatter extending away from the vessel (Figure 4.3). Water depth at 

the wreck site averages 87 meters BSL. No video imagery was previously collected at this site. The archaeological 

assessment report from the 2003 survey indicated the shipwreck was possibly moving along the seafloor as a result 

of a mass movement sediment flow (Marmaduke 2003). A review of the shipwreck’s recorded locations from three 

surveys over seven years (1997, 2003, 2004), however, indicated no obvious wreck movement since 1997. 

Evidence for the movement of the shipwreck is based on the vessel’s reported location in 1950 according to the 

Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS). It is more likely that the 1950’s location is 

incorrect, than that the wreck moved 11.30 kilometers over 50 years. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that 

the wreck site’s current location is at the edge of the Kriegsmarine’s designated grid area reported in U-507’s logs 

for its attack on Virginia. The 1950 position is approximately 2.7 kilometers out side the designated grid area. 

Furgo Chance Inc., however, conducted the most recent survey of the area between December 22, 2005 and 

February 1, 2006 for ChevronTexaco. Hurricane Ivan had crossed near the area in September 2004 causing massive 

mudslides across this portion of the Gulf of Mexico. The post Ivan survey revealed Virginia was approximately 

1,200 feet down slope of the previously recorded location. This evidence suggests the vessel may periodically 

progress down slope during mudslides instigated by larges storms or similar events (Henning 2006). 
29 

Figure 4.3. Side scan sonar image of the Virginia site, 2001 (submitted by Rob Floyd 

courtesy of KC Offshore LLC.). 

Gulf Ocean Services’ 2003 survey of the Virginia site and surrounding area utilized side scan sonar and 

magnetometer systems. The survey data did not indicate extensive debris scattered around the site. Only one sonar 

contact was noted approximately 400 meters east of the shipwreck, and a single magnetic anomaly was recorded 

approximately 650 meters south-southwest of the shipwreck. An unidentified sonar contact and three magnetic 

anomalies were also recorded approximately 1.5 kilometers south of the shipwreck’s location (Marmaduke 2003). It 

was unclear before the ROV investigation whether the southern targets were related to the Virginia wreck site. 

4.3 Geographical Setting 

The site is located in the western portion of the South Pass Area of the northern Gulf of Mexico. It is approximately 

11.4 kilometers south of the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River and is located 108 meters inside the Safety 

Fairway. Near-surface geology and seafloor morphology in the region is strongly influenced by rapid deposition of 

deltaic sediments from the Mississippi River. The survey area is on the flanks of the delta platform approximately 

11 kilometers southeast of the modern delta. High suspended sediment loads and similarly high rates of sediment 

deposition have constructed the modern Belize Delta over the last 1000 years and accumulated 90 to 120 meters of 

Holocene sediments (Coleman et al. 1991). There is a high sedimentation rate in this area of approximately 1 

centimeter per year. The reported sediment type in this region is composed of clayey silt (USDI MMS 1978), which 

is consistent with the sediment recovered from the core samples taken at the site. The seafloor near the shipwreck 

site has a low gradient slope of approximately 0.4 degrees toward the south-southeast. A kilometer north and south 

of the shipwreck the slope gradient increases to as much as 2.6 degrees. 
30 

Figure 4.4. Virginia site overview map. 
31 

Table 4.1 

ROV Navigation Fix Points at Virginia

No. Description Corrected 

Time 

1 Seafan 21:33 

2 Stern Wreck 23:36 

3 Remains Of Net 0:15 

4 Holes in Hull plates 0:23 

5 Coral 0:29 

6 Window Opening Or Possible Hatch 0:32 

7 Coral 0:42 

8 Basket Starfish 0:57 

9 Anemone 1:13 

10 Superstructure-Forward 1:22 

11 Coral 1:32 

12 Possible Rust/Steel Sample 1:57 

13 Nets 2:00 

14 Possible Ventilation Cowl 2:06 

15 Bollard Port Side 2:13 

16 Bow 2:16 

17 Large Trap Deployment 1000' 8:12 

18 Small Trap Deployment 1000' 8:48 

19 Core Sample D 1000' 9:13 

20 250 Location 10:52 

21 Large Trap at Wreck 11:51 

22 Crab Trap 12:53 

23 Small Fish Trap 13:14 

24 Branching Coral 16:57 

25 Quick Fix 21:45 

26 Basket Location 0:08 

27 Core A 13:39 

28 Core B 14:07 

29 Core C 14:33 

30 Core D 15:13 

4.4 Discussion of Archaeological Findings 

4.4.1 Physical Site 

The following wreck site description is based on fieldwork from 2004. The investigation was conducted with the 

Triton X11 ROV from July 30 to August 1, 2004. Site visibility was extremely poor, ranging from two meters over 

the shipwreck, and higher in the water column to less than half a meter near the seafloor. The average visibility 

during the project was approximately one meter. 

The wreck site is oriented with the bow pointing northwest and stern southeast (Figure 4.4). Average water depth at 

the wreck is approximately 87 meters BSL. The site has approximately 14.6 meters of relief above the seafloor. 

Most of the superstructure is badly deteriorated with biofouling making many features difficult to identify. The 
32 

bridge structure is gone, but the bridge telegraph remains in situ (Figure 4.5). The telegraph’s handle is in a slightly 

forward position, likely indicating the engines were in “stand by” mode. The evidence is consistent with historical 

accounts stating Virginia was stationary awaiting a pilot when attacked, and that the engines were not engaged 

during the attack. 

Limited usable video was obtained inboard on the wreck because of safety concerns. Nets, cables, and other debris 

represent entanglement hazards to the ROV. Low visibility restricted the ROV pilots’ ability to see these hazards. 

The entanglement risk prevented the ROV from being flown close enough to collect clear video of most of the 

inboard parts of the vessel. 

STOP STAN

B

D

Y

SLOW

HALF

A

HEA

D

FINISHED

WITH ENGINES

SLOW

HALF

FULL

ASTERN

FULL

Drawn by

Robert Church

Based on the SS Robert E. 

Lee and SS Virginia 

Telegraph Deigns

Figure 4.5. Starboard side of Virginia’s bridge telegraph (left). Drawing indicates the handle’s position (right). 

Virginia’s bow stands approximately 12 meters above the seafloor. There are fishing and/or shrimp nets wrapped 

around a vent on the port side of the forecastle. The bow appears to be reasonably intact except at the prow. There 

is damage at the bow that is not described in any of the historical accounts of the sinking (Figure 4.6). On the port 

bow, just beneath where the port bow hawsehole should be, there is a lateral indentation approximately 1.8 meters in 

length. The port bow hawsehole and a large section of the bulwarks on the port and starboard bow are missing. The 

starboard bow hawsehole is still present, but the starboard bulwarks are absent. It is possible this damage occurred 

after the sinking event. It appears the bow was struck by a heavy object that caught in the port hawsehole ripping it, 

and a large section of the bulwarks off the wreck. If this is a post-sinking event, it is relatively old damage based on 

the extensive befouling on the damaged regions. Since the wreck is inside a major safety fairway for large ships, it 

is possible an anchor or similar object from a large vessel caused this damage. 
33 

Missing 

Section

Dent

A

A

A

B

B

B

(Starboard View)

(Port View)

B

Figure 4.6. Photo mosaic of Virginia’s bow (top panel) with close-up of the damaged area (upper right – top 

panel) and close-up of the starboard bow hawsehole from a starboard view (lower left - top panel). 

The lower panel is an artistic representation of the bow highlighting the missing section. “A” = Point 

of torn jagged metal, and “B” = starboard hawsehole (Illustration by Robert Church). 

The vessel’s stern exhibited approximately 8 meters of relief above the ambient seafloor. The stern section is badly 

damaged. The aft deckhouse is a collapsed tangle of bent and broken metal. There are several nets ensnared over 

this section of the vessel, particularly on the port side, which make it difficult to assess this stern portion of the 

wreck. 

There was almost no scattered debris recorded near the wreck site except materials lying next to the hull that have 

dislodged as a result of post-sinking deterioration or disturbance. An area survey was not attempted because of the 

restricted visibility. The single sonar contact and magnetic anomaly recorded during the 2003 geophysical survey 
34 

were investigated but no debris was found at either location. Given the violent nature of the sinking of Virginia, 

debris should be scattered around the main hull wreckage. It is possible that the high sedimentation rate, paired with 

limited visibility obscured debris. Light wreckage dislodged from the vessel at the time of sinking may be buried 

under 0.3 meters of sediment, or may have been dragged away by trawling activities. It is also possible the vessel 

was torpedoed in a different location than where it finally settled to the bottom or that the wreck has moved down 

slope during periodic storm and mudslide events. 

The unidentified sonar contact and three magnetic anomalies recorded approximately 1.5 kilometers south of the 

shipwreck during the 2003 geophysical survey were investigated during this study. At the location of one of the 

magnetic anomalies, three large seafloor depressions were observed. According to the 2003 data, the magnetic 

anomaly at this location had an amplitude of 3 gammas with a 71.6-meter duration. The depressions have vertical 

sides and measure approximately 6 meters square and 3.5 meters deep. The first two depressions are located 40 

meters apart and the third was located 21 meters from the second. The depressions are located 600 meters outside 

the Safety Fairway. The depressions could have been produced by a jack-up rig leg or something similar, but are 

not likely related to the Virginia. No debris was located at either of the magnetic anomalies or sonar contact 

positions recoded from the 2003 survey. 

4.4.2 Site Preservation 

The wreck site is in a poor state of preservation. The most severely damaged areas are the main superstructure’s 

upper area, the stern deckhouse, and the prow of the vessel. The limited visibility caused some incidental contact 

with the vessel by the ROV. These contacts, although seldom, made apparent the fragile nature of the hull. In 

addition to natural chemical and biological deterioration, the site’s relatively shallow water depth has inadvertently 

subjected the vessel to periodic disturbances from other maritime activities. These activities have adversely 

impacted the site by causing unintentional damage. 

4.5 Discussion of Biological Findings 

4.5.1 Microbiology 

Virginia lies in the South Pass Area at a depth of 87 meters BSL, in waters teeming with dense fish populations and 

turbid eutrophic waters. As a result, the visibility was challenging and it was impossible to survey the intensity of 

the attached microbial growth on this ship. Only general observations were possible given the conditions in which 

only the ship’s telegraph could be quantified to some extent. From the limited images it appears the attached 

microbial growth was dominated by C3, a light brown relatively amorphous growth with dendritic edges and 

appeared to extend out from the hull. The gravimetric composition of a C1 rusticle recovered from Virginia is 

shown in Table 4.2. Here the dominant elements were iron (94%), sodium (3.6%), calcium (1.1%), and magnesium 

(0.3%). 

Table 4.2 

Gravimetric Elemental Composition of a (C1) Rusticle from Virginia 

Iron 94.3910% Molybdenum 0.0169% 

Sodium 3.6516% Vanadium 0.0083% 

Calcium 1.1265% Cadmium 0.0074% 

Magnesium 0.3445% Lead 0.0065% 

Potassium 0.2411% Boron 0.0033% 

Aluminum 0.0810% Barium 0.0016% 

Phosphorus 0.0586% Titanium 0.0016% 

Manganese 0.0344% Zirconium 0.0012% 

Strontium 0.0241% Chromium 0.0005% 
35 

Evaluation of the images of Virginia revealed the entire ship was coated with a 10 to 15 millimeter coating of C3 

dense dendritic concretions routinely overlain with a 5 to 10millimeter layer of B1 biofilm [slime]. This created a 

brown fluffy surface area that was loose, probably with a high organic matter that may explain the extensive shoals 

of fish observed. Brown rusticles (C1) were observed mostly emerging through the C3-B1 growths and hanging 

down over one percent of the observed surface area. These were generally small ranging in length from 10 to 

70millimeters and widths from 5 to 30 millimeters. No white rusticles (C2), concretions (C4), or blobs (B2) were 

observed. Likewise, an insignificant number of sea anemones were detected. 

4.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology 

High turbidity at the Virginia site prevented identification of macroinvertebrate species from video transects and 

hindered collections of specimens near and away from the site. Six video transects, three over the site, and three 

away from the site (300 meter) were conducted, totaling an area of 1539.8 m2

. The area surveyed over the Virginia

was higher (1007 m2

 in comparison to 532.8 m2 away from the site) because the average height of the transects was 

higher. Large numbers of nektonic (swimming) crustaceans could be observed in many of the video transects (that 

were not among those quantified), but whether the organisms were natant decapod crustaceans, mysid shrimp, 

euphausiids, or a mix of crustacean taxa, could not be determined. In one video transect away from the site (VI-10, 

not quantified), an unknown number of unidentified squid were observed. Because of the poor visibility, our 

characterization of the invertebrate fauna at this site should be considered as incomplete. The average depth at the 

Virginia was 87 meters BSL, but collections were made with the ROV from 70 to 85 meters BSL. This shallow site 

had the warmest water temperature (20.5 °C), high salinity (36.4), and relatively high dissolved oxygen (almost 6 

mg l-1). These hydrographic conditions should not be stressful for most invertebrate taxa. 

Table 4.3 

Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates 

Observed on Transects Over and Distant (300 m) from the Virginia Site. 

Transect Number 

Distant Over 

Virginia 300 301 302 321 322 323 

Mollusks 

Unidentified 

mollusk 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Sediment in the meiofauna samples was predominantly (>90 to 95%) silt and clay. A considerable amount (5-10%) 

of the sediment was biogenically reworked into fecal pellets, probably by deposit feeding polychaets. Almost no 

other shell material or substrate was present other than silt or clay, and the same sediment in pellet form. The only 

macrofauna encountered were very small polychaets, juvenile tanaidaceans, and caudofoveatan mollusks, all of 

which are included as meiofauna. Three of the four meiofauna cores averaged almost 1200 nematodes per 10 cm2 

suggesting that core A, closest to Virginia, was in some way compromised (Table 4.4). However, the number of 

harpacticoid copepods found in core A was similar to those found in the other cores. Polychaets, which are often 

approximately equal numerically to harpacticoids, were substantially more abundant and present in all cores than the 

harpacticoids. Two individuals of Scutopus sp., worm-like mollusks covered with calcareous spicules, which belong 

to the class Caudofoveata, an unusual class of Mollusca which are included in the class Aplacophora (commonly 

called solenogasters) by some authors, were found in two separate cores. Our specimens closely resemble those 

illustrated by Treece (1979) from the continental shelf of the south Texas coast. Treece provided excellent scanning 

electron micrographs of four aplacophoran species, but did not provide depths or locations of his collections, and 

also did not describe the species. A few miscellaneous other taxa, including kinorhynchs, gastrotrichs, ostracods, 

and even a recently metamorphosed ophiuroid, were found in the cores in low numbers. 
36 

Table 4.4 

Density of meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2

) from Sediment Cores Collected Adjacent to (Core A) and 

Progressively More Distant (Cores B to D) from Virginia. 

Wreck Virginia 

 Number per 10 cm2

Taxon Core A Core B Core C Core D 

Harpacticoida 3.6 7.3 3.6 12.7 

Nematoda 18.1 1171.3 1057.0 1367.1 

Gastrotricha 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 

Kinorhyncha 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 

Ostracoda 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Polychaeta 27.2 9.1 12.7 38.1 

Polychaeta Cossura sp. 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 

Mollusca - Cyclostremella humulis 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Mollusca - Scutopus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 

Ophiuroida 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 

Table 4.5 

Crustaceans, Mollusks, and Polychaets Collected from The Virginia Site. 

(The collection of specimens listed as ‘found in sediment’ or ‘in basket’ were found within the ROV basket and are 

from unknown specific locations and depths; the depth range over which the ROV collected is listed.) 

Virginia

Specimen ID Number 

Near Wreck 

(< 61 m) 

Number 

far from 

wreck 

(>61 m) 

Unknown 

collection 

location 

Substrate Depth (m)

Crustacea 

Alpheus sp. 2 in sediment 70-85 

Munidae 1 in sediment 70-85 

Xanthidae 1 in basket 70-85 

Unidentified Barnacle 2 in sediment 70-85 

Unidentified Shrimp 2 in sediment 70-85 

Mollusks 

Siratus beauii 3 Silt 84 

Pteria sp. 1 Wreck 70-85 

Cancerellidae 1 Silt 84 

Cephalopoda 1 Silt 83 

Chama sp. 1 Wreck 70-85 

Unidentified Mollusk 1 in sediment 70-85 

Polychaeta 

Amphinomidae 1 Wreck 71 
37 

Identification and quantification of specimens at the Virginia site is restricted to those collected by the ROV (Table 

4.5); many of these specimens were inadvertently collected and are from unknown locations, hence are listed as 

being ‘in basket’ or ‘in sediment’ within the basket of the ROV; poor visibility in the videos prevented the 

determination of exact locations or depths of collections. Many of the specimens are incomplete or damaged and 

identification to species could not be determined for most. Sixteen specimens belonging to 11 taxa were found near 

Virginia; five crustacean taxa, one polychaet (an amphinomid polychaet, or fireworm), and six mollusk (gastropods 

and bivalves) taxa were collected. Siratus beauii (Fischer and Bernardi, 1857) or Beau’s murex (Fig. 4.7) is a 

common offshore gastropod in the Gulf of Mexico, reported from 201 to 366 meters depth (Information provided 

with the permission of The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA; Online Biodiversity Databases); our 

collection at 84 meters is unusually shallow for this species. The Pteria sp. and Chama sp. (both closely related to 

oysters) were attached to the wreck. Both species require hard substrate for attachment and their ranges are 

probably limited by substrate availability. The Pteria sp. from this site appear similar to, but are not, the Atlantic 

wing oyster Pteria colymbus (Roding, 1798) which occurs from North Carolina through the West Indies to Brazil, 

and also in Bermuda, however P. colymbus is commonly found in shallow waters and sea grass beds only a few 

meters in depth. A single cephalopod mollusk (octopus) was found away from the wreck and is unidentifiable. Five 

shrimps, two crabs, a barnacle, and an unidentified mollusk were found in the ROV collection basket or in sediment 

from unknown locations near or around the site; specimens were collected between 70-85 meters depth. 

Figure 4.7. Siratus beauii found on the Virginia wreck (Photo by Morgan Kilgour and 

Aaron Baldwin). 
38 

Scleractina, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea 

Very poor visibility, caused by high concentrations of suspended particulate material in the water column, prevented 

adequate examination and video documentation of this site. Consequently, the following description of the 

occurrence and distribution patterns of the Scleractina, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea found on the tanker Virginia

should be considered only a partial characterization of this wreck. Bottom water depths at this site are on the order 

of 87 meters and the hydrographic conditions measured at the time of the survey were: temperature ~20.5o C; 

salinity ~36.4 psu; and dissolved oxygen ~5.6 mg l-1. All depths reported in the following text are the uncorrected 

ROV readings displayed on the video recordings. 

Four scleractinians (Madracis myriaster, Oculina varicosa, Paracyathus pulchellus, and Pourtalosmilia conferta), 

two antipatharians (Antipathes furcata and Stichopathes sp. cf. S. pourtalesi), and one gorgonian (Muricea pendula) 

were collected from Virginia (Table 4.6). A noteworthy initial observation is that available surfaces on this wreck 

generally appeared to be either relatively densely colonized with combinations of these fauna or have had little or no 

colonization of these fauna at all. 

Table 4.6 

List of Scleractinia, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea 

Found on the Tankers Virginia, Halo and Gulfpenn. 

The Scleractinia were identified by Steve Cairns, the Antipatharia by Dennis Opresko, and the Gorgonacea by Ted 

Bayer. All species, except Oculina varicose, have previously been reported from the Gulf of Mexico (see text). 

Virginia Halo Gulfpenn 

Scleractinia 

Lophelia pertusa (Linnaeus, 1758) X 

Madracis myriaster (Milne-Edwards and Haime, 1849) X X

Oculina varicosa Lesueur, 1821 X 

Paracyathus pulchellus (Philippi, 1842) X 

Pourtalosmilia conferta Cairns, 1978 X X X 

Antipatharia 

Antipathes furcata Gray, 1857 X 

Stichopathes sp. cf. S. pourtalesi Brook, 1889 X 

Gorgonacea 

Muricea pendula Verrill, 1864 X 

Placogorgia rudis Deichmann, 1936 X

Thesea sp. cf. T. grandiflora Deichmann, 1936 X

Thesea sp. cf. T. rubra Deichmann, 1936 X

Thesea sp. X 

Unidentified Spices (from video record) X 

The dominant species, in terms of numbers and possibly biomass, was the black wire coral Stichopathes sp. cf. S. 

pourtalesi. These whitish, slightly to moderately coiled monopodial colonies, up to 82 centimeters long, were 

observed attached mostly to horizontal to near-horizontal surfaces (Figure 4.8). From the video records it cannot be 

determined if one or more species are present, but from gross morphology and coloration characteristics it appears 

only one species is represented. If it is confirmed as Stichopathes pourtalesi then this will not be a new species to 

the Gulf of Mexico (NMNH Taxonomic Database 2003). Colonies were found throughout the wreck often in large 

field-like assemblages frequently attaining densities estimated at 400-500 colonies per square meter. In a few areas, 

for example on the forecastle deck, it appears that extremely dense concentrations have developed on the order of 

80-100 colonies per 0.1 square meter (Figure 4.8). This closely spaced configuration of colonies can result in an 
39 

open, loosely constructed vertical complex extending as much as 20-30 centimeters above the attachment surface 

that also includes a partial canopy formed when the top portions of the longer colonies lean over into a more 

horizontal plane (Figure 4.9). 

Figure 4.8. Stichopathes sp. cf. S. pourtalesi black wire coral. 

Figure 4.9. Extremely dense concentrations of Stichopathes sp. cf. S. pourtalesi. 

The other antipatharian, the densely branched, fan-shaped black thorny coral Antipathes furcata (Figure 4.10), was 

also found throughout the wreck. Colonies, up to 30 centimeters tall, were observed attached to both horizontal and 

vertical surfaces as solitary individuals and in small, patchy, closely spaced clusters (Figure 4.11) often in 

association with the Stichopathes sp. cf. S. pourtalesi assemblages (Figure 4.12). Antipathes furcata has previously 

been reported from the Gulf of Mexico (Cairns et al. 1993; NMNH Taxonomic Database 2003). 
40 

Figure 4.10. The densely branched, fan-shaped, black thorny coral Antipathes furcata.

Figure 4.11. Small cluster of Antipathes furcata.
41 

Figure 4.12. Antipathes furcata in association with a Stichopathes sp. cf. S. 

pourtalesi assemblage. 

Colonies of two of the scleractinian corals, Madracis myriaster, the striate finger coral, and Pourtalosmilia conferta

were observed throughout the wreck attached to all structure and surface types. Madracis myriaster was found to be 

present in two very different forms. The most common form was consistent with previous descriptions of this 

species (Cairns 1979, 2000); a robust, bushy, firmly attached colony usually irregularly branched, resulting in 

frequent anastomosis (Figure 4.13). It was observed to occur as isolated colonies (up to 12-15 centimeters across), 

small groups of aggregating colonies, and large clusters of both living and dead coral (Figure 4.14): some up to 95-

100 centimeters in breadth. The other less common form, not found described in the literature, has a sturdy, thick, 

irregular shaped corallum with sunken corallites and clavate-like branches (Figure 4.15). This ‘fat’ form appears to 

develop into smaller colonies, up to 18-20 centimeters in breadth, with lower profiles. Pourtalosmilia conferta

forms densely branched colonies up to 30 centimeters in height and diameter. A very compact and reinforced 

corallum is formed by the elongated and laterally anastomosing corallites (see Figure 4.16 and Cairns 1978). Both 

species are known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico (Cairns 1978, 2000). 

Figure 4.13. A piece of a Madracis myriaster colony.
42 

Figure 4.14. Colonies of Madracis myriaster and Pourtalosmilia conferta on a standpipe 

Figure 4.15. An example of the sturdy, thick, irregular shaped form of Madracis 

myriaster with sunken corallites. 
43 

Figure 4.16. Examples of Pourtalosmilia conferta. 

Three of the species collected, the ivory tree coral Oculina varicosa (Figure 4.17), the papillose cup coral 

Paracyathus pulchellus (Figure 4.18) and the drooping Muricea Muricea pendula (Figure 4.19), are represented by 

only one colony or an aggregate of colonies or one individual. What is either a single, large white colony of O. 

varicosa or a coalescing aggregate of two or more colonies (the poor visibility did not permit an unequivocal 

determination to be made from the video), measuring over 150 centimeters across and 140-150 centimeters in 

height, was found amidships near the top of the main superstructure at a depth of approximately 73 meters (Figure 

4.20). This is the first confirmed occurrence of O. varicosa in the Gulf of Mexico, although it has previously been 

identified from video and photographic records on natural substrate and offshore gas production facilities in the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico (John Reed, personal communication). The water depth and hydrographic conditions at 

Virginia fall within the ranges reported for O. varicosa on the east coast of Florida (Reed 1980, 1981). 

Figure 4.17. Examples of Oculina varicosa. 
44 

Figure 4.18. The cup coral Paracyathus pulchellus. 

Figure 4.19. Section of a branch from a colony of Muricea pendula. 
45 

Figure 4.20. Oculina varicosa colony near the top of the main superstructure at a depth 

of ~73 m. 

Nearby, colonizing the top of the main superstructure at a depth of approximately 71.0 meters, was a large white 

colony of M. pendula measuring approximately 91 centimeters across and 63.5 centimeters high (Figure 4.21). 

Muricea pendula is known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico, but this is the deepest it has been collected (NMNH 

Taxonomic Database 2003). The only cup coral recovered in the entire survey, P. pulchellus, was a small torchoid 

shaped specimen measuring 7.9 x 9.2 millimeters in calicular diameter, 10.5 millimeters high, and 4.9 millimeters in 

pedical diameter (Figure 4.21). It was found among the miscellaneous debris that accumulated in the sample 

collection box during attempts to collect fish and other invertebrates: therefore, the collection location is unknown. 

This species is also known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico (Cairns 1979; and 2000). 

Figure 4.21. Large Muricea pendula colony on top of the main superstructure at a depth 

of ~71.0 meters. 
46 

4.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology 

Fish Community Structure 

Visibility was very poor at the Virginia site, which negatively affected video sampling the fish community. The 

mean visible width of transects was approximately 2 meters over the ship and was even lower away from the wreck 

(Table 3.4). Transects over the wreck were flown at a relatively high altitude such that the wreck frequently was out 

of view. No transects were flown immediately adjacent to the wreck due to poor visibility. Therefore, interpretation 

of ichthyofauna data collected from video at this site must be done with the caveat that it is unlikely data accurately 

reflect the fish community present. 

The fish community observed in video collected from transects over the wreck was dominated by vermilion snapper 

(Rhomboplites aurorubens) (Tables 4.7 - 4.10; Figure 4.22-a). (Note: Vermilion snapper appeared to follow the 

ROV, thus density estimates derived from their min counts were used in statistical analysis of community structure.) 

In some cases, fish observed over the wreck obviously were Lutjanids, but species identification could not be made. 

Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) were caught in traps and observed in video, but none were observed during 

biological transects (Tables 4.7 – 4.9; Figure 4.22-b). Vermilion and red snappers were the only fishes captured in 

traps set next to the wreck (Table 4.10). These species are among the most common reef fishes on hardbottom 

habitats in the northern Gulf, but is unlikely they were the only fishes associated with the wreck. Low dissolved 

oxygen on the Louisiana shelf can limit fish biomass, but during our sampling dissolved oxygen was measured to be 

nearly 6 mg l-1. It seems more likely that poor visibility resulted in underestimation of the diversity of fishes present 

during biologic transects. In fact, several other reef, benthic, and demersal fishes, such as scamp (Mycteroperca 

phenax; Figure 4.23-a) and spotted soapfish (Rypticus maculatus; Figure 4.23-b) were observed during other 

sampling at Virginia, but only when small areas of less turbid (higher visibility) water was encountered (Table 4.8; 

Figure 4.22-b). 

Table 4.7 

Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video 

From Biological Transects Over, Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from (distant) the Virginia. 

Transect 

Line 

Relation 

to Ship Taxon Min Count 

Max 

Count 

Min 

Density 

100 m-2

Max 

Density 

100 m-2

321 Over Rhomboplites aurorubens 14 769 3.92 215.21 

 Lutjanidae 19 689 5.32 192.82 

 Perciformes 1 6 0.28 1.68 

322 Over Rhomboplites aurorubens 19 585 5.31 163.41 

 Lutjanidae 21 515 5.87 143.86 

323 Over Rhomboplites aurorubens 27 678 9.25 232.22 

 Lutjanidae 29 127 9.93 43.5 

300 Distant Teleost 1 1 0.54 0.54 

301 Distant Trichiurus lepturus 1 1 0.54 0.54 

 Teleost 1 2 0.54 1.08 

302 Distant Trichiurus lepturus 1 1 0.54 0.54 

Centropristis sp. 1 1 0.54 0.54 

Teleost 1 6 0.54 3.24 
47 

Table 4.8 

Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video at Virginia

From Sampling Other than Biological Transects. 

Location Indicates if Video was Collected Over or Away from the Ship. 

Location Taxon Min 

Count 

Max 

Count 

Over Ship Caranx crysos 1 1 

Lutjanus campechanus 2 79 

Mycteroperca phenax 1 44 

Opsanus pardus 1 3 

Pogonias cromis 1 1 

Rhomboplites aurorubens 20 5,728 

Rypticus maculatus 2 16 

Trichiurus lepturus 2 101 

 Lutjanidae 11 1,963 

 Serranidae 1 6 

 Trichiuridae 1 3 

 Perciformes 3 128 

 Teleost 2 40 

Away from Ship Caranx crysos 1 2 

Trichiurus lepturus 3 45 

 Trichiuridae 1 1 

 Pleuronectiformes 1 1 

 Teleost 1 1 

Table 4.9 

Estimated Total Fish Lengths Observed on ROV Video at the Virginia Site 

with Both ROV-mounted Lasers Striking Them. 

Taxon Number 

Measured 

Mean 

TL mm 

Standard 

Deviation 

Range 

TL mm 

Rhomboplites aurorubens 74 522 101.3 318-683 

Pogonias cromis 1 363 

Serranidae 1 342 
48 

Table 4.10 

Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (large) and Baitfish (small) Fish Traps Deployed 

Adjacent to (wreck) and 300 meters Away from (distant) Virginia. 

Trap Type Location Species Number 

Large Distant Centropristis philadelphica 2 

 Ophichthus rex 5 

 Rhomboplites aurorubens 1 

Large Wreck Lutjanus campechanus 7 

 Rhomboplites aurorubens 2 

Small Distant Centropristis philadelphica 1 

 Ophichthus rex 1 

 Rhomboplites aurorubens 1 

 (a) (b) 

Figure 4.22. (a) A vermilion snapper and (b) a red snapper associated with the Virginia. 

 (a) (b) 

Figure 4.23. (a) A scamp associated with the Virginia and (b) rock sea bass and vermilion snapper samples 

collected in fish traps. 
49 

Diet and Trophic Structure 

Stomachs were dissected from 15 fish sampled at the Virginia site; 12 (80%) had food items present (Fig. 4.24). Gut 

content analysis indicated fish constituted a significant percentage of recent bank sea bass (Centropristis 

philadelphica), vermilion snapper, and red snapper diets. (Note: King snake eels from the Virginia were returned to 

the water alive). Several invertebrate taxa, however, also were present in the diets of all three fishes. 

Figure 4.24. Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at Virginia. 

Sample sizes indicated for each species. 

Stable isotope analysis revealed trophic level and production source for vermilion and red snappers and rock sea 

bass. Rock sea bass displayed the least variance in δ13C, δ15N, and δ34S values among individuals (Figure 4.25). 

Their stable isotope values indicated feeding on invertebrates (δ13C and δ15N each enriched approximately two 

trophic levels from primary production) and a benthic rather than pelagic production source (δ34S depleted relative 

to phytoplankton). Vermilion snapper had some variance in δ13C values, but their δ15N values confirmed a similar, 

but somewhat lower trophic level than rock sea bass. Vermilion snapper are known to feed on pelagic zooplankton 

and invertebrates, and their δ34S values were consistent with a pelagic production source. Red snapper fed at the 

highest trophic level among fishes sampled at the Virginia site. All red snapper had δ13C and δ15N values a full 

trophic level higher than vermilion snapper. The majority also had δ34S values indicating a mostly benthic source of 

production. 

Figure 4.25. Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological 

sampling at Virginia. Filled symbols are species-specific mean values. 
50 

Age Estimation 

Opaque zones were counted in otolith sections prepared from 15 fish collected at the Virginia. Of the three species 

sampled, opaque zones have been validated as annuli for red and vermilion snappers (Allman et al. 2001; Patterson 

et al. 2001a and 2001b). While opaque zones in rock sea bass otoliths have not been validated as annuli, validation 

has been performed for the congener black sea bass (Centropristes striata) and there is no reason to believe rock sea 

bass otoliths do not form annual opaque zones (Hood et al. 1994). Therefore, opaque zone counts were taken as age 

estimates for all three species (Figure 4.26). The oldest fish were eight year-old rock sea bass, which were much 

smaller at age than a six year-old red snapper. All vermilion snapper samples were estimated to be one year-olds; 

however, only small individuals were caught in traps and it is likely most vermilion snapper present at the Virginia

site were considerably older than one year (Table 4.9, Figure 4.26). 

Figure 4.26. Total length versus estimated age (sagittal otolith opaque zone counts) in three reef 

fish species collected at the Virginia. 

4.6 Sediment Core Analysis 

Four samples were taken at the designated distance from the ship structure. Each sample, after surfacing was 

removed from the sampling device and stored in a clean glass container at approximately 4° Celsius. The Virginia

site’s core samples did not indicate any visible differences. They all appeared to be smooth, grey/black sediment 

with a sour smell. The sour smell is indicative of the anaerobic biological activity (sulfate reduction) normally 

found within sediment samples. Samples were sent to a certified laboratory for organic chemistry analysis. The 

Virginia site samples from each of the four cores all tested below detection levels for hydrocarbon C6-C36, as well 

as total petroleum hydrocarbons (Table 4.11). 

Table 4.11 

Virginia Core Analysis. 

Site Date Sample Location Concentration 

Virginia August 1, 2004 Beside Ship <1 ug/g 

 30 meters <1 ug/g 

 152 meters <1 ug/g 

 305 meters <1 ug/g 
51 

5.0 HALO SITE 

5.1 Historical Background of the Tanker Halo

Figure 5.1. Tanker Halo, photograph by the United States Coast Guard, May 1, 1942 (Courtesy of Mariner's 

Museum, Newport News, Virginia). 

Halo was an American tanker built by the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation. Launched in 1920, Cities Service 

Oil Company owned Halo. The vessel was 6,986 tons with a length of 436.35 feet (133 meters), beam of 55.77 

feet (17 meters), and loaded draft of approximately 26 feet (8 meters). She had a straight stem and elliptical stern 

with a poop deck. The bridge was amidships with a full topgallant forecastle at the bow and engine at the stern. A 

triple-expansion engine drove a single 18 feet (5.5 meter) diameter four-blade propeller (International Marine 

Engineering 1919: 196-97; and Hocking 1969: 296). Halo was unarmed (Browning 1996: 113). A representation 

of this class tanker is illustrated in Figure 5.2. 

Figure 5.2. Drawing of Oil Tank Steamer similar to Halo, built by the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation 

(Altered from Plate III in International Marine Engineering 1919). 

On May 19, 1942, the tanker Halo weighed anchor at Galveston and headed toward New Orleans carrying 63,000 

barrels of crude oil. It was a clear moonlit night, with calm seas, little wind, and good visibility. At approximately 

1:00 A.M. on May 20, 1942, the tanker was about 80 kilometers from the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River. 

The ship was running a zigzag course at 8 knots completely blacked out with a number of lookouts on duty when 

the torpedo struck. Halo had fallen victim to Kapitänleutnant Erich Würdemann, commander of U-506. U-506

had attacked three ships that morning, two escaped, but Halo was not as fortunate (Powers 1942b; and Würdemann 

1942). 
52 

The first torpedo hit on the starboard side under the bridge causing severe damage. Ten seconds later a second 

torpedo-hit the starboard side just aft of the bridge. The tanker sank in three to 15 minutes going down by the bow 

with the propeller still turning. The tanker was ablaze as it plunged beneath the water and the oil on the water 

continued to burn for the next six hours. The crew launched only one life raft before flames engulfed the ship. Out 

of a crew of 42 men, only 23 managed to escape, most by just grabbing life vests and jumping overboard. The men 

swam away from the sinking ship and huddled together for next several days. Several men remained near the area 

and on the third day debris began floating up from the wreckage. By this time, many of the men in the water had 

begun dying. Seven surviving crewmen used canvas from their life vests to tie boards from the wreckage together 

into a makeshift raft. A thick oil layer had formed on the surface enveloping the men. Each day planes were seen 

overhead; several at low altitudes, but none investigated the huge oil slick spread across the water. On May 25th, 

only two survivors remained as a destroyer circled them three times and left. Finally at 2:00 P.M. the Mexican 

steamship, Oaxaca, picked up the two men and a third man who had already died. The deceased man was buried at 

sea and one of the rescued men died shortly after reaching the hospital. On May 27th, the British tanker, SS Orina, 

picked up two more survivors in a life raft. After five to seven days in the water, only three of 42 men survived the 

ordeal (Powers 1942b; and Würdemann 1942). 

5.2 Previous Investigations 

Pogo Producing Company contracted C & C Technologies, Inc. to perform an Engineering and Hazard Study for a 

gas pipeline route extending from the Mississippi Canyon Area to the Grand Isle Area. During survey operations a 

shipwreck was located in 143 meters of water. Marine archaeologist Robert Church with C & C conducted an 

assessment and tentatively identified the vessel as Halo. The survey was conducted utilizing a Datasonic SIS1000 

dual side scan and subbottom profiler deep-tow system (Figures 5.3). In the data example below, the SIS1000 

crossed over the stern section of the shipwreck. A profile of the vessel was imaged with the subbottom system in 

the lower panel. The bridge is prominent in the acoustic shadow. The data indicated the shipwreck’s bow is 

partially buried while the stern deck extends approximately 7 meters above the seafloor. This evidence concurs 

with the historical account of Halo sinking bow first (Church 2000). 

Figure 5.3. Side scan sonar and subbottom profiler images for Halo (Archaeological and Hazard Report 

prepared Pogo Producing Company). 
53 

Figure 5.4. Halo site overview map. 
54 

Table 5.1 

ROV Navigation Fix Points at Halo

No. Description Corrected Time No. Description Corrected Time 

1 Coral 9:57 22 Pipeline 17:06 

2 Experiment 10:27 23 Pipeline 17:34 

3 Stern 10:45 24 Pipeline 17:37 

4 Coral 10:55 25 Sea Star 18:15 

5 Coral 11:11 26 Soft Coral 21:21 

6 Coral 11:24 27 Sea Anemone 22:46 

7 Davit 11:36 28 Bat Fish 2:40 

8 Davit 11:44 29 Unidentified Object 3:14 

9 Forward Port Side 11:47 30 Davit 9:39 

10 Possible Life Boat 12:01 31 Bow Fix 2 9:52 

11 Railing 12:11 32 Stern Fix 2 10:26 

12 Bow 12:18 33 Large Fish Trap 17:00 

13 Sponge Sea-Anemone 12:43 34 Small Fish Trap 17:08 

14 Basket Starfish 12:53 35 Shrimp Traps 17:14 

15 Amidship Structure 13:33 36 Large Fish Trap 18:35 

16 Stairs 13:49 37 Crab Trap 19:00 

17 Funnel 13:57 38 Small Fish Trap 19:04 

18 Sea Anemone 16:20 HA-A Core A 19:13 

19 Unknown Invertebrate 16:32 HA-B Core B 19:22 

20 Pipeline 16:57 HA-D Core D 17:22 

21 Pipeline 17:01 

5.3 Geographical Setting 

The site is located at the southern end of the Grand Isle Area on the edge of the continental shelf in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. The shipwreck rests along Mississippi Canyon’s western rim. The Mississippi Canyon is a major 

erosional feature that is partially filled (Bouma et al. 1985). It is located in the central Gulf of Mexico southwest of 

the modern Birdfoot Delta. There is a moderate sedimentation rate in the wreck site area of approximately 3 

millimeters per year. The reported sediment type in this region is composed of clay (USDI MMS 1978), which is 

consistent with the sediment recovered from the core samples taken at the site. The seafloor near the shipwreck site 

has a low gradient slope of approximately 1.4 degrees toward the southeast (Figure 5.4). A kilometer to the 

southeast the seafloor slope increases considerably to approximately 6.6 degrees. 

5.4 Discussion of Archaeological Findings 

5.4.1 Physical Site 

The following description of the wreck site is from the 2004 field expedition. The investigation was conducted 

with the Triton XL11 ROV on July 30 to August 1, 2004. Visibility at the site was poor and averaged 

approximately two meters. 

The wreck is oriented with the bow (Figure 5.5) pointing south-southwest and the stern to the north-northeast. 

Water depth at the bow is 142.7 meters and 143.3 meters at the stern. The vessel’s bow is embedded deeper in the 
55 

seafloor than the stern. The forecastle’s upper region stands only three meters above the ambient seafloor as 

opposed to the stern, which has 7.3 meters of relief. Only half of the bow’s windlass can be seen protruding from 

the sediment. The wreck lists approximately five degrees to port and the forward port gunwale is buried. The 

forward mast still stands and the top of the mast is approximately 16.5 meters above the ambient seafloor. Parts of 

the windlass that serviced the forward mast are visible immediately to its front. A section of catwalk, 

approximately six meters long, protrudes from the sediment along the vessel’s starboard side. The cable handrails 

are mostly extant, but no grating or wood planking remain attached to the catwalk frame. The catwalk originally 

covered raised piping running from the bow to the main superstructure. The pipes were not visible along this 

section of the vessel. Other remains observed in this area include remnants of vent structures that had originally 

stood to either side of the forward mast and approximately four meters of the forward boom. The boom lies 

between the forward windlass and the forward mast (See Figure 5.6). An attempt was made to mosaic the vessel’s 

bow, but poor visibility thwarted the effort. 

Figure 5.5. Bow (starboard view) of Halo. 

The vessel’s superstructure and starboard side of the hull appear relatively intact, but many structural details are 

obscured by biofouling and several “shrimp” nets tangled around the starboard stern (Figure 5.7). There is severe 

damage to the deck and port side hull between the main superstructure and aft deckhouse. Approximately four 

meters forward of the aft deckhouse, a three to four meter tear along the ship’s portside is visible. The deck is 

sheared away and collapsed forward of this hole. It is not known how far this deck damage extends because 

entanglement hazards prevented survey of the area forward of the break. The “raised” piping running from the 

main superstructure to the aft deckhouse has collapsed. The pipes are visible coming from the main superstructure, 

but are not visible at the aft deckhouse where the deck is collapsed. The starboard side ladder leading from the 

main deck up to the boat deck of the superstructure directly aft of the main superstructure is also missing. All other 

ladders fore and aft of the main superstructure and forward of the aft deckhouse appear intact. The impact damage 

caused by the two torpedoes that reportedly struck the starboard side of the vessel was not visible and is probably 

below the mud line. The breach on the vessel’s port side and aft deck may be damage caused by stress on the 

weakened hull when the stern protruded into the air as the vessel plummeted bow first to the bottom. 
56 

20 m 0 m 20 m

Meters

Halo Site 

Drawing

Collapsed Decking

Undocumented Area

(Entanglements)

Pipes

Bridge

Forward Mast

Boom

Cable Windlass

Catwalk

Anchor Windlass

Bow

Main Stack

Stern

Steering

Engine

Nets

Figure 5.6. Halo site plan (Illustration by Robert Church). 
57 

Figure 5.7. Nets tangled around Halo’s stern. 

The aft deckhouse’s main stack is folded in on itself and the upper part is badly damaged. Just forward of the 

stack, the smaller starboard vent is still intact, but the vent hood is gone. Nets are tangled around the aft starboard 

quarter, and cover the stern from just forward of the starboard lifeboat davits to the stern starboard hawsehole. At 

the stern, the small deckhouse for the steering machinery is present, but damaged. The steering engine is visible 

through the rear of the structure. Figure 5.8 shows a schematic of the stern superstructure and deckhouses. Only 

portions of Halo’s deck remains were documented because of safety concerns raised by low visibility and 

entanglement concerns. 

Figure 5.8. Halo’s stern section with key components labeled (Altered from Plate III in International Marine 

Engineering 1919). 

Geophysical survey data did not indicate an abundance of debris surrounding the wreck site. An area visual survey 

was conducted after the initial reconnaissance of the main wreck site. Thirteen ROV survey lines were run near 

parallel to the wreck at 15-meter line spacing. Three-survey lines crossing the main wreck site were run the entire 

planned length of 760 meters. The remaining lines, five additional on each side, were at least 450 meters long. 

This created a survey grid approximately 180 meters by 450 meters with the shipwreck at the center. Three 

additional 180 meter long survey transects spaced 15 meters apart were run approximately 280 meters to the 

southeast of the wreck site for biological investigations. The observed debris was limited, as expected, to sparse 

objects scattered around the wreck site. No debris was observed beyond 15 meters from the wreck site. The 

furthest object from the main wreck site is a large section of debris, possibly the remains of a lifeboat, 

approximately 14 meters southeast from the port bow (Figure 5.9). 
58 

Figure 5.9. Possible capsized lifeboat, lying 14.3 meters off the port bow. 

5.4.2 Site Preservation 

The wreck site is in a moderate state of preservation. Much of the vessel’s forward section is buried. The amount 

of biofouling and sediment covering the vessel made it impossible to distinguish many of the wreck’s structural 

features. The visible areas were relatively intact, with damage to the lighter components such as the vent stacks 

and deckhouses. 

5.5 Discussion of Biological Findings 

5.5.1 Microbiology 

Gravimetric elemental analysis using ICP-AES of the rusticles recovered from Halo is given in Table 5.2. Here it 

was found that the dominant four elements were iron (96%), sodium (2.8%), calcium (0.5%), and magnesium 

(0.3%). 

Table 5.2 

Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of a Brown Rusticle (C1) from Halo 

Iron 96.1169% Cadmium 0.0075% 

Sodium 2.8237% Aluminum 0.0073% 

Calcium 0.5124% Strontium 0.0073% 

Magnesium 0.2618% Molybdenum 0.0058% 

Phosphorus 0.1010% Lead 0.0036% 

Potassium 0.0898% Zirconium 0.0013% 

Manganese 0.0355% Barium 0.0007% 

Boron 0.0142% Chromium 0.0004% 

Vanadium 0.0110% 

Halo was completely coated in a dendritic (C3) concretion 5 to 15 millimeters thick overlain with a relatively thin 

(2 to 5 millimeters) slime coating similar to the coating on Virginia. However, 5% of the surface coating had 

brown rusticles (B1) emerging through the concretions. The rusticles ranged in length from 5 to 300 millimeters 
59 

and in width from 2 to 60 millimeters. Microbial concretions (C4) were observed coating 15% of the concretions 

as either attached branching whorls or as suspended structures. The latter structures appeared to be held in position 

by calcite tubes. No white rusticles (C2), blobs (B2), or sea anemones were observed. Significant electrical 

potentials were detected when the bio-battery platforms were recovered (Figure 5.10). 

76.4 0.3 99.8 62

143 34

6.4

7.2

Figure 5.10. Voltages (millivolts) detected on bio-battery coupons 

deployed on Halo 

5.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology 

Visibility at the Halo site was substantially improved over that of the Virginia site, but was still marginal for 

identification of invertebrates from videos. Nine video transects were conducted at the site, with a total of 1343.7 

m2 surveyed (Table 5.3). The coverage was not equal among the three areas: three transects over the Halo totaled 

311m2

, three transects adjacent to the Halo totaled 569.9 m2, and three transects away (300 m) from the site totaled 

462.1 m2

. The bias, i.e., the increased sampling area over the vessel site as compared to areas adjacent to or away 

from the site, was present at all vessel sites, as the ROV had to be navigated higher over the vessels than over 

barren sediment. Dissolved oxygen content (2.8 mg l-1) was approximately half the concentration found at 

Virginia, but is still not considered hypoxic. This lower oxygen concentration is limiting or stressful for many fish 

species or actively swimming invertebrates with higher metabolism, but often has little effect on sedentary 

organisms and demersal invertebrates. Low oxygen areas serve as a refuge for many invertebrates, as predators 

may be excluded (Levin, 2003; Helly and Levin, 2004). The depths at which invertebrates were observed or 

collected at the Halo site varied from 131 to 145 m. 

Invertebrates (other than corals) observed in the transect videos over Halo included three anemones, one Chama

sp., and an unidentified hermit crab (Table 5.3). The transects adjacent to Halo included a Beau’s murex, Siratus 

beauii, The transects away from Halo included two hermit crabs, possibly Dardanus insignius, three sea urchins (1 

slate pencil urchin, Eucidaris tribuloides and 2 Echinothrix sp.), and six smaller mollusks and crustaceans. 
60 

Table 5.3 

Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects 

Over, Adjacent and Distant (300 m) from the Halo site. 

Transect Number 

Over Adjacent Distant 

Halo 119 120 121 122 123 124 138 139 140 

Crustaceans 

Hermit crab 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

cf. Dardanus insignus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.7 

Shrimp 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Unidentified crustacean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Echinoderms 

Eucidaris tribuloides 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 

Echinothrix sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.4 

Mollusks 

Chama sp. 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Siratus beauii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Buccinidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Unidentified mollusk 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.4 

Cnidarians 

Anemone 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sediment composition at Halo was similar to that found at Virginia. The meiofaunal composition also was similar, 

but numbers of organisms were considerably lower (Table 5.4). Nematodes predominated, but their density was 

less than half of the density found at Virginia. Polychaets again were more common than harpacticoid copepods, of 

which only four specimens were collected in both cores. Harpacticoid copepods are usually found in surficial, 

oxygenated sediments of the benthos; currents generated by prop thrust or even the bow wake of a core can 

displace the upper few millimeters of sediment and bias the observed density of harpacticoids (Fleeger et al. 1995). 

Nematodes are found throughout the sediment column and their densities are less affected by disturbance. 

Table 5.4 

Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2

) from Sediment Cores 

Collected Adjacent to (Core A) and Distant (Core C) from Halo. 

Wreck Halo 

 Number per 10 cm2

Taxon Core A Core C 

Harpacticoida 1.8 3.6 

Nematoda 460.5 524.0 

Polychaeta 21.8 25.4 

Eight crustacean taxa were collected at the Halo site: six near the wreck and two away from the wreck. None of 

these species were collected at the shallower Virginia site (Table 5.5). Four echinoderm taxa (a seastar, a 

brittlestar, and two urchin species) were collected at the site, with only the brittle stars being found away from the 

wreck site. Six molluscan taxa were collected: three near the wreck site, one away from the site, and several from 

sediments of unknown location. 
61 

Table 5.5 

Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the Halo Site 

Including Number and Proximity to Wreck, Substrate and Depth. 

Halo Wreck 

Specimen ID Number 

Near 

Wreck (< 

61 m) 

Number 

far from 

wreck 

(>61 m)

Unknown 

collection 

location 

Substrate Depth 

(m) 

Crustacea 

Dardanus insignis 5 Wreck; silt 136-141

Dromia sp. 1 Wreck 131 

Hippolytidae – Saron sp. 2 Silt 145 

Pagurus sp. 1 Wreck 138 

Grapsidae 2 Silt 145 

Majidae a 1 Silt 141 

Majidae b 1 Silt 140 

Porcellanidae 1 1 On Majidae- b 

Echinodermata 

Astracme mucronata 1 Wreck 138 

Ophiothrix sp. 2 Sievings 

Eucidaris tribuloides 1 Wreck 137-140

Echinothrix sp. 3 Wreck 136 

Mollusca 

Siratus beauii 1 1 Wreck; found in basket 139 

Coralliophila aberrans 1 Found in sediment 

Cymatium parthenopeum 1 Silt 142 

Lima sp. 1 Wreck 131 

Pteria sp. 2 Rusticle collection 

Cephalopoda 3 Silt 145 

Coralliophila aberrans is a small (to 23 mm total length) gastropod commonly found associated with corals and 

seafans; our specimen was found away from Halo where no corals were present. The species is typically reported 

from shallow waters, but has been found as deep as 180 m, from the east coast of Florida and the Bahamas, through 

the Caribbean Sea to Brazil (Abbott 1974; ANS 2006). We collected a single specimen of Cymatium

parthenopeum in sediment away from the wreck. At least 25 species of Cymatium have been reported from the 

western Atlantic. Flame scallops of the genus Lima have recently been revised into the genera Ctenoides, Limaria,

and Lima; our specimens associated with Halo and other vessel sites differ from the 11 species reported from this 

complex in the western Atlantic. Flame scallops are mobile and move about by flapping their valves, and use fine 

byssal threads to attach; hence they are often difficult to collect intact. The specimen near Halo was lying 

immobile on sediment and collected with the suction sampler. Two winged oysters (Pteria sp.) were collected with 

the samples of rusticles; our specimens are not Pteria colymbus. 

Gorgonicephalid basket stars such as Astracme mucronata are suspension feeders and are normally associated with 

sea whips, corals, or other erect or arborescent species or substrate that provide a feeding location above the 

benthos and the benthic boundary layer to increase feeding efficiency. Specimens in the archives of the United 

States Museum of Natural History are distributed from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, the Bahama Islands, U. S. 

Virgin Islands, Florida Keys, and the Gulf of Mexico, at depths of 15 to 399 m (NMNH, Dept. of Systematic 

Biology 2006). The slate pencil urchin Eucidaris tribuloides found at this site is widely distributed in the western 
62 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico from 0 to 800 m (Hendler et al. 1995); this was one of the more widely distributed sea 

urchins in our study. 

The red brochade hermit crab Dardanis insignis (Saussure, 1858) was observed and collected at several sites and is 

common in offshore marine waters from North Carolina, through the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies to Brazil, 

in depths of 27 to 227 m (Williams 1984). 

Scleractina, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea 

Poor to fair visibility at this site permitted only a marginally comprehensive examination and video documentation 

of the tanker Halo. Water depths at this site are on the order of 143 meters and the hydrographic conditions 

measured at the time of the survey were: temperature ~16.4° Celsius; salinity ~36.2 psu; and dissolved oxygen ~2.8 

mg l-1. All depths reported in the following text are the uncorrected ROV readings displayed on the video 

recordings. 

Two scleractinian species Madracis myriaster and Pourtalosmilia conferta and four gorgonian species 

(Placogorgia rudis, Thesea sp. cf. T. grandiflora, Thesea sp. cf. T. rubra, and Thesea sp.) were observed on and/or 

collected from this wreck (Table 4.6). All three gorgonian species have previously been reported from the Gulf of 

Mexico (NMNH Taxonomic Database 2003). Similar to the findings from Virginia’s available surfaces, Halo 

generally appeared either relatively densely colonized with combinations of these fauna or had little or no 

colonization of these fauna at all. 

Madracis myriaster and P. conferta were observed colonizing surfaces over the entire wreck. Unlike Virginia, 

only the common bushy form of M. myriaster (Figure 4.16) was collected and observed in the video recordings. 

Examples of the cover and structure provided by clusters and assemblages of M. myriaster are illustrated in Figure 

5.11. The largest colonies observed were in the order of 30-35 centimeters in breadth. In addition, broken 

fragments of M. myriaster colonies that have fallen off the wreck were observed living on the adjacent sediment 

(Figure 5.12). Pourtalosmilia conferta occurred less frequently than M. myriaster and was most often observed 

growing in solitary, nearly spherical colonies up to 85-90 centimeters wide (Figure 5.13). The co-occurrence of M. 

myriaster and P. conferta can result in the development of structurally complex cover (Figure 5.14). Additional 

complexity is contributed to this habitat when other encrusting epibenthic fauna colonize in association with these 

two corals (Figure 5.15). 

a) b) 

Figure 5.11. Examples of the cover and structure provided by clusters and assemblages of Madracis myriaster. 
63 

Figure 5.12. Madracis myriaster colonies living on the sediment 

adjacent to Halo’s hull. 

Figure 5.13. Large, solitary colony of Pourtalosmilia conferta. 

Figure 5.14. Structurally complex cover resulting from the cooccurrence of Madracis myriaster and Pourtalosmilia 

conferta. 
64 

Figure 5.15. A complex habitat formed by Madracis myriaster and Pourtalosmilia 

conferta in association with other encrusting epibenthic fauna. 

Generally, all gorgonian colonies were observed as either isolated individuals in small groupings of a few 

individuals, or in a widely spaced field-like pattern of either single or mixed species composition. Two species, 

Thesea sp. cf. T. grandiflora (Figure 5.16a) and Thesea sp. cf. T. rubra (Figure 5.16b), were most often seen 

colonizing on the hull as either isolated individuals or in the single or mixed species field pattern. The common 

size range for both species is estimated to be in the order of 15-18 centimeters wide and 12-15 centimeters high. 

Placogorgia rudis (Figure 5.17) occurred as isolated colonies on structures and debris throughout the wreck and in 

small clusters on, for example, the main superstructure (Figure 5.18) and at the top of the aft deck mast’s standing 

portion (Figure 5.19). Colonies of this species often exceeded 50 centimeters in width and 75 centimeters in 

height; the largest measuring 72 centimeters wide and 121 centimeters high (Figure 5.20). 

 a) b) 

Figure 5.16. (a) Thesea sp. cf. T. grandiflora and (b) Thesea sp. cf. T. rubra. 
65 

Figure 5.17. Placogorgia rudis. 

Figure 5.18. A cluster of Placogorgia rudis colonies on the main superstructure. 
66 

Figure 5.19. A cluster of Placogorgia rudis colonies on top of the 

standing portion of the mast on the aft deck. 

Figure 5.20. Large colonies of Placogorgia rudis on the deck of HOS 

Dominator. 
67 

The single colony of Thesea sp. (Figure 5.21) collected was inadvertently sampled during attempts to collect fish 

and other invertebrates: therefore, the collection location is unknown. Two colonies of an unidentified gorgonian, 

attached to a damaged hull section on the foredeck’s starboard side, were recorded on video during the last phase of 

the second survey at the Halo site. The colonies have long, flexible, sea whip-like branches with some secondary 

branching, which is a different morphology than any of the collected specimens. One colony’s height is estimated 

to be 120-125 centimeters. 

Figure 5.21. Thesea sp. 

5.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology 

Fish Community Structure 

Visibility was poor at the Halo site, although not as poor as that encountered at Virginia. The mean visible width 

of transects was approximately 2.5 meters over the ship and was even lower away from the wreck (Table 5.6). 

Probably the most important physical parameter that may have affected community structure estimates was the low 

dissolved oxygen measured (< 3 mg l-1 during biological transects; > 4 mg l-1 during the second trip to Halo). Most 

fishes show signs of stress below 4 mg l-1 and few remain in an area with levels below 2 mg l-1. Despite the low 

dissolved oxygen measured during biological transects, fish biomass was higher at Halo than any other site (Tables 

5.6 – 5.10). Reef fish diversity and density also was highest at Halo. 
68 

Table 5.6 

Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected with the 

ROV During Biological Sampling Over, Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from (distant) at Halo. 

Transect 

Line 

Relation 

to ship Taxon Min Count 

Max 

Count 

Min 

Density 

100 m-2

Max 

Density 

100 m-2

119 Over Seriola dumerili 2 30 7.59 113.86 

Pronotogrammus martinicensis 1 1 3.80 3.80 

Serranidae subfamily Anthiinae 8 19 3.80 3.80 

Myctophidae 2 18 7.59 68.32 

Teleost 2 4 7.59 15.18 

120 Over Seriola dumerili 8 26 6.02 19.58 

Epinephelus nigritus 2 2 1.51 1.51 

Epinephelus niveatus 1 1 0.75 0.75 

Serranidae subfamily Anthiinae 4 20 3.01 15.06 

121 Over Setarches guentheri 1 1 0.66 0.66 

Pronotogrammus martinicensis 1 1 0.66 0.66 

Rhomboplites aurorubens 1 1 0.66 0.66 

Seriola dumerili 3 5 1.97 3.28 

Serranidae subfamily Anthiinae 12 27 7.86 17.69 

Scorpaenidae 3 3 1.97 1.97 

122 Adjacent Seriola dumerili 2 18 0.95 8.61 

Teleost 1 9 0.48 1.91 

123 Adjacent Ogcocephalus sp. 1 1 0.52 0.52 

Seriola dumerili 1 8 0.52 4.17 

Teleost 6 60 3.13 31.25 

124 Adjacent Seriola dumerili 9 94 5.34 55.79 

Teleost 1 24 0.59 14.24 

138 Distant Ophichthus rex 1 1 0.55 0.55 

Ogcocephalus sp. 1 1 0.55 0.55 

Ogcocephalidae 1 1 0.55 0.55 

Bothidae 1 1 0.55 0.55 

Teleost 1 3 0.55 0.55 

139 Distant Prionotus sp. 1 1 0.72 0.72 

Bothidae 1 3 0.72 2.17 

140 Distant Setarches guentheri 1 1 0.71 0.71 

Ogcocephalus parvus 1 2 0.71 1.41 

Seriola dumerili 1 1 0.71 0.71 

Bothidae 1 5 0.71 3.53 
69 

Table 5.7 

Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at Halo During Sampling Other than Biological 

Transects. 

(Location indicates if video was collected over or away from the Ship.) 

Visit Location Taxon Min 

Count 

Max 

Count 

Halo (1) Over Ship Epinephelus nigritus 4 118 

Epinephelus niveatus 1 23 

Gymnothorax kolpos 1 1 

Hemanthias leptus 1 2 

Mycteroperca phenax 1 3 

Paralichthys squamilentus 2 8 

Pareques iwamotoi 2 8 

Pogonias cromis 1 1 

Pronotogrammus martinicensis 5 154 

Seriola dumerili 8 4,326 

Zenopsis conchifera 1 2 

Epinephelus 2 42 

 Bothidae 1 3 

 Carangidae 9 318 

 Lutjanidae 1 1 

 Muraenidae 1 1 

 Myctophidae 2 10 

 Ogcocephalidae 2 8 

 Scorpaenidae 2 12 

 Serranidae 3 16 

 Serrandiae Subfamily Anthiinae 55 6,638 

 Perciformes 2 7 

 Scorpaeniformes 1 4 

 Teleostei 3 48 

Away From Ship Caranx crysos 17 289 

Epinephelus nigritus 1 36 

Hemanthias leptus 1 1 

Monolene sessilicauda 1 2 

Neobythites gilli 1 1 

Ogcocephalus corniger 1 12 

Ogcocephalus parvus 1 3 

Prionotus stearnsi 1 2 

Seriola dumerili 6 186 

Trichiurus lepterus 1 6 

Mustelus sp. 1 1 
70 

Visit Location Taxon Min 

Count 

Max 

Count 

Prionotus sp. 1 1 

 Bothidae 1 10 

 Carangidae 1 17 

 Ogcocephalidae 2 23 

 Phycidae 1 2 

 Scorpaenidae 1 8 

 Trichiuridae 1 1 

 Anguilliformes 1 5 

 Aulopiformes 1 2 

 Gadiformes 1 1 

 Osmeriformes 8 346 

 Perciformes 1 2 

 Scorpaeniformes 1 5 

 Teleostei 5 203 

 

Halo (2) Over Ship Epinephelus nigritus 1 25 

Epinephelus niveatus 1 8 

Hemanthias leptus 1 3 

Hemanthias vivanus 1 1 

Pronotogrammus martinicensis 2 62 

Seriola dumerili 35 12,911 

Epinephelus sp. 2 18 

 Serranidae Subfamily Anthiinae 8 360 

 Carangidae 8 746 

 Gobiodei 1 1 

 Muraenidae 1 1 

 Myctophidae 60 556 

 Sciaenidae 3 3 

 Serranidae 1 14 

 Perciformes 1 17 

 Scorpaeniformes 1 3 

 Teleostei 1 4 

Away From Ship Caranx crysos 79 275 

Seriola dumerili 7 31 

 (X) Denotes the visit number for sites examine multiple times. 
71 

Table 5.8 

Estimated Total Lengths of Fishes Observed on Video at Halo. 

(All individuals were captured on video with both ROV-mounted lasers striking them.) 

Taxon Number 

Measured 

Mean 

TL mm 

Standard 

Deviation 

Range 

TL mm 

Epinephelus nigritus 8 1,372 236.7 1,150-1,891 

Hemanthias leptus 1 572 

Pronotogrammus martinicensis 2 185 33.5 161-208 

Seriola dumerili 20 1,334 249.4 1,040-1,743 

Ogcocephalidae 1 194 

Bothidae 7 185 29.6 148-218 

Scorpaeniformes 2 394 41.4 365-423 

Table 5.9 

Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (Large) and Baitfish (Small) Fish Traps Deployed Adjacent to (Ship) and 300 Meters 

from (Distant) Halo. 

Wreck Site Trap Type Location Species Number 

Halo Large Distant Ophichthus rex 9 

 Large Ship Conger oceanicus 1 

 Large Ship Epinephelus flavolimbatus 1 

 Large Ship Gymnothorax kolpos 2 

 Large Ship Pagrus pagrus 1 

 Small Distant Urophycis regia 5 

 Small Ship Gymnothorax kolpos 1 

Halo (2) Large Ship-bow Epinephelus flavolimbatus 1 

 Large Ship-bow Epinephelus nigritus 1 

 Large Ship-bow Gymnothorax kolpos 3 

 Large Ship-bow Ophichthus rex 1 

 Large Ship-stern Hemanthias leptus 1 

 Large Ship-stern Ophichthus rex 1 

(X) Denotes the visit number for sites examine multiple times. 
72 

Table 5.10 

Fishes Caught with the ROV Suction Sampler During Biological Sampling at the Halo. 

Date Species Number 

Aug 1 – Aug 3 Anthias nicholsi 6 

Helicolenus dactylopterus 1 

Hemanthias vivanus 10 

Monolene sessilicauda 4 

Ogcocephalus parvus 2 

Pronotogrammus martinicensis 3 

Zenopsis conchifera 1 

Aug 13 – Aug 14 Anthias nicholsi 3 

Hemanthias vivanus 2 

Seriola dumerili (with ROV claw) 1 

Anthiinae basses (Family: Serranidae) were the most abundant taxa observed in association with the wreck (Table 

5.3; Figure 5.22-a). These deepwater reef fishes were observed hiding in coral thickets or in the ship’s rigging, 

which made identifying species from video difficult. Individuals captured in traps or with the suction sampler 

included yellowfin bass (Anthias nicholsi), red barbier, (Hemathias vivanus), roughtongue bass (Pronotogrammus 

martinicensis), and a single longtail bass, (Hemanthias leptus) (Table 5.5 and 5.6). Observed members of the 

Serranidae subfamily Epinephelinae included Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus; Figure 5.22-b) and 

yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus), both of which were captured in traps. Other reef-associated 

fishes seen or captured included vermilion snapper, greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili; Figure 5.23-a), blacktail 

moray, (Gymnothorax kolpos), red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), and deepwater scorpionfish, (Setarches guenther). 

The fish most frequently observed on transects adjacent to the wreck was the greater amberjack. (Note: Amberjack 

were gregarious and appeared to follow the ROV, thus density estimates derived from their min counts were used 

in statistical analysis of community structure.) Many teleosts were observed next to the wreck that could not be 

identified due to poor visibility. Batfishes (Ogcocephalus sp.; Figure 5.23-b), were observed on transects both 

adjacent to and away from the wreck. Other fishes observed away from the wreck included flatfishes (Family: 

Bothidae) and a large king snake eel. Fishes caught in traps away from the wreck but not seen in video included 

spotted hake (Urophycis regia) and an American conger eel (Conger oceanicus). A single silvery John Dory 

(Zenopsis conchifera) was captured with the ROV suction sampler. 
73 

...

 (a) (b) 

Figure 5.22. (a) Amberjack, and (b) a large Warsaw grouper over or adjacent to Halo. 

...

 (a) (b) 

Figure 5.23. (a) A batfish adjacent to Halo. Three species of Anthiinae basses captured with the ROV suction 

sampler are pictured in panel (b). From top to bottom are a yellowfin bass, roughtongue bass, and 

red barbier.

 

Diet and Trophic Structure 

Stomachs were dissected from 39 fish sampled at the Halo site, but only 21 (54%) had food items present (Figure 

5.24). Gut content analysis indicated fish dominated the diet of amberjack and conger eel, while invertebrate taxa 

composed the diets of blacktail moray and deepwater flounder (Monolene sessilacauda). The diets of Anthiinae 

basses (n = three species) were composed of invertebrate taxa but a large percentage of their diets could not be 

identified. 
74 

Figure 5.24. Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at the Halo. Sample sizes are indicated for each 

species. 

Stable isotopic composition of muscle samples was analyzed for several Anthiinae basses and Epinephelinae 

groupers captured over the ship (Figure 5.25). Tissue was analyzed from one red porgy and one amberjack 

associated with the wreck. Stable isotope values of Anthiinae basses were consistent with a zooplankton diet: δ13C 

and δ15N each were enriched approximately one trophic level above primary production and δ34S values were 

consistent with pelagic production. The red porgy had values indicating a diet of benthic invertebrates. δ13C and 

δ15N values of amberjack and groupers indicated they fed at two full trophic levels higher than Anthiinae basses, 

but differences in δ34S values among individuals indicated a range in benthic versus pelagic prey. 

Figure 5.25. Stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling at Halo. 

Filled symbols are species-specific mean values. 

Tissue samples of several species captured away from Halo were analyzed (Figure 5.26). Batfish (Ogcocephalus 

parvus) fed at the lowest trophic level but their δ34S values indicated a pelagic rather than benthic source of 

production despite the flounder’s benthic existence. Only deepwater flounder (Monolene sessilicauda) had δ34S 

indicating benthic production. Spotted hake, blacktail moray, and the American conger all fed at approximately 

one full trophic level above the deepwater flounder. Their δ34S values also indicated pelagic sources of production. 

King snake eels fed at the highest trophic level among fishes sampled away from Halo. Their δ13C and δ15N values 
75 

indicated feeding at approximately two trophic levels above the batfish, while their δ34S values were intermediate 

between benthic and pelagic prey. 

Figure 5.26. Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling 

away from Halo. Filled symbols are species-specific mean values. 

Age Estimation 

Opaque zones were counted in otolith sections prepared from 36 fish collected at Halo. Of the species sampled, 

opaque zones have been validated as annuli for amberjack (Thompson et al. 1999), yellowedge grouper 

(Manickchand-Heileman and Phillip 2000), Warsaw grouper (Manooch and Mason 1987), red porgy (Hood and 

Johnson 2000), Anthiinae basses (Thurman et al. 2004), and king snake eel (Clark 2000). Opaque zones in spotted 

hake have not been validated as annuli; however, validation has been performed for its congener Urophycis cirrata. 

Opaque zones also have not been validated as annuli in deepwater flounder, but otoliths of many other Bothid 

species on the outer shelf have been validated. Therefore, opaque zone counts were taken as age estimates for all 

species sampled at Halo (Figures 5.27-5.29). 

Figure 5.27. Size at age estimates for reef-associated fishes captured at Halo. 
76 

Figure 5.28. Size at age estimates for Anthiinae basses captured at Halo. 

Figure 5.29. Size at age estimates for benthic and demersal fishes captured away 

from Halo. 

5.6 Sediment Core Analysis 

Four samples were taken at the designated distances from the ship. Each sample, after coming to the surface was 

removed from the sampling device and stored in a clean glass container at approximately 4o Celsius. Halo’s core 

samples did not indicate any visible differences. They all appeared to be smooth, gray/black sediment with a sour 

smell. The sour smell is indicative of the anaerobic biological activity (sulfate reduction) normally found within 

sediment samples. Samples were sent to a certified laboratory for organic chemistry analysis. The Halo site 

samples from each of the four cores indicated that the two closest core samples as well as the furthest sample tested 

positive for trace amounts of hydrocarbon in the C10-C14 carbon range. The positive samples were further 

analyzed using gas chromatography. Concentrations are as indicated in Table 5.11 below. 

Table 5.11 

Halo Core Analysis. 

Site Date Sample Location Concentration 

Halo August 3, 2004 Beside Ship 4.9 ug/g 

 30 meters 5.3 ug/g 

 152 meters <1 ug/g 

 305 meters 14 ug/g 
77 

6.0 GULFPENN SITE

6.1 Historical Background of the Tanker Gulfpenn

Figure 6.1. Tanker Gulfpenn, photograph taken by the United States Coast Guard (Courtesy of Mariner’s Museum, 

Newport News, Virginia). 

In 1916, the Sun Shipbuilding Company was formed in Chester, Pennsylvania, as an affiliate to the Sun Oil 

Company to bolster tanker construction, which was in great demand because of World War I. After the war, the Sun 

Shipbuilding Company continued constructing tankers, including Agwihavre, later renamed the Gulfpenn (Figures 

6.1 and 6.2). Agwihavre’s keel was laid on April 2, 1920, and was launched June 16, 1921 (Kavanagh et al. 2001). 

She was built for the Atlantic, Gulf, and West Indies Steamship Line of New York. The vessel was a screw steamer 

powered by a quadruple expansion engine, located in the aft portion of the vessel. She had a length of 480.6 feet 

(146.5 meters), a beam of 65.6 feet (20 meters), a 36.7 feet (11.2-meter) depth of hold, and was 8,862 gross tons. 

The tanker had a plain stem with forecastle head, elliptical stern, and two masts. The Gulf Oil Corporation of 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania acquired the vessel in 1942. Ownership of Agwihavre was transferred to the Gulf Oil 

Corporation of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the vessel renamed Gulfpenn. On March 11, 1942, the Gulfpenn

(Official Number 221244) was registered in the Port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania under license to Arthur S. 

Hodges, as a coasting trade vessel (Gulfpenn 1921; and Gulfpenn 1942). 

On February 28, 1942, Gulfpenn had its first exposure to U-boat activity when the crew received word that the 

unarmed oil tanker SS Oregon was attacked north of Cape Engano, Dominican Republic. Oregon was en route from 

Aruba to New York with a cargo of fuel oil when U-156 (Hartenstein), which was out of torpedoes, caught and sank 

the tanker with its deck guns. U-156 killed several of Oregon’s crew with machine-gun fire while they launched 

lifeboats. The following day, Gulfpenn rescued a group of survivors from Oregon (Hughes 2004; and Hocking 

1969: 528). 

On May 13, 1942, the unarmed Gulfpenn was transporting 90,000 barrels of gasoline from Port Arthur, Texas, to 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Gulfpenn was steaming about eight kilometers ahead of another tanker, Gulfprince. At 

dawn Gulfprince was attacked by U-507. The first two torpedoes fired by U-507 were spotted by Gulfprince’s 

lookouts and successfully evaded. The third glanced off the tanker’s hull, but did not explode. The impact caused 

some damage, but both tankers escaped. Gulfprince sent a radio alert of the attack. Captain Harro Schacht of U-507

stated in his logs that it was useless to pursue the tanker on the surface because his deck guns were secured, it was 

getting light, and the area had been alerted to his presence (Schacht 1942; and SeaWaves 2005). 
78 

Figure 6.2. Architectural drawing of the tanker Agwihavre or “Gulfpenn,” by the Sun Shipbuilding 

Company, July 8, 1920 (From the Independence Seaport Museum collection). 
79 

At 1450 hours (CT) on May 13th, Gulfpenn’s luck ran out when she crossed paths with U-506. The tanker had been 

traveling at 11 to 12 knots and zigzagging in irregular patterns. They were running radio-silent with four lookouts 

on duty, one on the forecastle, one on the bridge, and two on the aft deck. The weather was clear with moderate seas 

and light winds. Visibility was good and one other ship could be seen approximately 8.8 kilometers astern. The Uboat’s torpedo struck the engine room, destroying that section of the ship, immediately stopping the engines, and 

killing all of the personnel in the engine room. The tanker sank stern first, taking only five minutes to slip beneath 

the waves. Out of the 38 crewmen, 26 made it into lifeboats. Of these 26, one man died in a lifeboat while the 

Honduran vessel Telde rescued the remaining 25 survivors less than three hours after the attack (Burch 1942a). 

6.2 Previous Investigations 

In 1994, the shipwreck, Gulfpenn, was discovered during a deepwater survey in Mississippi Canyon conducted for 

Shell International Exploration and Production Inc. John E. Chance and Associates using the TAMU (Texas A&M 

University), deep-tow system conducted the survey. The wreck was detected at the edge of the survey swath by side 

scan sonar, which was set at a range of 750 meters per channel (Figure 6.3). The large sonar target was within 13 

kilometers of the historical location of Gulfpenn. Marine archaeologist Laura Landry conducted an archaeological 

assessment of the survey and tentatively identified the shipwreck as Gulfpenn (Landry 1994). 

Figure 6.3. Side scan sonar image of Gulfpenn from the TAMU deep-tow system (Courtesy of Shell 

International Exploration and Production Inc.). 

6.3 Geographical Setting 

The Gulfpenn wreck site area is located in the central portion of the Mississippi Canyon Area of the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. The site is south of the mouth of the Mississippi River along the Upper Mississippi Fan’s northern edge. 

The Mississippi Fan is a bow shaped fan made up of several fan-lobes and separated into three major regions: 

Upper, Middle, and Lower. The Mississippi Canyon is the conduit for the source material that comprises the 

Mississippi Fan (Bouma et al. 1985). The wreck site rests on the canyon’s eastern slope and is likely influenced by 

the material flowing down the canyon. The seafloor in this area gently slopes at approximately three degrees toward 

the south with local variations in the seafloor slope. The seafloor trend at the wreck site is to the south-southwest 

(Figure 6.4). This area’s sedimentation rate is relatively low in this area, approximately 2.13 millimeters per year. 
80 

Figure 6.4. Gulfpenn site overview map. 
81 

Table 6.1 

ROV Contacts from Figure 6.4. 

No. Description Time No. Description Time

1 Coral 0:17 51-52 UWD 8:17-18

2 Bow 0:24 53 Port hole 8:19

3 Pilot house, part of mast, & lines 0:34 54-55 UWD 8:20-22

4 Coral thicket 0:41 56 Ventilation cowl 8:45

5 Coral 0:46 57 Textile 8:48

6 Stern 1:02 58 Barrel 8:50

7 Scallops 1:13 59 Ventilation cowl 8:52

8 Rusticles 1:15 60 Bucket with handles 8:58

9 Rusticles 1:19 61 UWD 8:59

10 Leather or rubber, possible gasket 1:22 62 UWD 9:01

11 Pipe against hull 1:27 63 UWD 9:05

12 Rusticles 1:31 64 Life boat 9:09

13 Artifact 2 UWD 1:37 65 UWD 9:43

14 Wall of Coral 1:59 66 Metal tube 9:50

15 Standing mast 2:04 67 UWD metal 9:55

16 Hull buckle with cables 2:13 68 Metal rod 9:56

17 Stairs at engine room, experiment 2:18 69 UWD, metal 9:58

18 Coral 2:28 70 UWD 10:04

19 Obstacle 2:33 71 Ventilation cowl 10:05

20 Davit with coral 2:35 72 Round UWD 10:09

21 UWD metal pipes 2:47 73 Vent cowl & possible port hole 10:11

22 Rusticles on hull 2:52 74 UWD - pot/bowl shaped object 10:13

23 Rusticles 2:59 75 UWD - wood 10:15

24 Helm Wheel and Rusticles 3:40 76 UWD - Ferrous 10:17

25 UWD metal rectangular shape 3:55 77 UWD - metal 10:21

26 UWD and textile 4:18 78 UWD - metal 10:24

27 UWD 5:02 79 Ventilation cowl 10:25

28 Plastic crate and UWD 5:36 80 UWD 10:44

29 Possible ventilation cowl 6:29 81 Barrel 10:53

30 UWD 6:32 82 UWD - bowl shaped 11:00

31 UWD 6:34 83 UWD - metal rectangular shape 11:39

32 Metal pipe 6:43 84 Funnel 13:06

33 Metal pipes 6:45 85 Sack with Writing 13:17

34 Possible plate 6:46 86 Funnel with whistle & ladder 13:48

35 UWD, metal 6:49 87 Possible lettering 13:57

36 UWD 6:54 88 UWD - large letters 17:08

37 Metal and textile 6:55 89 UWD 7:14

38 UWD, possible port hole 6:57 90 Small trap set at 1000' 7:18

39 UWD 6:58 91 Lg fish trap set at 1000' 7:20

40 Ventilation cowl 7:01 92 Minnow trap set@1000' 8:00

41-43 UWD 7:35-40 93 Set lg trap near wreck 8:14

44 Ventilation cowl 7:44 94 Set crab trap near wreck 8:15

45 Possible stern 7:44 95 Set small trap near wreck 11:46

46 UWD 8:03 96 Core sample C 12:07

47 UWD 8:05 97 Core sample E 12:28

48 Ventilation cowl 8:09 98 Core sample A 12:42

49 UWD 8:12 99 Third Wall of Coral 15:33

50 UWD, possible port hole 8:15 100 Ship's telegraph 21:26

UWD = Unknown Wreck Debris 
82 

6.4 Discussion of Archaeological Finding 

6.4.1 Physical Site 

The following description of the wreck site is compiled from data collected during the 2004 field expedition. The 

wreck site investigation was conducted with the Triton XL11 ROV between August 4 and 5 and August 11 and 13, 

2004. Visibility at the site was good, averaging approximately six meters. 

The wreck is oriented with the bow pointing north-northwest and stern to south-southeast. Water depths range from 

approximately 553 meters at the bow to 555 meters at the stern. The vessel’s bow extends into the water column 

more than the stern. The deck of the forecastle stands about 18 meters above the ambient seafloor as opposed to the 

aft deckhouse, which rises approximately 5.5 meters above the ambient seafloor. 

The bow and forward section are relatively intact (Figure 6.5). The catwalk and piping are extant from the 

forecastle to the bridge structure. Coral covers the catwalk and railing, particularly along the starboard side of the 

vessel obscuring much of the structural detail. The foremast has separated from the deck and fallen forward. The 

foot of the mast lies on the deck and the mid-portion lies across the forecastle near the end of the catwalk. The 

mast’s upper parts appear to have broken away and are gone. Figure 6.6 shows a site map of the shipwreck’s main 

structure. 

Figure 6.5. Bow of the Gulfpenn. 
83 

10m 10m 0m

SCALE IN METERS

Coral

Sediment or 

Unknown Areas

Bollard

Small Vent with Hood

Small Vent

Fore Mast

Catwalk

Port Boom Stanchion

Starboard Boom 

Stanchion

Main Mast

Catwalk

Main Stack Opening

Skylight

Aft Deckhouse Main Superstructure Forecastle

Gulfpenn Site Plan

Lifeboat Davit

Stern

Bow

DavitLifeboat 

DavitLifeboat

Figure 6.6. Site drawing of Gulfpenn’s main structure 

(Drawn by Robert A. Church). 
84 

The superstructure’s upper works show a considerable deterioration. The pilothouse is gone and the bridge’s deck is 

disintegrating. The remaining superstructure, mainly on the port side, is collapsing with sections of metal plating 

partially suspended from the vessel. The ship’s telegraph has fallen over and spans part of the metal framework of 

the bridge (Figure 6.7). The superstructure’s starboard side is almost entirely obscured by prolific coral formations. 

Figure 6.7. Top of Gulfpenn’s superstructure showing the bridge telegraph lying across 

the exposed deck frame supports. 

Extensive damage is also present aft of the vessel’s main superstructure. Although the catwalk and piping from the 

main structure to the aft deckhouse are intact, the hull amidships has partially collapsed. Sections of the railing and 

gunwales are lying nearly flat against the deck and the deck is buckled inward in places. There are two hull 

breaches on the starboard side. The first is approximately 16.7 meters aft of the main superstructure and the second 

is approximately 25.5 meters further aft than the first rupture (Figure 6.8). On deck, the starboard stanchion (small 

mast) remains upright approximately 8.3 meters aft of the main superstructure, but the port stanchion has fallen 

forward with the upper part extending beyond the side of the ship. The main mast has fallen forward and lies on the 

deck (Figure 6.9). Corals cover the catwalk along this section of the wreck. 
85 

Figure 6.8. Breach in the hull along the vessel’s starboard side. 

Figure 6.9. Foot of the main mast lying on the deck. 

Gulfpenn’s aft portion exhibits the most severe damage. The deck of the aft deckhouse is deteriorating and has 

partially collapsed inward exposing the interior. The main smokestack is gone, leaving behind a gaping hole where 

it once stood. Two vent pipes were originally located directly forward of the main stack. The starboard vent pipe 

still stands, albeit missing a vent hood. The port vent has been destroyed with only fragments visible where it 

should be. A skylight or air vent at the deckhouse’s center is relatively intact. Roughly nine meters aft of the 

skylight the hull ends abruptly in a contortion of mangled metal plating. Almost 11 meters of the stern has been 

ripped away. Only partial remains of the aft helm controls, used for docking, are visible forward of this severely 

damaged area (Figure 6.10). Coral partly covers the wreck’s aft section, and is more prevalent on the vessel’s 

starboard side. Coral growth obscures much of the vessel’s structural details on the starboard side, making them 

difficult to distinguish. 
86 

Figure 6.10. Remains of the docking helm control on the aft deckhouse. 

An extensive artifact scatter surrounds the wreck site. The main debris zone extends nearly 161 meters northwest 

from the vessel. An area of light debris extends 130 meters southwest of the main hull. Smaller debris extends 65 

meters to 70 meters east and west of the primary wreckage. A large section of the ship, that appears to be the stern’s 

missing section (Figure 6.11), lies within the main debris field 27 meters northwest of the bow. Other material 

within this dense debris field includes vent hoods and pipe (Figure 6.12 a and b), railing, twisted metal, and a 

lifeboat (Figure 6.13). The vent shown in Figure 6.12a at ROV fix location No. 44 (See Figure 6.4) lies within a few 

meters of the suspected stern section. The vent hood shown in Figure 6.12b at ROV fix location No. 56 lies 133.6 

meters northwest of the bow. The lifeboat shown in Figure 6.13 at ROV fix location No. 64 is 73 meters northwest 

of the bow. The missing stack lies 25 meters east of the aft deckhouse’s starboard side, nearly perpendicular to its 

original deck location (Figure 6.14). The funnel is almost completely flattened with the top pointing away from the 

vessel. The ladder and steam whistle running up the stack’s forward edge are still intact. 
87 

Figure 6.11. Possible section of the vessel’s detached stern. 

 a) b) 

Figure 6.12. a) Vent hood lying near the separated stern section. b) Vent hood lying near the northern extent of the 

debris field. 
88 

Figure 6.13. Lifeboat from Gulfpenn in the debris field (Photo mosaic). 

Figure 6.14. Gulfpenn’s main stack, lying to the vessel’s starboard side (Photo mosaic). 

Gulfpenn’s stern damage is consistent with the historical accounts of the U-boat attack. The evidence suggests the 

torpedo attack ripped the stern from the main hull. As the disarticulated stern plunged to the seafloor spilling debris, 

the remainder of Gulfpenn’s hull sank by the after most section. As the hull planed downward it crossed over the 

fragmented stern section and debris trail impacting the seafloor behind it. Gulfpenn’s main hull impacted the 

seafloor aft section first, collapsing the torpedo-damaged aft hull and leaving the bow extending proud off the 

seafloor. The masts’ standing rigging possibly parted as a result of explosions during the attack. Drag encountered 

through the water column as the vessel sank likely caused forward stress on the masts before the ship impacted the 

seafloor. The fore and aft masts have both fallen forward, at a similar angle of four to nine degrees to port with their 

foot lying near the base, indicating they likely collapsed as a result of uniform stress experienced on impact. It is 

possible both masts fell before impact, but if the bolts holding the base had already given way, the masts would 

likely have slid aft on impact, which is not indicated from their present orientation. 

6.4.2 Site Preservation 

The wreck site is in a moderate state of preservation. Site deterioration is not as advanced as at the Virginia and 

Halo sites. The bow section is in good condition, but the aft section has considerable damage from the wrecking 

event. Some decking is still intact, but is rapidly deteriorating. The severe damage to the hull’s aft section indicates 

the aft section likely will collapse before the bow and main superstructure. 
89 

6.5 Discussion of Biological Findings 

6.5.1 Microbiology 

Gulfpenn, at a depth of 538 meters exhibited very different growths than the other ships under investigation. Most 

significant of these differences was the abundance of microbial concretions (C4) that coated 30% of the ship’s 

observable surface. All of these concretions appeared to be attached to form large branching whorls. These were 

found growing with a similar abundance over the decking, hull plates, railings and other ship structures. Sea 

anemones were also observed at an average density of 2 per m2

. Brown rusticles (C1) were more abundant in mass, 

but occupied only 15% of the area and many were of a larger size ranging up to 1.5 meters with widths ranging up to 

500 millimeters. There was not such large mass of concretious dendritic growth (C3), but they occupied 60% of the 

area. Thickness ranged from 5 to 15 millimeters, and was commonly overlain with only thin coatings of slime (B1). 

This slime coated one third of the area occupied by the C3 type. One large integrated biocolloidal gel (also referred 

to as a “blob”, B2) was identified on the starboard side above the mud line, coating approximately 20% of the 

starboard hull plates with a fine gel-like matrix that also embraced some of the C4 concretions. The “blob” was 

tracked along the starboard hull-mud line interface, it disintegrated and dispersed quickly and was not observed 

when the region was inspected again six hours later. For the bio-battery platform, electrical potentials (mV) were 

recorded (Figure 6.15) between only three of the coupons. 

Figure 6.15. Voltages (millivolts) detected on bio-battery coupons 

deployed on Gulfpenn. 

Gravimetric elemental analysis using ICP-AES of the rusticles recovered from the port and starboard sides of 

Gulfpenn are given in Table 6.3. Here it was found that the dominant three elements were iron (96%), sodium (2.5 – 

2.7%), and magnesium (0.2 – 0.3%). 
90 

Table 6.2 

Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of Brown Rusticles (C1) from Gulfpenn’s Port and Starboard Side 

Port Starboard 

Iron 96.3236% 96.8307%

Sodium 2.6978% 2.4549%

Magnesium 0.3440% 0.2387%

Potassium 01680% 0.1449%

Calcium 0.1322% 0.0784%

Phosphorus 0.1159% 0.1227%

Aluminum 0.0960% 0.0409%

Manganese 0.0670% 0.0392%

Molybdenum 0.0110% 0.0133%

Vanadium 0.0098% 0.0092%

Boron 0.0096% 0.0080%

Cadmium 0.0078% 0.0077%

Strontium 0.0053% 0.0031%

Lead 0.0045% 0.0038%

Barium 0.0027% 0.0011%

Titanium 0.0017% 0.0008%

Chromium 0.0007% 0.0007%

Zinc 0.0006% 0.0004%

Cobalt 0.0002% 0.0000%

6.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology 

The Gulfpenn site had the highest species richness of all sites, and 99 voucher specimens belonging to 26 taxa were 

collected. This comparatively high abundance and diversity of fauna at 536 to 557 meters depth was perhaps a 

result of the low turbidity, resulting good visibility, and the intermediate oxygen content (> 4 mg l-1); temperature 

was 7.4°C and salinity was approximately 35 ppt. Crustaceans were represented by the most species (17), followed 

by mollusks (5), echinoderms (2), and cnidarians and polychaets with one each. Rochinia crassa (inflated spiny 

crab) was abundant, and 26 specimens were collected. Galatheoid crabs (chirostylids and galatheids, sometimes 

called squat lobsters) and Venus flytrap anemones (Actinoscyphia sp.) were also common at this site. 

Sediment composition was similar to that of the Virginia and Halo sites; the majority of the sediment was clay and 

silt, but some sediment was incorporated into pellets, increasing the water content and size of interstices. 

Nematodes were numerically predominant in the meiofauna, but their density was half of that recorded at Halo and 

25% of the density found at Virginia (Table 6.5). Polychaets and harpacticoid copepods were less abundant and 

approximately equal. A few individuals of several other taxa were found sporatically. A single individual of the 

same species of caudofoveatan mollusk (Scutopus sp.) that was initially found at Virginia was found in core A. Ten 

tanaidaceans were found in core D. These chelate crustaceans were found at all deeper sites, and appeared to be the 

same species at all sites. Like many of the peracarid crustaceans, the tanaidaceans do not have planktonic larvae, 

but instead are brooded in a marsupium and released as juveniles. Our specimens appear to be juvenile 

Gigantopseudes adactylus, a species that grows to several centimeters in length as an adult and is largely restricted 

to the deep sea (Anderson et al. 2005). 
91 

Table 6.3 

Density (Number Per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over, Adjacent and Distant (300 m) from the 

Gulfpenn Site. 

Transect Number 

Far Adjacent Near 

GulfPenn 200 201 202 222 223 224 225 226 227 

Crustaceans 

Chaceon quinquedens 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Munida sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 

Rochinia crassa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.4 0.0 

Hermit crab 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Shrimp 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Gooseneck barnacles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.5 

Echinoderms 

Holothurian 0.8 1.1 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Mollusks 

Acesta sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 

Gaza superba 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cnidarians 

Anemone 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 3.5 0.5 9.6 3.0 19.1 

Table 6.4 

Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2

) From Sediment Cores Collected Adjacent to (Core A) and 

Progressively More Distant (Cores B And C) from Gulfpenn. 

Wreck Gulfpenn 

 Number per 10 cm2

Taxon Core A Core C Core D 

Harpacticoida 5.4 0.0 19.9 

Tardigrada 0.0 1.8 0.0 

Tanaidacea 0.0 0.0 18.1 

Nematoda 273.8 250.2 359.0 

Amphipoda 1.8 0.0 3.6 

Gastrotricha 0.0 3.6 0.0 

Kinorhyncha 0.0 0.0 1.8 

Polychaeta 3.6 14.5 7.3 

Aplocophoran 1.8 0.0 0.0 

Unknown 1.8 0.0 0.0 
92 

Figure 6.16. Eumunida picta collected from Gulfpenn (Photo by Morgan Kilgour and Aaron Baldwin). 

Many macrofaunal invertebrates, particularly chirostylid crabs and brittlestars, have been associated with deepwater 

corals and other bioherms (Buhl Mortensen et al. 1995; and Buhl Mortensen and Buhl Mortensen 2004). The 

galatheoid crab Eumunida picta is well known (Figure 6.16), but has commonly been associated with hydrothermal 

vents. We observed the species in association with the deepwater coral Lophelia pertusa and found the species only 

at the Gulfpenn site. Eumunida picta was observed in water depths from 533 to 556 meters. Although only 20% of 

the Lopelia had E. picta, 81% of the E. picta were observed in association with the deep-sea coral. Eumunida picta 

was usually within 1 m of the coral when it was not in direct contact with it. The coral may be providing an 

optimum feeding location for the crab, refuge from predation, or both. Interestingly, the crab was found only at this 

site, so the species may be bathymetrically constrained. 

Rochinia crassa, the inflated spiny crab, was also abundant and conspicuous; 26 specimens were collected, with 

most (23) near Gulfpenn. The species is found on mud and sand substrates from 66 to 1,216 meters from 

Massachusetts to Texas, and from Colombia, and French Guiana (Williams 1984). The crab is a member of the 

family Majidae, and most members of the family have a terminal molt when they molt to maturity. That is, as the 

carapace reaches its adult morphology, the crab will not undergo another molt. This is particularly interesting in that 

none of the specimens in our photo documentation display evidence of lost limbs or earlier regeneration (Figure 

13.3). 
93 

Table 6.5 

Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the Gulfpenn Site, 

Including Number and Proximity to Wreck, Substrate, and Depth. 

Gulfpenn

Specimen ID Number 

Near Wreck 

(< 61 m) 

Number far 

from wreck 

(>61 m) 

Unknown 

collection 

location 

Substrate Depth (m)

Pycnogonida 

Colossendeis bicincta 5 Wreck 551-555 

Crustacea 

Bathynomous giganteus 3 Silt 554 

Chaceon quinquedens 2 2 Silt 549-555 

Eumunida picta 7 Wreck 538-549 

Munida sp. 6 Wreck;Silt 545-556 

Munidopsis glabra 3 Wreck 551-555 

Parapagarus pilimanus 1 3 Silt 551-556 

Phimochirus holthuisi 5 Silt 551-556 

Podochela sp. 1 Unknown 

Rochinia crassa 23 3 Wreck; Silt 539-557 

Trichopletarion nobile 1 Unknown 

Axiidae 2 Silt 548-553 

Hippolytidae 4 1 Silt 553-556 

Pandalidae 3 Wreck; Silt 551-557 

Segestidae 1 Silt 555 

Gooseneck barnacles (cf. Scapellum) 1 Wreck 549 

Necrophagous isopods 1 547 

Cnidarians 

Actinoscyphia sp. (Venus fly trap anemone) 1 Wreck 536 

Polychaeta 

Onuphidae 2 Silt 557 

Mollusca 

Acesta sp 4 Wreck 551-552 

Gaza superba 4 2 Silt 554-557 

Xenophora sp. 1 Unknown 

Buccinidae 3 Silt 553-556 

Cephalopoda 1 Silt 546 

Echinodermata 

Astropecten sp. 1 Silt 552-554 

Holothuroidea 2 Silt 551-556 

Several taxa encountered at this site exhibited giantism, a phenomenon in which species are unusually large in 

comparison to other members of the taxonomic group; giantism is more common in deeper and colder waters. The 
94 

impressive giant sea spider, Colossendeis bicinctata, is one such example; the species has been found at depths to 

3,058 meters in the Gulf of Panama (NMNH, 2006). Pycnogonida, or sea spiders, feed on the fluids of soft-bodied 

invertebrates, particularly hydroids and anemones. Their larvae are not planktonic and have slow dispersal; hence 

endemism (restricted spatial distribution of species) is relatively common within the pycnogonids. During the egg 

brooding period, males are relatively easy to identify, as they are incubating the fertilized eggs. The commonness of 

the giant sea spiders at this site may have been related to the commonness of anemones, soft corals, or other softbodied invertebrates at the site. The large isopod, Bathynomus giganteus, was another species displaying giantism, 

and three specimens were collected. This large scavenger is among the more common large predators at the sites 

and is widely distributed throughout the Gulf of Mexico, North Atlantic, and Caribbean Sea from relatively shallow 

depths of a few hundred meters to several thousand meters. 

Scleractina, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea 

Good to very good visibility at this site resulted in a thorough examination and video documentation of the tanker 

Gulfpenn. Depth at the site is on the order of 554 meters BSL, and the hydrographic conditions measured during the 

survey were: temperature ~7.4o C; salinity ~34.9 psu; and dissolved oxygen ~4.2 mg l-1. All depths reported in the 

following text are the uncorrected ROV readings displayed on the video recordings. 

Two scleractinians, Pourtalosmilia conferta and the tuft coral Lophelia pertusa, were found on the Gulfpenn (Table 

4.3). No antipatharians or gorgonians were observed or collected. Pourtalosmilia conferta was seen once on the 

video records. A solitary, medium size colony of this densely branched coral, or possibly a cluster of small colonies, 

was observed attached near the top of the standing portion of the mast on the aft deck at a water depth of 537 meters 

(Figure 6.17). Conversely, it is conservatively estimated that L. pertusa has colonized 12-15 percent of available 

exposed surfaces and structures throughout the wreck. 

Figure 6.17. Pourtalosmilia conferta attached near the top of the extant mast. The specimen is located on 

the aft deck at a water depth of 537 meters. 

Lophelia pertusa is known to exhibit a broad range in growth form and skeletal characteristics (Freiwald et al. 1997; 

Cairns 2000). Freiwald et al. (1997) describe three ecotypes based on the habit of the corallites and the budding 

type: tubular, stereome-thickened, and stout and crowded. Of these, the tubular is the dominant ecotype observed on 
95 

the Gulfpenn. Two of the distinguishing characteristics that are most apparent are the trumpet-like shaped corallites 

and the open branched, out curved growth habit where each newly formed corallite grows in its own direction 

(Figure 6.18). Lophelia pertusa has been previously reported from numerous sites across the northern and eastern 

Gulf of Mexico (Schroeder et al. 2005). 

Figure 6.18. Tubular ecotype growth form of Lophelia pertusa. Trumpet-like shaped corallites and the 

open branched, out-curved growth habit where each newly formed corallite grows in its own 

direction. 

Lophelia pertusa appears to have developed most successfully on surfaces or structures with vertical orientation 

(e.g., hull, bulwarks and the sides of superstructures) (Figures 6.19) or that have an upright (e.g., davits, masts, 

booms and stacks) (Figure 6.20), raised (e.g., catwalks and deck piping) (Figure 6.21), or open (e.g., railings and 

rigging) (Figure 6.22) construction or arrangement. Overall, the most extensive coral growth is on the starboard 

side, and on catwalks and deck piping along the portside of the aft and fore decks (Figure 6.6). At numerous 

locations clusters of adjacent colonies are coalescing in an initial phase of ‘thicket’ building (Figure 6.21) similar to 

that described by Squires (1964). In some cases aggregations have already formed thicket-like structures (Figure 

6.22a). The largest development of coral is a 6 to 7 meters high by 3 to 3.5 meters wide aggregate of at least five or 

six coalescing colonies growing from the main deck/bulwarks level to above the pilot house on the forward 

starboard corner of the main superstructure (Figure 6.23). This vertical assemblage of colonies has formed an 

upright thicket. Generally, little or no colonization has occurred on most deck areas and other horizontal surfaces 

(Figure 6.24). One notable exception is the aft deck’s forward area where colonies are growing on a deteriorating 

region of the deck beneath a coral-encrusted mast and boom (Figure 6.25). Lophelia pertusa also was found living 

on sediment adjacent to the hull (Figure 6.26) and colonizing wreckage in the debris field northwest and west of 

Gulfpenn (Figure 6.27). 
96 

 a). b). 

c). 

Figure 6.19. Lophelia pertusa growing on (a) the starboard bower anchor, (b) the starboard hull below the main 

superstructure, and (c) the starboard aft side of the main superstructure from the second (lifeboat) deck 

down to the bulwarks. 
97 

 a). b). 

Figure 6.20. Lophelia pertusa growing on (a) a davit on top of forward starboard corner of the aft deckhouse and (b) 

a mast and booms on the aft deck. 

Figure 6.21. Lophelia pertusa colonizing deck piping and a catwalk on the port side of the aft deck. 
98 

 a). b). 

Figure 6.22. (a) Aggregating colonies of Lophelia pertusa on the railing and upper hull along the starboard 

foredeck. (b) Solitary Lophelia pertusa colony on railing along starboard aft deck. 

Figure 6.23. Looking down on the upper cluster of coalescing Lophelia pertusa colonies. These colonies 

are growing from the main deck to above the top of the pilothouse on the forward starboard 

corner of the main superstructure. 
99 

 a). b). 

Figure 6.24. Examples of horizontal surfaces with no Lophelia pertusa colonization: (a) the stern end of the aft 

deck; and (b) the collapsed main stack. 

Figure 6.25. Lophelia pertusa colonizing forward portion of the aft deck beneath a coral encrusted mast 

and boom. 
100 

Figure 6.26. Large Lophelia pertusa colony growing on sediment adjacent to the hull. 

 a). b). 

Figure 6.27. Small Lophelia pertusa colonies growing on (a) wreckage in the debris field 106 meters northwest of 

Gulfpenn and (b) an upright piece of metal rod in the debris field 70 meters west of Gulfpenn. 

6.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology 

Fish Community Structure 

Visibility at Gulfpenn was significantly better than at Virginia or Halo. The mean width of transects was 

approximately 4.2 meters over the ship and 3.0 meters adjacent to and away from the wreck (Table 6.6). Mean 

dissolved oxygen concentration measured at this site during transect sampling (4.2 mg l-1) was not as high as at 

Virginia but was not as hypoxic as at Halo. 
101 

Gulfpenn was the deepest wreck where reef fish taxa were observed. The fish community associated with the ship 

was dominated by the slimehead Hoplostethus occidentalis (Tables 6.6–6.8). Two scorpionfishes were abundant: 

the blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) and the Atlantic thornyhead (Trachyscorpia cristulata). Fishes 

captured in traps set next to the ship included the deepwater conger (Bathycongrus dubius) gulf hake (Urophycis 

cirrata) and gulf hagfish (Eptatretus springeri) (Tables 6.9 and 6.10). 

Table 6.6 

Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV video During Biological Transect Over, 

Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from (Distant) Gulfpenn. 

Transect 

Line 

Relation 

to ship Taxon Min Count 

Max 

Count 

Min Density 

100 m-2

Max Density 

100 m-2

225 Over Helicolenus dactylopterus 1 2 1.37 2.75 

 Hoplostethus occidentalis 2 2 2.75 2.75 

 Scorpaenidae 1 2 1.37 2.75 

226 Over Helicolenus dactylopterus 1 1 0.2 0.2 

 Hoplostethus occidentalis 11 60 2.2 11.98 

 Urophycis sp. 2 7 0.04 1.4 

 Trachyscorpia cristulata 2 5 0.4 1 

 Teleost 1 3 0.2 0.6 

227 Over Hoplostethus occidentalis 15 32 3.57 7.62 

 Trachyscorpia cristulata 1 1 0.24 0.24 

 Teleost 1 1 0.24 0.24 

200 Adjacent Peristedion miniatum 1 2 0.25 0.5 

Symphurus piger 2 3 0.5 0.76 

 Macrouridae 1 5 0.25 1.26 

 Teleost 1 9 0.25 2.27 

201 Adjacent Symphurus piger 1 4 0.29 1.15 

 Macrouridae 2 4 0.57 1.15 

 Teleost 1 2 0.29 0.57 

202 Adjacent Symphurus piger 1 2 0.29 1.15 

 Macrouridae 1 3 0.57 1.15 

 Teleost 1 2 0.29 0.57 

222 Distant Symphurus piger 1 4 0.17 0.7 

 Teleost 1 6 0.17 1.04 

223 Distant Symphurus piger 1 2 0.23 0.46 

 Trachyscorpia cristulata 2 3 0.46 0.69 

 Teleost 1 7 0.23 1.62 

224 Distant Scorpaenidae 1 1 0.17 0.17 

 Teleost 1 4 0.17 0.67 
102 

Table 6.7 

Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at the Gulfpenn on Other than Biological Transects. 

(Location indicates if video was collected over or away from the ship.) 

Visit Location Taxon Min 

Count 

Max 

Count 

Gulfpenn (1) Over Ship Eptatretus springeri 5 9 

 Helicolenus dactylopterus 4 99 

 Hoplostethus occidentalis 65 1,283 

 Mustelus canis 1 2 

 Symphurus piger 1 2 

 Trachyscorpia cristulata 4 140 

 Trichiurus lepturus 1 1 

 Urophycis cirrata 1 6 

 Ventrifossa macropogon 1 1 

 Nezumia sp. 1 1 

 Urophycis sp. 2 31 

 Congridae 1 2 

 Cynoglossidae 1 12 

 Macrouridae 1 7 

 Scorpaenidae 3 178 

 Chlorophthalmidae 1 9 

 Anguilliformes 2 11 

 Gadiformes 1 12 

 Osmeriformes 1 1 

 Scorpaeniformes 1 3 

 Teleostei 1 33 

 Away From Ship Caranx crysos 8 36 

 Chlorophthalmus agassizi 1 1 

 Etmopterus hillianus 1 1 

 Peristedion minitum 1 15 

 Symphurus piger 2 9 

 Trichiurus lepturus 1 1 

 Urophycis cirrata 1 5 

 Ventrifossa macropogon 1 1 

 Nezumia sp. 1 1 

 Urophycis sp. 2 28 

 Cynoglossidae 3 108 

 Halosauridae 1 2 

 Macrouridae 2 25 

 Trichiuridae 1 1 

 Anguilliformes 2 11 

 Gadiformes 1 12 

 Ophidiiformes 1 1 

 Scorpaeniformes 1 3 

 Teleostei 1 33 
103 

Visit Location Taxon Min 

Count 

Max 

Count 

Gulfpenn (2) Over Ship Eptatretus springeri 1 3 

 Etmopterus hillianus 1 1 

 Helicolenus dactylopterus 1 15 

 Hoplostethus occidentalis 25 507 

 Monomitopus agassizii 1 1 

 Nezumia aequalis 1 4 

 Trachyscorpia cristulata 2 29 

 Urophycis cirrata 1 9 

 Urophycis sp. 1 17 

 Cynoglossidae 1 7 

 Halosauridae 1 1 

 Scorpaenidae 3 17 

 Squalidae 1 1 

 Chlorophthalmidae 1 6 

 Anguilliformes 1 2 

 Gadiformes 1 10 

 Teleostei 1 3 

Gulfpenn (3) Over Ship Helicolenus dactylopterus 1 7 

 Hoplostethus occidentalis 30 375 

 Trachyscorpia cristulata 2 9 

 Urophycis cirrata 2 5 

 Urophycis sp. 1 2 

 Carangidae 1 1 

 Congridae 1 1 

 Scorpaenidae 1 2 

 Chlorophthalmidae 2 28 

 Anguilliformes 1 4 

 Gadiformes 1 1 

 Teleostei 1 3 

 Away From Ship Nezumia aequalis 1 1 

 Symphurus piger 1 4 

 Urophycis cirrata 1 1 

 Urophycis sp. 1 1 

 Cynoglossidae 1 6 

 Macrouridae 1 1 

 Ophichthidae 1 1 

 Teleostei 1 2 

(X) Denotes the visit number for sites examine multiple times. 
104 

Table 6.8 

Estimated Total Lengths of Fishes Observed on Video at the Gulfpenn. 

(All individuals were captured on video with both ROV-mounted lasers striking them.) 

Taxon Number 

Measured 

Mean 

TL mm 

Standard 

Deviation 

Range 

TL mm 

Helicolenus dactylopterus 14 658 138.7 518-847 

Hoplostethus occidentalis 6 249 66.1 148-346 

Nezumia aequalis 1 219 

Trachyscorpia cristulata 9 706 174.9 359-940 

Urophycis sp. 1 254 

Cynoglossidae 2 195 12.3 187-204 

Macrouridae 1 404 

Scorpaenidae 1 404 

Table 6.9 

Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (large) and Baitfish (small) Fish Traps Deployed Adjacent to (ship) 

and 300 Meters Away From (distant) Gulfpenn. 

Trap Type Location Species Number 

Large Distant Urophycis cirrata 5 

 Urophycis sp. 1 

Large Ship Argyropelecus sladeni 1 

 Bathycongrus dubius 1 

Small Distant Eptatretus springeri 12 

Small Ship Bathycongrus dubius 1 

Small Ship Eptatretus springeri 21 

Large Ship Helicolenus dactylopterus 1 

 Symphurus piger 1 

 Urophycis cirrata 1 

Table 6.10 

Fishes Caught with the ROV Suction Sampler at Gulfpenn. 

Date Species Number 

Aug 3 – Aug 5 Etmopterus hillianus 1 

Hoplostethus occidentalis 3 

Nezumia cyrano 3 

Peristedion miniatum 5 

Symphurus piger 4 

Ventrifossa macropogon 1 

Aug 11 – Aug 12 Merluccius albidus 1 

Monomitopus agassizii 1 

Aug 13 Hoplostethus occidentalis 5 

Monomitopus agassizii 1 

Nezumia aequalis 1 

Symphurus piger 3 
105 

Scorpionfishes were observed on transects flown immediately adjacent to the ship where they were associated with 

ship debris. Other fishes observed adjacent to and away from the wreck included grenadiers (Family: Macrouridae), 

deepwater tonguesole (Symphurus piger) and armored searobin, (Peristedion miniatum). Grenadiers were the most 

abundant fishes observed on video away from the wreck but species identification was not possible from video. 

From suction sampler collections, however, three species of grenadiers were identified: the longbeard grenadier 

(Ventrifossa macropogon) the common Atlantic grenadier (Nezumia aequalis), and (Nezumia cyrano). An offshore 

hake (Merluccius albidus), a cusk eel (Monomitopus agassizii), and a Caribbean lanternshark (Etmopterus hillianus) 

also were captured with the suction sampler. 

 a) b) 

 c) d) 

Figure 6.28. (a) Blackbelly rosefish, (b) Atlantic thornyhead, (c) slimeheads, and (d) deepwater tonguesole over 

or adjacent to Gulfpenn. 

Diet and Trophic Structure 

Stomachs were dissected from 33 fish collected at Halo, but only 18 (54%) had food items present (Figure 6.29). 

Gut content analysis indicated fish dominated the diet of deepwater conger, while slimehead and deepwater 

tonguesole diet was composed of half fish and half crustaceans. Gut contents of the three gulf hake indicated their 

diet consisted solely of shrimp. Armored searobin diet also contained shrimp but other invertebrate taxa were 

present, including amphipods, which composed approximately half of identifiable prey items. 
106 

Figure 6.29. Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at Gulfpenn. Sample sizes indicated for each species. 

Stable isotope analysis of fishes associated with Gulfpenn indicated very similar trophic levels and sources of 

production for slimeheads, hakes, and the one blackbelly rosefish sampled (Figure 6.30). Their δ13C and δ15N 

values indicated feeding on macroinvertebrates and small fishes, with hakes feeding at a slightly higher trophic level 

than the other fishes. δ13C and δ34S values indicated a phytoplankton-based food web, thus providing evidence of 

the importance of phytoplankton production within the photic zone, perhaps exported as phytodetritus, to this slope 

environment. The range in δ34S values also indicated these fishes feed on both pelagic and benthic prey items. 

Figure 6.30. Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling from 

Gulfpenn. Filled symbols are species-specific mean values. 

The one fish species that differed with respect to stable isotope values was the Gulf hagfish (Figure 6.31), which is a 

vagrant scavenger in the deep sea. Hagfish captured at Gulfpenn had δ15N values indicating feeding at moderately 

high trophic levels. Thus, their depleted δ13C values may indicate some component of their biomass was derived 

from chemosynthetic production (MacAvoy et al. 2002). Grenadiers had stable isotope values consistent with 

benthic feeding at a moderately high trophic level (macroinvertebrates to fishes). This result is important to 

understanding the trophic ecology of fishes at this site because there were no food items present in the stomachs of 

sampled grenadiers. Thus, stable isotope values provide the only insight into their feeding ecology. 
107 

Figure 6.31. Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling away 

from Gulfpenn. Filled symbols are species-specific mean values. 

Invertebrate tissue samples, collected at Gulfpenn, provide some insight into the trophic ecology of the rich 

invertebrate fauna sampled at this site (see Section 6.5.2 for details). Stable isotope values of the large scavenging 

isopod Bathynomus giganteus provides further evidence of chemosynthetic production as was seen in hagfish 

(Figure 6.32). Trends in δ15N versus δ13C values indicate an increase in two full trophic levels from the inflated 

spiny crab (Rochinia crassa) to the gastropod. There was no clear trend in δ34S values among invertebrate taxa, but 

in general they conveyed a mix of pelagic and benthic food sources.

Figure 6.32. Results of stable isotope analysis of invertebrate tissue samples collected during biological sampling at 

Gulfpenn. Filled symbols are species-specific mean values. 
108 

Age Estimation 

Opaque zones were counted in otolith sections prepared from 31 fish collected at Gulfpenn (Figures 6.33 and 6.34). 

Of the sampled species, opaque zones have only been validated as annuli for blackbelly rosefish (White et al. 1998) 

and Gulf hake (Martins and Haimovici 2000). Opaque zones have not been validated in the slimehead 

(Hoplostethus occidentalis), offshore hake, grenadier (Nezumia cyrano), deepwater tonguesole, armored searobin, or 

deepwater conger. Given the sampling depth, it is not unusual for otoliths of such a large number of species not to 

have been validated. Congeners of Hoplostethus occidentalis and Nezumia cyrano have had otolith opaque zones 

validated as annuli, and both genuses have members that are very long lived (Coggan et al. 1999, Tracy and Horn 

1999). For the other species sampled, we assumed opaque zones were formed annually. While this is not a 

conservative approach, the preponderance of recent evidence suggests deep-sea fishes form annual opaque zones in 

their otoliths similar to shallow water species (reviewed in Calliet et al. 2001 and Morales-Nin and Panfili 2005) 

As a group, fishes sampled at Gulfpenn were the oldest observed in this study, despite none of them being large in 

size. This finding is consistent with Caillet et al.’s (2001) hypothesis that deep-sea fishes are typified by slow 

growth and long lives resulting from physiological adaptations to living in high pressure environments with low 

dissolved oxygen and limited prey resources. For example, the oldest fish aged in this study was the blackbelly 

rosefish sampled at Gulfpenn. This individual was 450 millimeters TL and aged to be 50 years old. For 

comparison, an amberjack and a king snake eel captured at Halo were 1226 and 1940 millimeters TL and were 

estimated to be 7 and 24 years old, respectively (Figures 5.27 and 5.29). 

Figure 6.33. Size at age estimates for fishes captured over the Gulfpenn. 
109 

Figure 6.34. Size at age estimates for fishes captured away from the Gulfpenn. 

6.6 Sediment Core Analysis 

Four samples were taken at the designated distance from the ship structure. Each sample, after coming to the 

surface, was taken out of the sample device and stored in a clean glass container at approximately 4o0C. Gulfpenn’s 

core samples did not indicate any visible differences. They all appeared to be smooth, gray/black sediment with a 

sour smell. The sour smell is indicative of the anaerobic biological activity (sulfate reduction) normally found 

within sediment samples. Samples were sent to a certified laboratory for organic chemistry analysis. The Gulfpenn

site samples from each of the four cores all tested below detection levels for hydrocarbon C6-C36, as well as total 

petroleum hydrocarbons (Table 6.11). 

Table 6.11 

Gulfpenn Core Analysis. 

Site Date Sample Location Concentration 

Gulfpenn August 5, 2004 Beside Ship <1 ug/g 

 30 meters <1 ug/g 

 152 meters <1 ug/g 

 305 meters <1 ug/g 
111 

7.0 DEUSTCHE KREIGSMARINE (DKM) U-166 SITE 

7.1 Historical Background of DKM U-166

Figure 7.1. U-166 at sea in early 1942 (Kuhlmann Collection courtesy of the PAST Foundation and the National DDay Museum). 

During the early months of 1942, the war seemed far away to most Americans, but in reality an ominous threat 

lurked in the waters off the Eastern and Gulf Coasts. America’s entry into World War II, provided Hitler the 

opportunity to extend U-boat attacks to America’s shores just as the Kaiser had in World War I. This time, 

however, Hitler’s U-boats would not limit attacks to America's East Coast. They would strike deeply into America's 

backyard, the Gulf of Mexico. In just over a year's time, beginning in May 1942, twenty-four German U-boats 

entered the Gulf of Mexico. Seventeen of these U-boats, including U-166, sank fifty-six merchant ships and 

damaged several others (Wiggins, 1995). 

U-166 (Figure 7.1 and 7.2) was built at the Seebeck Shipyard in Bremen, Germany between December 6, 1940 and 

March 23, 1942 (Morgan and Christ 2003). U-166 was 76.8 meters long, had a beam of 6.8 meters, and a draft of 

4.7 meters. It was one of 54 type IXC U-boats constructed by Germany during World War II. The IXCs were longrange fast-attack submarines. They were built to carry the war to foreign shores using two supercharged ninecylinder MAN diesel engines that generated 2,200 horsepower each, and 208 tons of fuel. On the surface a IXCs 

could make 18.3 knots, and 7.3 knots submerged. Larger diesel bunkers than previous designs allowed the IXCs a 

surface range of 11,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, and a submerged range of 63 nautical miles at 4 knots. Like most 

type IXs, U-166 had a full double hull with the outer hull extended nearly down to the keel (Miller 2000; and 

Rössler 2001). According to Rössler (2001), IXCs had a pressure hull composed of 10 sections with each section 

constructed of 4 to 6 steel plates welded on circular frames to form short cylinders. The plates had a thickness of 

18.5 millimeters everywhere on the hull, except the conning tower where the plate thickness was increased to 22 

millimeters (Rössler 2001). The deck was wide and flat leaving room for ten torpedoes stored in pressure tight 

containers. A IXC U-boat typically carried a complement of at least four officers and forty-four crew during 

wartime (Blair 2000; and Miller 2000). The class IXs were based on earlier Type IA U-boats but had substantial 
112 

improvements to engines, fuel capacity, and armament. The Type IXs and its short-range counterpart, the Type VII, 

formed the backbone of the German U-boat fleet (Miller 2000). 

Figure 7.2. Schematic of a Type IXC U-boat (Courtesy of National Park Service and PAST Foundation). 

U-166 was armed with twenty-two torpedoes that could be fired through four forward or two aft tubes. For surface 

actions, a 105-millimeter deck gun was mounted forward of the conning tower. Other armaments included a 20-

millimeter machine-gun mounted on the single wintergarten and a 37-millimeter anti-aircraft gun on the aft deck for 

defense against aircraft or surface vessels. According to Miller (2000), later IXCs were constructed with an 

extended wintergarten for mounting additional anti-aircraft weaponry. 

U-166 was constructed under the auspices of the man who eventually commanded her, Oberleutnant zur See HansGünther Kuhlmann (Figure 7.3). Kuhlmann, who was born in Cologne in 1913, served in the German Merchant 

Marine until joining the Kriegsmarine in January 1937. At the start of the war in 1939, he served as the No. 2 

Torpedo Officer on the German heavy cruiser Blücher until January 1940 when he transferred to the U-boat arm. 

Kuhlmann was assigned to U-37 as a third watch officer and over the next 13 months, he rose to the rank of first 

watch officer before leaving the boat for U-boat commander training. After successfully completing the 

commander’s course Kuhlmann was assigned to the 24th U-boat Flotilla and in March 1941 was given command of 

the training boat, U-7. In July 1941, he took command of the U-580, remaining on that boat until it was lost off 

Norway during a training exercise. Kuhlmann survived and took command of U-166 in March 1942. He then took 

his new boat and crew for a sixty-nine day shakedown cruise (Busch and Röll 1999). It would be one of only two 

cruises made by the U-166 (Morgan and Christ 2003). 

Kuhlmann brought U-166 back into port on May 31, 1942. Seventeen days later U-166 left port on its first war 

cruise. The destination was the Gulf of Mexico. There Kuhlmann and his crew would mine enemy ports and attack 

allied shipping. Three days into the voyage the crew of the new U-boat barely escaped a night attack by allied 

aircraft. The remainder of the crossing was uneventful and U-166 and her crew entered the Caribbean in mid-July. 

Kuhlmann and his crew did not claim a victory for several days after reaching the Caribbean. Then on July 13, 

1942, they sank the 84-ton schooner Carmen. This success was followed in relatively quick succession by sinking 

of the 2,309-ton freighter Oneida, and the 16-ton trawler Gertrude. Finding only small vessels in this area, 

Kuhlmann continued towards the Gulf of Mexico and the area off the mouth of the Mississippi River (Morgan and 

Christ 2003). 
113 

Figure 7.3. Oberleutnant zur See Hans-Günther Kuhlmann (Kuhlmann 

Collection courtesy of the PAST Foundation and the 

National D-Day Museum). 

U-166 entered the Gulf of Mexico in mid July 1942 and proceeded to lay mines off the southwest pass of the 

Mississippi River (Morgan and Christ 2003). On July 27, 1942, Kuhlmann radioed German Naval Command 

reporting completion of mine laying activities and that he was proceeding to hunt shipping (War Diary 1942: 

36,53,92). It would be the final message from U-166. 

Figure 7.4. An undated photograph of PC-566 (Courtesy of Mariner’s Museum). 
114 

While U-166 sailed to its assigned operation area, the passenger freighter Robert E. Lee left Port-of-Spain, Trinidad 

bound for New Orleans, Louisiana on July 20, 1942 carrying 270 passengers, six merchant marine officers, and 131 

general crewmembers. Robert E. Lee transited the Caribbean with a heavily escorted convoy, but during the 

morning hours of July 29, it rendezvoused with United States Navy Patrol Craft 566 (Figure 7.4) near Key West, 

Florida. 

Built in Houston, Texas, PC-566 was a 461 class patrol craft. It was 178 feet (54.3 meters) long, had a 23-foot (7 

meter) beam, and could cruise at 20 knots. Constructed to defeat the enemy submarine threat, PC-566 was heavily 

armed with deck guns, rockets, and depth charges. Escorting Robert E. Lee was the naval vessel’s first mission and 

Lt. Commander Herbert C. Claudius’ first command. Under orders from the Commander of the Gulf Sea Frontier, 

PC-566 was to escort Robert E. Lee to Tampa, Florida where the steamer would re-provision (Charlton 2003; 

Church et al. 2002; Henderson 1942; and USS PC-566 1942). 

U-166 prowled shipping lanes near the Mississippi River mouth at the same time Robert E. Lee and PC-566 arrived 

at Egmont Key Light, Tampa Bay, on July 29, 1942 around 2145 hrs. When no pilots were available the steamer 

used Morse code and signal lights to communicate with PC-566. Robert E. Lee stated they would proceed to New 

Orleans rather than wait. At 2325 hrs, PC-566 broke radio silence to notify the Commander of the Gulf Sea Frontier 

that Robert E. Lee was continuing to New Orleans and request orders. PC-566 was ordered to escort Robert E. Lee

and the two vessels were immediately underway (Church et al 2002; Henderson 1942; and USS PC-566 1942). 

Robert E. Lee and PC-566 transited across the Gulf through the night and into the next day drawing closer to U-166. 

July 30 was a clear, calm day. PC-566 was running half-mile ahead and to port of Robert E. Lee. The freighter and 

her naval escort were approximately 45 nautical miles southeast of the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River 

when U-166 spotted the freighter. At 1637 hrs, U-166 fired a torpedo at the freighter’s starboard side. Passengers 

and crew on Robert E. Lee noticed an elongated shape 150 meters to starboard (Henderson 1942). The single 

torpedo fired by U-166 struck Robert E. Lee's starboard side. The resulting explosion tore through C and B decks 

destroying the engines. Lookouts aboard PC-566 spotted the U-boat’s periscope and the patrol craft moved to 

attack. 

PC-566’s radio operator had been transmitting their estimated arrival time to the Port Director of New Orleans when 

U-166 attacked. The transmission was cancelled and an SOS for Robert E. Lee sent instead. Six lifeboats and 

sixteen life rafts were launched from Robert E. Lee as passengers and crew frantically abandoned ship. Robert E. 

Lee’s bow rose out of the water until it reached a precariously steep angle, and the vessel suddenly plunged to the 

bottom. Robert E. Lee sank between six and ten minutes after the torpedo attack according to survivors and naval 

witnesses. The disaster resulted in the deaths of ten crewmembers, and 15 passengers (Church et al 2002; 

Henderson 1942; USS PC-566 1942; and Winnier 2003). As the freighter sank, Kuhlmann made a fatal error. 

Evidently not noticing the patrol craft, he kept U-166 at periscope depth, and PC-566 moved in for the kill. 

U-166’s first indication that they were under attack was probably when PC-566’s active sonar rang against the Uboat’s hull from just 230 meters away. The U-boat immediately submerged, but PC-566 maintained the contact for 

another 120 meters. Once PC-566 lost contact, it returned to the point where U-166 was last detected and a depth 

charge pattern of five charges was laid with settings for 76.2 meters (250 feet), 45.7 meters (150 feet), and 30.5 

meters (100 feet). Following the first set of depth charges, PC-566 reversed course for 1000 meters to re-establish 

sonar contact. At that time Captain Claudius noted Robert E. Lee was gone, and only lifeboats and rafts remained 

where the vessel had once been. PC-566 again detected U-166 with sonar only 550 meters away. The contact was 

maintained as PC-566 closed to within 350 meters, and dropped a second pattern of five depth charges. Soon the 

first airplane from New Orleans arrived on the scene and Claudius instructed the pilot to perform an aerial search for 

the U-boat. Commander Claudius circled the area cautiously, using PC-566’s sonar to search for the U-boat. When 

the second plane arrived Claudius speculated the U-boat was either sunk or disabled and it was safe to begin rescue 

operations. While conducting the sonar search, PC-566’s crew noted a large oil sick on the surface. The brownishgray slick was 60 meters in diameter, and smelled of diesel oil. No other debris floated to the surface, but Claudius 

believed the U-boat was either sunk by the attack, or was “so mortally wounded that she would never return to her 

base” (USS PC-566 1942). 

Aside from the fatal torpedo that sank Robert E. Lee, the only evidence of U-166’s presence on July 30, 1942 was 

the periscope that had been spotted and the oil slick that appeared after PC-566 dropped its second set of depth 
115 

charges. The submarine, believed by Naval Command to be only slightly damaged by PC-566 during its attack, 

would turn out to have been sunk during the battle, but the location of the only U-boat lost in the Gulf of Mexico 

during World War II would not be identified for half a century. 

Two days after the attack on Robert E. Lee two U.S. Coast Guardsmen, Pilot Henry White and Radio Operator 

George Boggs, were patrolling in a J4F amphibious aircraft roughly 160 kilometers south of Houma, Louisiana, 

when they spotted a U-boat on the surface. As the U-boat crash-dived towards deeper water, White and Boggs 

attacked with their only weapon, a single depth charge. White and Boggs reported the depth charge exploded near 

the submarine and an oil slick appeared on the surface. When they returned to base they were informed the incident 

was classified. White and Boggs were later told they destroyed U-166 and were decorated for their actions. 

For the next 59 years history recorded U-166 sank 160 kilometers south of Houma, Louisiana by two U.S. Coast 

Guard Aviators, Pilot Henry White and Radio Operator George Boggs on August 1, 1942. Despite numerous 

regional oil and gas surveys, and expeditions seeking U-166, the sub was not found until 1986. Then it remained 

incorrectly identified until 2001. U-166’s location near Robert E. Lee proves PC-566 destroyed U-166 on July 30, 

1942. Historical records regarding U-boat actions in the Gulf of Mexico indicate White and Boggs attacked U-171. 

Although White and Boggs did not sink U-171, they did drive it from the coast and temporarily prevent it from 

sinking Allied vessels. Unfortunately, the commanding officer of PC-566 H. G. Claudius died in 1981 before 

learning that his attack on the U-boat that day in July 1942 had succeeded. Most of the surviving members of PC566 have been informed of the discovery and history has been corrected. 

7.2 Previous Investigations 

Oil and Gas Exploration 

In 1986, Shell Offshore, Inc. was exploring the deep waters of the Mississippi Canyon Area in the Gulf of Mexico 

for potential oil and gas prospects. Shell contracted John E. Chance and Associates to conduct a survey of the 

region using a 4075 EDO deep-tow system. During the survey they detected two shipwrecks. The only shipwrecks 

the MMS listed in the vicinity were two World War II casualties, Robert E. Lee and Alcoa Puritan. At the time, no 

archaeological assessments were required in deepwater lease blocks and it was not until 1994 that an archaeologist 

reviewed the data and prepared an assessment. Given the information at the time it was realistic to assume Robert 

E. Lee and Alcoa Puritan had been found. No further investigations were undertaken because of the time, and 

expense involved in conducting deep-tow surveys. 

In January 2001, C & C Technologies, Inc. (C & C) conducted a survey for BP and Shell International in the 

Mississippi Canyon Area near Robert E. Lee’s reported location. C & C performed the survey utilizing C-Surveyor 

I, its new Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV), a completely untethered survey platform. During this survey, a 

large wreck was detected near the edge of the survey swath. C & C marine archaeologists Robert Church and 

Daniel Warren verified with the MMS that this was Robert E. Lee. Alcoa Puritan’s reported proximity to Robert E. 

Lee, prompted BP and Shell to agree that additional survey investigation with the AUV be conducted to locate any 

wreckage in relation to the proposed pipeline route. 

In March 2001, the additional survey work was completed. Archaeologists reviewed the data and noted Robert E. 

Lee’s wreckage and a new area of wreckage, less than a mile to the east, where the 1986 survey had placed the 

wreck of Alcoa Puritan. During analysis, it became apparent that the wreckage thought to be Alcoa Puritan was 

inconsistent with that size freighter. The wreckage, however, matched the dimensions of a Type IXC German Uboat (76.8 meters in length and 6.7 meters wide), the same class as U-166. 

Church and Warren developed a new hypothesis to explain why U-166 was 225.3 kilometers east of its recorded 

position. The hypothesis proposed U-166 was destroyed on July 30, 1942, by Patrol Craft 566's depth charge attack, 

and Coast Guard aviators White and Boggs bombed a different submarine that escaped. An examination of U-171’s

reconstructed logs, the only other U-boat in the area at the time, lends credence to this hypothesis. These logs stated 

that U-171, around early August 1942, while off the Louisiana coast, was bombed by a "flying boat" (a good 

description of an amphibious aircraft) but sustained no damage. The attack's exact date could not be determined 

since the original logbooks were lost when U-171 was destroyed by a mine in the Bay of Biscay when returning 

from its Gulf of Mexico patrol. 
116 

The hypothesis that the second area of wreckage could be U-166 led BP and Shell to sponsor site-specific 

investigations of the suspected U-166 and Robert E. Lee sites using the C-Surveyor I AUV. The results of this data 

(Figure 7.5) provided additional support to the U-166 hypothesis and stressed the need for verifying the wreck's 

identity through visual inspection. 

Figure 7.5. High-resolution side scan sonar image of U-166, 2001 (Courtesy of BP, Shell, and the National D-Day 

Museum). 

Between May 31 and June 1, 2001, a research team comprised of representatives from BP, Shell, C & C, and the 

MMS traveled to the Mississippi Canyon Area to determine if the German U-boat, U-166 had been located. The 

research team used Gary Chouest, an anchor-handling vessel under contract to Shell and equipped with an 

Oceaneering Millennium VI ROV. 

The first glimpse of the vessel was the unmistakable conning tower of a German U-boat. The 105-mm deck gun, 

37-mm, and 20-mm antiaircraft guns were clearly visible. Post field analysis and research revealed that each feature 

matched that of U-166. 

Three distinct areas of wreckage were noted during the 2001 investigations of the U-166 wreck site: the stern, the 

bow, and a debris field. The site is oriented roughly north to south (Figure 7.6). The stern remains are located near 

the site’s eastern limits and consist of an approximately 55-meter hull section including the deck guns and conning 

tower. The bow remains are located near the site’s western extent approximately 140 meters west of the stern 

section. The bow section consists of approximately a 20-meter hull section extending from the prow aft to just past 

the forward torpedo hatch. Debris is scattered throughout the site, but the main scatter is between the bow and stern 

sections. The debris consists of various materials dislodged or ripped from the U-boat as it plunged to the seafloor. 
117 

Figure 7.6. Bathymetric data collected in 2001 showing the U-166 wreck site (Courtesy of BP, Shell, and the 

National D-Day Museum). 

The investigation of the bow section provided a revealing look at a possible cause of the U-boat's demise. A large 

indentation in the deck may be the result of a depth charge explosion. Just aft of this feature the bow was torn from 

the rest of the hull and the serrated metal flares outward as if caused by an internal explosion. It is possible that a 

depth charge exploded very near the deck, ruptured the pressure hull, which in turn caused an internal explosion. It 

was speculated that salt water rushing into the battery room, which is located in this area of the U-boat, could have 

caused the batteries to explode. 

The expedition successfully identified the long sought after U-boat and its last victim. Unfortunately, only cursory 

wreck site examinations were carried out because of the ROV’s limited availability and capabilities. Time 

constraints with the ROV allowed only approximately 4 hours to investigate the wreck. 

2003 C & C Technologies, Inc./NOAA OE Site Investigations 

In October 2003, C & C Technologies, Inc., in conjunction with the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration, Droycon 

Bioconcepts, Inc., and the PAST Foundation conducted a more thorough investigation of U-166 (Warren et al. 2004; 

and Church et al. 2004). The project’s purpose was to document in detail the U-166 wreck site. Over five days in 

October 2003, archaeologists and other scientists successfully recorded U-166’s remains in one of the deepest 

archaeological mapping projects using long baseline positioning to date. The project’s success was a result of the 

partnership of academic, private, and government entities coming together as a multi-disciplinary research team. 
118 

The 2003 field investigations of the U-166 wreck site were carried out to fulfill the following six objectives: 

Archaeological: 

1. Determine the extent of the U-166 wreck site 

2. Collect high-definition video of the wreck sections and artifact field 

3. Photo-document the visible wreck sections, artifacts, and relevant biological communities 

4. Acoustically position visible wreck sections and artifacts 

Microbiological: 

5. Deploy long-term and short-term microbiological experiments 

6. Collect biological samples (rusticles) from the wreck site for analysis 

To conduct the fieldwork, scientists used Sonsub's Innovator Class ROV from NOAA’s Research Vessel Ronald H. 

Brown. The ROV surveyed the wreck site following a pre-determined survey grid. The grid consisted of sixty-three 

lines oriented north-to-south and spaced 4.57 meters apart to provide overlapping coverage. During the survey, the 

ROV flew between 1.83 and 4.57 meters above the seafloor to minimize the chance of missing wreck pieces. 

Figure 7.7. Artistic representation of how a Long BaseLine (LBL) positioning correlates with a Global Positioning 

System (GPS) (Courtesy of Andy Hall). 
119 

Survey positioning for the ROV was maintained by using a Sonardyne Fusion Long Baseline (LBL) or range-range 

acoustic measurement system (Figure 7.7). The system utilized transponders placed at known locations on the 

seafloor to calculate the position of the transceivers mounted on the ship and the ROV. The signals from the 

transponders and ROV were transmitted to the support vessel where they were calculated using positioning 

software, in this case Sonardyne's Pharos Navigation Software. During the U-166 fieldwork, five medium 

frequency COMPATT transponder beacons were deployed in a 700-meter diameter array around the site in 1,480 

meters of water. Once the beacons were calibrated, the navigation software calculated the ROV’s position in realworld coordinates. Using the LBL system in conjunction with a corrected GPS, positions taken at the wreck site 

were accurate to within 30.48 centimeters. 

During the 2003 mapping project, 307 artifacts, and/or groups of artifacts were documented at the U-166 site (Table 

7.1). Over 50 hours of high-resolution digital video and approximately 1,800 digital still images were taken. No 

artifact materials were recovered because of the wreck’s status as an international war grave. 

In addition to the archaeological investigations, the microbiological communities (rusticles) growing on U-166 were 

documented. Assessment of the rusticles at the U-166 site was accomplished with the placement of long and shortterm experiments, and rusticle sampling from different wreck sections. Short-term experiments, called BARTS and 

etch tests, were placed on the wreck site at various locations and left in place for approximately 48 hours. The 

experiments helped biologists determine the types and level of bacterial activity present at the wreck site. The longterm experiments utilized test platforms containing a variety of materials such as wood, iron, and aluminum. These 

experiments assist biologists in determining the wreck site’s biocorrosion rate. The experiments were left on the 

wreck and checked during the 2004 site visit (Figures 7.8 and 7.9). 

Figure 7.8. Microbiological experiments with BARTS and etch tests (left) and test platforms (right). 
120 

Figure 7.9. The "Lucas Stein" with rusticles from U-166. 

Following the completion of the fieldwork, materials from the archaeological investigation were brought to the C & 

C offices in Lafayette, Louisiana. At C & C the digital data was copied and distributed to the groups involved in the 

project. The archaeological analysis consisted of reviewing the digital imagery in order to classify the vessel’s 

remains. The wreckage was classified into five basic categories: Unidentified Wreckage, Crew-Personal 

Items/Equipment, Outer Hull/Deck Wreckage, Interior Hull Wreckage, and Intrusive Non-site Related Materials. 

Using these designations, a site map was developed from coordinates acquired during the wreck investigation. The 

microbiological experiments were taken to Droycon Bioconcepts, Inc. office in Regina Canada for further analysis. 

During the U-166’s 2003 field investigations, archaeologists gained a better understanding of the site. The 

investigation confirmed the 2001 findings; the U-boat broke into two sections and that the sections are 

approximately 140 meters apart. Between the two sections is a debris field. The 2003 expedition determined the 

debris field was much denser than originally estimated based on the 2001 ROV survey. The remains are oriented 

north to south with the bow and stern sections demarcating the relative western and eastern edges of the site, 

respectively. Although the site’s southern extent was not located during the 2003 investigation, it was estimated that 

the site covers an area of approximately 7.53 hectares or 0.75 square kilometers. 

The 20-meter long section of the bow is partially imbedded in the seafloor and rests on its starboard side at a 

relatively acute angle. A substantial amount of sediment was displaced when it impacted the seafloor. The U-boat’s 

forward portion was torn from the rest of the submarine near the forward torpedo loading hatch area. 

Approximately five meters of the starboard outer hull extends past the hatch. This aft five meters of the bow is a 

twisted heap of metal. The vessel’s prow faces south with the damaged aft portion pointing north (Figure 7.10). 

The bow remains are covered with a thin corrosion product and silt layer. Substantial rusticle growth was noted 

near the bow’s damaged portions. 

The prow is exposed, but rests only a few centimeters above the seafloor. The hawsehole is still visible on the prow. 

Moving aft, the deck is relatively intact. A portion of the metal jump wire is still attached to its bow hook. The 

hull’s drain holes are still visible. The wooden decking has disintegrated and the hatch covers are gone (many are in 

the debris field) revealing the U-boats internal bulwarks. In front of the forward torpedo hatch remains is a large 

indentation in the deck (as was noted in 2001) (Figure 7.11) corresponding to a crack on the hull’s port side 

extending from the silt line to nearly deck level. Just behind this indentation (Figure 7.14) the metal is mangled with 

hull plates pushed and bent outward rather than crushed as would be suspected from an implosion. The forward 

torpedo winch’s remains are visible in the wreckage. This winch was used to load torpedoes through the forward 

torpedo hatch. 
121 

Figure 7.10. Site drawing of U-166’s bow (Drawn by Robert A. Church). 
122 

Figure 7.11. U-166 images showing indentation (left) and damaged area near the forward torpedo-loading hatch 

(right). 

Approximately 140 meters east of the bow section is U-166’s stern. The stern section lies behind a small berm of 

sediment located directly to its west. East of the stern is an area of low-relief sediment mounds. The stern wreckage 

is oriented north-to-south with the damaged foredeck toward the north. Other than the missing bow section, this 

portion of the hull is almost entirely intact, including the conning tower. The aft hull is buried in the seafloor up to 

the deck level. As with the bow section, all the wood decking is gone revealing the outer hull’s open spaces. 

Conduits and piping are visible through these open areas. Most of the hatch and deck covers are also missing from 

this section of the wreck. The conning tower’s exterior is heavily saturated with rusticle growth, with the exception 

of a small section on the starboard side forward of the conning tower hatch. 

Moving down the stern section from forward to aft, most of the remaining forward deck is buried under sediment, 

the 105-millimeter deck gun is the first visible deck feature (Figure 7.12). The deck gun is intact and sits upright on 

the deck. The muzzle faces forward and the tampion is still in place. A portion of the forward jump wire is wrapped 

around the gun mount’s base. 

Figure 7.12. Overhead view of the 105-mm forward deck gun. 
123 

Continuing aft, the conning tower is encountered next. It is intact and in a good state of preservation. The 

splashguard on the front of the conning tower and the port and starboard running lights are still visible. At the top of 

the conning tower (Figure 7.13), the direction finding antenna is visible on the starboard side stowed in a recessed 

slot. Looking down on the conning tower, the conning tower hatch, bridge controls, and lookout stands are visible. 

Behind the conning tower hatch is the surface attack mounting for the Uboot-Zieloptik or U-boat Target Optical 

sight (UZO). The UZO was used to set up surface torpedo attacks. Aft of the UZO mount and conning tower hatch 

is the periscope console. Type IX U-boats used two periscopes, and both on the U-166 were fully retracted. The 

compass mount is immediately behind the periscope console. The engine exhaust vents are to the rear of the bridge 

deck on each side of the conning tower. Near the port side vent, the short-wave radio antenna is partially extended 

and bent. Aft of the bridge area is the wintergarten containing the 20-mm machine-gun. The gun's barrel is pointed 

upwards and to port, with the shoulder supports resting on the wintergarten deck (Figure 7.14). 

The ladder from the conning tower to the deck is still attached to the port side. The conning tower’s starboard 

exterior door is ajar revealing the two interior hatches into the pressure hull (Figure 7.14). No visible symbols or 

markings, such as insignias or unit symbols, were noted on either side of the conning tower. 

Figure 7.13. Overhead view of U-166's conning tower bridge 

Figure 7.14. Starboard side of conning tower (left) and 20-mm deck gun on Wintergarten (right). 
124 

Continuing towards the stern, the railing is intact. A segment of the aft jump wire is strewn along the starboard 

deck, with the attached insulators lying near the conning tower. The 37-millimeter antiaircraft gun stands in the 

middle of the aft deck (Figure 7.15). Used primarily for defense against aircraft attacks, it is in a stowed position 

with the barrel parallel to the deck and pointing towards the conning tower. As with the 105-mm gun, the barrel 

tampion is in place. Moving aft from the 37-mm gun, the after torpedo-loading hatch is visible. The hatch’s deck 

cover is missing, as is the hatch cover itself. The hinge remnants look as if the hatch was ripped or blown away 

(Figure 7.16). Continuing to the stern, silt has covered much of the hull, but both the stern running light and the end 

of the stern deck are visible. 

Figure 7.15. U-166’s aft deck of showing the 37-mm gun and intact deck railing. 

Figure 7.16. View showing aft torpedo hatch on stern wreckage. 
125 

Between the bow and the stern sections is a dense debris field. Near the stern section, artifacts are few and 

scattered. Proceeding west from the stern section, the debris density steadily increases towards the bow section 

where the heaviest scatter extends south. West and north of the bow, the artifact scatter abruptly stops except for 

one or two scattered objects. 

A variety of objects make up the debris field. Hull fragments, personal materials, electrical equipment, survival 

gear, and hatch covers are strewn throughout the area. Intrusive materials such as aluminum soda cans and 

cardboard were also noted in the debris field. 

The debris field contains many non-descript metal fragments that cannot be identified or associated with a particular 

part of the ship. Other pieces are barely visible because of silt build-up and could not be identified. No silt was 

removed in order to minimize site disturbance. 

Identifiable hull components consisted of outer hull sections, bracing, and bulkhead fragments (Figure 7.17). These 

components range in size from small fragments to large pieces. Many of the materials have jagged edges as if they 

were torn from the hull. The debris field also contained numerous pieces of piping, similar to the conduits visible 

under the deck structures. 

Figure 7.17. A 0.6-meter long section of U-166’s bulkhead found in the debris field (Artifact No. 60). 

Several artifacts appear to be equipment from inside the pressure hull. These include hatch covers, electrical boxes, 

switches, electrical cable, and several pressurized cylinders (Figure 7.18). The cylinders are deeply buried in the 

seafloor, one up to the valve stem. The debris field also contains personal equipment and items from U-166's crew. 

These materials are likely from the pressure hull’s forward area where the crew was quartered and the hull breached. 

Observed items included shoes, leather foul weather gear, a dinner tray, and several Dräger Lung rescue devices 

(Figure 7.19). Dräger Lungs were intended for shallow water escapes from a disabled U-boat, but U-166’s crew 

never had the chance to use them. 
126 

Table 7.1

Artifact Table from 2003 Survey 

Artifact 

No.

Description Artifact 

No.

Description Artifact 

No.

Description

1 Stern 33 Metal grating 65 UWD 

2 Bow 34 Metal fragment 66 Metal fragment 

*3 Aluminum can 35 Compressed gas 

cylinder 67 Copper tubing 

4 UWD 36 Metal pipe 68 Copper tubing 

5 UWD 37 Copper tubing 69 UWD 

6 Wire 38 Metal fragment 70 UWD 

7 Wire 39 Compressed gas 

cylinder 71 UWD 

8 Wire 40 Copper tubing 72 Metal fragments 

9 Metal tubing and 

wire 41 Metal fragment 73 Metal fragment 

10 UWD 42 Deck grating 74 UWD 

11 UWD 43 Metal fragment 75 UWD 

12 Metal gasket 44 Metal fragment 76 Metal fragment 

13 Metal pipe 45 Metal pipe 77 Metal fragment 

14 Copper tubing 46 Copper tubing 78 Metal fragment 

15 Decking or hatch 

cover 

 47 Compressed gas 

cylinder 79 UWD 

16 Metal fragment 48 Deck grating 80 UWD 

*17 Chip bag 49 Metal fragment 81 UWD 

18 Metal fragments 50 Metal fragment 82 UWD 

19 Metal fragment 51 Metal fragment 83 Metal fragment 

*20 Cardboard 52 Metal fragment 84 UWD 

21 UWD 53 Compressed gas 

cylinder top 85 UWD 

22 Copper tubing 54 UWD 86 UWD 

23 Metal fragment 55 Copper tubing 87 Metal fragment 

24 Metal fragment 56 Metal fragment 88 Metal fragment 

*25 Plastic bag 57 UWD 89 Metal fragment 

26 Instrument/electric 

box 58 Electrical switch/gauge 90 Electrical box and wiring 

27 Metal fragment 59 Deck grating 91 Copper tubing 

28 Glass bottle 60 Metal fragment 92 Metal fragment 

29 UWD 61 Metal fragment 93 Metal fragment 

30 Metal pipe 62 Metal pipe 94 Copper tubing 

31 Metal fragment 63 Metal pipe 95 Metal coils 

32 Metal Fragment 64 Metal fragment 96 Electrical box and 

wiring 

(Continued) 
127 

Table 7.1

Artifact Table (2003) 

Artifact 

No.

Description Artifact 

No.

Description Artifact 

No.

Description

97 UWD 130 Metal fragments 163 Metal fragment 

98 UWD 131 UWD 164 UWD 

99 UWD 132 UWD 165 Metal fragment 

100 UWD 133 Glass bottle neck 166 UWD 

101 UWD 134 Metal fragment 167 Metal fragment 

102 Hatch cover latch 135 UWD 168 Metal fragment 

103 Copper coils and 

tubing 136 Drager Lung 169 Metal fragment and tubing 

104 Metal fragments 137 Tubing/electrical 

wiring 170 UWD 

105 UWD 138 UWD 171 UWD 

106 Metal fragment 139 Metal fragment 172 Metal fragment 

107 Metal fragment 140 Metal fragment 173 Metal pipe 

108 UWD 141 UWD 174 Metal fragment 

109 Compressed gas 

cylinder 142 Deck hatch cover 175 UWD 

110 UWD 143 Deck hatch cover 176 Drager Lung 

111 UWD 144 Metal fragments 177 Metal fragments 

112 UWD 145 UWD 178 Metal fragment 

113 Deck grating 146 UWD 179 UWD 

114 Deck grating 147 Deck covering 180 UWD 

115 UWD 148 Deck covering 181 UWD 

116 Metal fragments 149 Deck covering 182 Metal fragment 

117 UWD 150 UWD 183 UWD 

118 Metal fragments 151 UWD 184 Electrical wiring 

119 UWD 152 UWD 185 UWD 

120 Hatch cover 153 Metal fragment 186 UWD 

121 Metal fragment 154 UWD 187 Compressed gas 

cylinder 

122 UWD 155 Metal fragment 188 UWD 

123 Metal fragment g 156 UWD 189 UWD 

124 Switch w/wiring 157 Metal fragment 190 UWD 

125 Metal fragments 158 UWD 191 Metal fragment 

126 UWD 159 UWD 192 UWD 

127 Drager Lung 160 UWD 193 UWD 

128 Tubing/electrical 

wiring 161 UWD 194 Instrument/electrical box 

129 Metal fragment 162 Metal pipe 195 Outer hull fragment 

(Continued) 
128 

Table 7.1

Artifact Table (2003) 

Artifact 

No.

Description Artifact 

No.

Description Artifact 

No.

Description

196 UWD 229 Metal fragment 262 UWD 

197 Compressed gas 

cylinder 230 Internal hull debris 263 UWD 

198 UWD 231 UWD 264 UWD 

199 UWD 232 UWD 265 Metal fragment 

200 Metal pipe or 

tubing 233 UWD 266 Copper tubing 

201 Metal fragment 234 UWD 267 UWD 

202 UWD 235 UWD 268 UWD 

203 UWD 236 UWD 269 UWD 

204 UWD 237 UWD 270 UWD 

205 UWD 238 UWD 271 Metal bar 

206 Metal fragment 239 Metal band 272 Metal fragment 

207 Metal tray or basin 240 Deck grating 273 UWD 

208 Metal fragment 241 UWD 274 UWD 

209 Deck covering 242 Metal fragment 275 Glass bottle 

210 Metal fragment 243 UWD 276 UWD 

211 Deck covering 244 Leather shoe/boot 277 Leather jacket/coat 

212 UWD 245 UWD 278 Metal fragment 

213 UWD 246 Leather shoe/boot 279 UWD 

214 UWD 247 UWD 280 Metal pipe 

215 Metal pipe or 

tubing 248 UWD 281 Deck hatch cover 

216 UWD 249 UWD 282 Leather jacket/coat 

217 Metal fragment 250 UWD 283 UWD 

218 Metal pipe or 

tubing 251 Metal fragment 284 UWD 

219 UWD 252 UWD 285 UWD 

220 UWD 253 Metal fragments 286 UWD 

221 UWD 254 Metal pipe or tubing 287 UWD 

222 UWD 255 UWD 288 UWD 

223 UWD 256 Metal fragment 289 Metal Hull debris 

224 UWD 257 Metal fragment 290 UWD 

225 UWD 258 Dropwire insulator 291 UWD 

226 Electrical wiring 259 UWD 292 UWD 

227 Hull/bulkhead 

debris 260 UWD 293 UWD 

228 UWD 261 UWD 294 UWD 

(Continued) 
129 

Table 7.1

Artifact Table (2003) 

Artifact 

No.

Description Artifact 

No.

Description Artifact 

No.

Description

295 Electrical wiring 300 UWD 305 UWD 

296 Metal fragment 301 UWD 306 Metal fragment 

297 UWD 302 UWD 307 Metal fragments. 

298 UWD 303 UWD 

299 Instrusive 

Aluminum Can 304 Metal fragment 

UWD = Unidentified Wreck Debris 

* = Intrusive Material

Figure 7.18. Pressurized cylinder from U-166 (Artifact No. 47). 

Analysis of the 2003 data provided a better understanding of the wreck site and of the site formation processes that 

shaped and continue to shape the site. Artifact distribution patterns suggest the northern and westernmost site 

boundaries are just beyond the bow section. The eastern boundary is 37 meters east of the stern and conning tower. 

The debris field extends south from the bow beyond the 2003 survey’s limits. The debris density decreased near the 

survey’s southern limit. This suggests the site does not extend much farther south. Using this information, it was 

estimated that the site covers a roughly 7.52 hectare area. 
130 

Figure 7.19. A Dräger Lung from the U-166 (Artifact No. 127). 

The debris field’s heaviest artifacts concentration is located in the site’s western area near the bow. The evidence 

suggests the hull broke just south of the current position and the separate hull sections impacted the seafloor with 

most the artifacts strewn from the bow section as it sank. The 2003 data supports the hypothesis that a depth charge 

from PC-566 ruptured the pressure hull and a secondary internal explosion of unknown origin then occurred. This 

secondary explosion resulted in the eventual separation of the bow from the rest of the vessel. 

The microbiological study from the 2003 investigations gathered rusticles from both U-166 and Robert E. Lee. This 

analysis determined that the microbial activity at the U-166 site was high, and that rusticle formations from U-166

and Robert E. Lee were significantly different. High levels of strontium in the U-166 and Robert E. Lee rusticles 

have raised more questions about the sites. 

7.3 Geographical Setting 

The site area is located in the eastern portion of the Mississippi Canyon Area of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The 

site is southeast of the Mississippi River’s mouth and south of an area dominated by diapiric salt uplifts. The 

regional seafloor gently slopes at approximately 5° toward the south and may vary locally from southeast to 

southwest. The seafloor trend at the wreck site is to the southwest (Figure 7.20). There is a low sedimentation rate 

in this area of approximately 1.52 millimeters per year. 
131 

Figure 7.20. U-166 site overview map. 
132 

Table 7.2 

ROV Navigation Fix Points at U-166

No. Description Time 

1 105 mm Deck Gun 8:20 

2 Bottle 9:58 

3 UWD - metal 10:09 

4 UWD - metal 10:12 

5 Boot 10:13 

6 UWD - Substructure 10:14 

7 Leather 10:17 

8 Aluminum can 10:19 

8 UWD 10:19 

9 Metal plating 10:50 

10 UWD 10:53 

11 UWD - White 11:12 

12 Textile and soda can 11:16 

13 Stick 11:18 

14 Jacket, possible leather and a pair of boots 11:19 

15A UWD 11:36 

15B UWD 11:34 

16 Bottle 11:43 

17 Metal decking 12:01 

18 Artifact-bottle 12:43 

19 Artifact-bottle 13:01 

20 Biological 13:04 

21 Textile or leather 13:20 

22 Small fish trap 17:18 

22 Minnow trap 17:21 

24 Large fish trap 17:23 

25 Core sample D 17:30 

26 Large fish trap 18:15 

27 Crab trap 18:19 

28 Small fish trap 18:33 

29 Core C 18:47 

30 Core B 18:15 

31 Core A 12:09 

32 Textile or leather and metal debris 21:32 

33 Hatch cover 22:03 

UWD = Unidentified Wreck Debris 

7.4 Discussion of Archaeological Findings 

7.4.1 Physical Site 

The 2004 archaeological investigations undertaken at U-166 continued the 2003 fieldwork. The site’s southern 

extent was not established during 2003, and the 2004 work focused on locating this boundary. During the 2004 

project, the science team surveyed seven additional lines south of where the 2003 investigations ended. The lines 
133 

were approximately 330 meters long, spaced 20 meters apart, and covered an area approximately 100 meters wide. 

The survey was terminated when the investigation of two successive lines found no further artifacts. 

The seafloor covered by the 2004 survey is relatively flat and composed of the same sediment found throughout the 

U-166 wreck site. The 2004 investigations located twenty-three additional artifacts associated with the wreck site. 

These were mainly hull fragments (Figure 7.21), most with more extensive impact craters than those to the north. 

Other artifacts documented during this field season included possible clothing (Figure 7.22). 

Figure 7.21. Hull remains in large crater located during 2004 investigations. 

Figure 7.22. Remains of a uniform from U-166 site 
134 

ROV transects were run over U-166’s bow and stern. A photo mosaic was produced from the video data of the bow 

(Figure 7.23). LBL position information collected in 2003 was used to correct the 2004 imagery while processing 

the mosaic. 

Figure 7.23. Photo mosaic of U-166’s bow. 

7.4.2 Site Preservation 

U-166 is in a good state of preservation. The splashguard, often among the first components to be lost, is showing 

the signs of deterioration, but is otherwise mostly intact. The wood decking along the vessel’s exposed areas is 

gone. The damaged area of the stern is buried and could not be examined. The bow area that ripped away from the 

main hull is partially visible and shows considerable damage. The bow section forward of the damaged area is well 

preserved. Rusticle growth is most profuse on the conning tower and near the bow’s exposed damaged sections. 

7.5 Discussion of Biological Findings 

7.5.1 Microbiology 

Mark IB steel test platforms were deployed on U-166 in 2003. These platforms included a mixture of metal and 

wood coupons. The metal coupons included three low carbon steel, high carbon steel, and aluminum, with coupons 

of mahogany and oak. For the metal coupons, one coupon was a control, a second was twisted longitudinally 

through 180 degrees, and the third coupon was subjected to hammering at 3,000 psi. One platform was placed in the 

bow just forward of the explosion point that sank the submarine. The second platform was placed in front of the 

conning tower on the submarine’s aft deck members. The Mark IA platforms were set vertically on various other 

shipwrecks, which caused stability problems. Therefore the Mark IB platforms were laid down laterally so that the 

coupons formed a more stabile shallow staircase. Both platforms were examined in-situ in 2004 and both showed 

similar trends summarized in Table 7.3 

Extensive rusticle growths were observed on both the low and high carbon steels with the surfaces appearing evenly 

coated, but with an overlay of floc material (floc may be defined as visible, irregular suspended particles held in the 

water). Generally, the twisted and hammered coupons had more growth and floc formation than the controls. 

Comparing microbial activity at the submarine’s bow and stern, there were distinctly greater amounts of growth on 

the bow coupons than the stern coupons. Coupon five in particular exhibited concretion growth and peeling at the 

steel’s midpoint on the twisted edge. 

All six aluminum coupons were bright and reflective indicating the aluminum had not yet corroded or been visibly 

altered through microbial means. The aluminum coupons did, however, have loose beige floc-like growths. The 

stern platform’s coupons had randomly positioned floc growths, while the bow platform coupons had congregated 

floc growths at the edges. 

The oak, mahogany and copper coupons exhibited no differences between the bow and stern platforms. Unlike the 

control oak coupons, which had little fungal activity, the blackened oak coupons (deliberately burnt) showed heavy 

fungal growth. The copper coupons showed signs of oxidation with more floc attached to the bow coupons than the 

stern coupons. 
135 

In summary, the Mark IB platform bow coupons showed more growth than the stern platform coupons. The growth 

was typified by a greater amount of floc material on the coupon and a greater tendency for floc to grow between the 

coupons. If the platforms were recovered in 2005 then it could be expected that the steel coupons would have 

already lost a significant amount of iron. In comparison, platforms recovered from RMS Titanic lost the equivalent 

of 0.03 grams of iron per square centimeter per year (or 3 grams of iron from each coupon). 

Table 7.3 

Status of Bio-Deterioration of the Coupons on Platforms IA, U-166 

Coupon # Material Bow platform Stern platform 

1 Low Carbon steel 

- control 

Rusticle encrustation entire, depth 2 

mm, 30% floc 

Rusticle encrustation entire, depth 2 

mm 

2 Low Carbon Steel 

- twisted 

Rusticle encrustation entire at depth 2 

mm with 50% of floc formation 

connecting to coupon 3 

Rusticle encrustation entire at depth 2 

mm with 10% of twisted edge showing 

floc formation 

3 Low Carbon Steel 

- hammered 

Rusticle encrustation entire with depth 

2 mm with 50% floc formation 

Rusticle encrustation over 80% at 2 mm 

with 30% coupon edge still visible 

4 Oak - burnt Blackened with surface fungal growth 

over 70% as distinct raised areas 

Blackened with surface fungal growth 

over 30% as distinct raised areas 

5 Oak - control Surface covered with beige 

encrustations with signs of wood 

deterioration at edges 

80% surface covered with beige 

encrustations with signs of wood 

deterioration at edges 

6 High Carbon steel 

- control 

Rusticle encrustation entire, depth 2 

mm with 80% floc 

Rusticle encrustation entire, depth 2 

mm with 10% floc 

5 High Carbon Steel 

- twisted 

Rusticle encrustation entire at depth 3 

mm with detaching floc formation 

peeling of the twists 

Rusticle encrustation entire at depth 2 

mm with 20% of twisted edge showing 

floc formation 

7 High Carbon Steel 

- hammered 

Rusticle encrustation entire at depth 2 

mm with 80% floc in large growths 

Rusticle encrustation entire at depth 2 

mm with 20% floc in large growths 

8 Aluminumcontrol Metal still bright with loose orange 

floc covering 40% surfaces at one end 

Metal still bright with loose orange floc 

covering 30% surfaces 

10 Aluminum – 

twisted 

Metal still bright with loose orange 

floc over 40% of the surfaces at one 

end 

Metal still bright with loose orange floc 

over 15% of the surfaces 

11 Aluminumhammered Metal still bright with dark floc over 

40% of the surfaces at one end 

Metal still bright with dark orange and 

white floc over 40% of the surfaces 

12 Mahogany – 

control 

Darkened mauve-gray surfaces with 

about 40% of the surface coated in 

beige growths about 2 mm deep 

Darkened mauve-gray surfaces with 

about 40% of the surface coated in 

beige growths about 2 mm deep 

13 Copper – control Surface (but not edges) coated in 

copper oxides. Beige floc on the 

edges and 10% across surfaces 

Surface (but not edges) coated in copper 

oxides. Beige floc on the edges and 

10% across surfaces 

14 Copper – twisted Coated in blue copper oxides 

including edges. Beige floc coating 

30% of the surfaces 

Coated in blue copper oxides including 

edges. Beige floc coating 30% of the 

surfaces 

15 Copperhammered Coated in blue copper oxides with 

40% of surfaces covered in loose 

beige floc 

Coated in blue copper oxides with 40% 

of surfaces covered in loose beige floc 
136 

Gravimetric elemental analysis using ICP-AES of the rusticles recovered from U-166’s port and starboard sides are 

given in Table 7.4. Here it was found that the dominant four elements were aluminum (91%), sodium (5.1%), zinc 

(1.6%), calcium (0.7%), and magnesium (0.6 %). These rusticles had a very low iron content (0.3%) which was 

replaced by aluminum and a relatively high zinc content compared to the other sites. 

Table 7.4 

Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of a White Rusticle (C2) from U-166 

Aluminum 90.724% Lead 0.058% 

Sodium 5.137% Strontium 0.046% 

Zinc 1.553% Barium 0.041% 

Calcium 0.737% Titanium 0.031% 

Magnesium 0.580% Vanadium 0.012% 

Potassium 0.381% Copper 0.009% 

Phosphorus 0.286% Manganese 0.006% 

Iron 0.236% Molybdenum 0.005% 

Chromium 0.083% Zirconium 0.003% 

Boron 0.070% Cadmium 0.001% 

A white rusticle was recovered from U-166. These rusticles are rarely observed. When analyzed, the rusticle was 

predominately aluminum rather than iron. U-166 differed from the other ships in that the C2 white rusticles 

dominated with 20% coverage of the outside surfaces of the stern section, and the conning tower in particular. 

Brown rusticles were observed covering 3% of the viable surfaces. Dendritic concretious (C3) growths tended to be 

thin (one to five millimeters) and coated 40% of the surfaces. Commonly these C3 growths were overlain with a 

translucent slime (B1) that was two to five millimeters thick. Like Robert E Lee, U-166 supported a significant sea 

anemone population (four organisms per m2

). No blobs were observed during the investigation. 

7.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology 

Collections at U-166 were made between 1,451 meters and 1,470 meters BSL; water clarity increased with depth, 

and the visibility at the U-166 was higher than at any of the shallower sites. The red deep-sea crab (Chaceon 

quinquedens) was conspicuously abundant at the U-166 site. A number of specimens were observed molting 

(Figure 7.18) or engaged in premating or mating embraces (Figure 7.24). In most brachyuran crabs (true crabs), 

mating occurs only between hard-shell males and newly molted females. Males are attracted to females that are in a 

premolting stage, but in some species, females seek out large males. The larger males carry the females under their 

abdomen until the female molts, after which mating occurs. After mating, the male remains with the female until 

her carapace begins to harden before he departs. Our observations of molting and mating activities provide evidence 

of the seasonality of the event in deep-sea red crabs. The deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) was found at 

our four deepest sites. The species supports a commercial fishery on the continental slope of the United States in 

New England and is distributed from 100 to 2,800 meters depth. The crabs are generally thought to move into 

shallower depths with increasing age and size, and females are found shallower than males. Females were only at 

our three deepest sites, while males were found at all four deeper sites. The smallest specimens were found at the 

shallowest sites, in contrast to published information, with our largest crabs at intermediate depths. We found no 

evidence of segregation with either sex or size. Our specimens largely were collected in fish traps and pot bias (e.g., 

small crabs may be less likely to enter a pot with large crabs) may have affected both the size and sex ratio of the 

collected specimens. In the video transects (Table 7.5) more red deep-sea crabs were observed near U-166 than 

distant from it, however collections of specimens in traps was relatively similar both near and away from U-166. 

Other than anemones, the most abundant organisms observed on the video transects were squat lobsters (Munidopsis

sp.). Munidopis is an extremely speciose genus, with 24 species recorded. Identifying species from video is 

difficult. The anemones observed on the transects appeared to belong to several species, but the Venus flytrap 

(Actinoscyphia sp.) was the only anemone that could be readily identified. 
137 

Table 7.5 

Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over, Adjacent, and 

Distant (300 m) from the U-166 Site. 

Transect Number 

Over Distant 

U-166 1 2 3 446 447 448 

Crustaceans 

Chaceon quinquedens 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Munidopsis sp. 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 

Shrimp 1.3 0.0 0.1 3.4 4.0 2.2 

Echinoderms 

Sea star 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.0 

Cnidarians 

Anemones 9.2 33.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sediment remained primarily clay and silt in the cores collected for meiofauna. Meiofauna community composition 

at U-166 was similar to that found at the Gulfpenn, with nematodes being most abundant, followed by harpacticoid 

copepods and polychaets (Table 7.6). The densities of nematodes are unusually low for marine sediments. Two 

tanaidaceans were found in core B; these appeared to be juveniles of the same species (Gigantapseudes adactylus) 

found at shallower sites. 

Table 7.6 

Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2

) from Sediment Cores Collected Adjacent to and Away from U-166. 

U-166 

Number per 10 cam2

Taxon Core B Core C 

Harpacticoida 16.3 1.8 

Tanaidacea 3.6 0.0 

Nematoda 335.4 63.5 

Polychaeta 9.1 7.3 

Figure 7.24. Two red deep-sea crabs (Chaceon quinquedens) found at the U-166 site. 

The male is carrying the female in a premating embrace. The red dots in 

the image are the parallel laser scale (12.7 cm scale) 
138 

Twenty-four specimens belonging to 10 taxa were collected at the U-166 site, with equal numbers near and away 

from the site (Table 7.7). The similarity in diversity near and away from the site probably reflects the lack of 

collecting directly from the wreck. The Plesionika sp. observed on the transects differ from most pandalid (Family 

Pandalidae) shrimp in that they are found in deeper waters and do not change sex (Bauer 2004). Most pandalids are 

higher latitude, cold-water species that are commercially harvested, and are protandrous hermaphrodites (initially 

male, but changing to female after two-three years of age). Plesionika longicauda (horizontal rostrum; 53-412 

meters depth) and P. edwardsii (soldier striped shrimp, recurved rostrum; 183-421 meters depth) are congeners 

within the family Pandalidae that are commonly collected in deeper waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The 

Glyphocrangon sp. (armored shrimp), which we collected, are commonly found in deep waters associated with 

muddy sediments (Bauer 2004). The genus is very speciose, with at least 46 species described, and 12 of those 

reported in U.S. waters. The U.S. Museum of Natural History has a large collection of the goniasterid seastar 

Nymphaster arenatus from the northern Gulf of Mexico, and also a few specimens from the Bahamas and off Rio de 

Janeiro, at depths of 415 meters to 2,160 meters. Interestingly, the most recent specimen in the museum was 

collected more than a century ago (1887). The seastar Apollonaster yucatanensis was named for its type location, 

the Yucatan Channel, where it was collected from 1,098 to 1,175 meters depth. Our specimen from an unknown 

location near U-166 was in slightly shallower depth at 1,451-1,470 meters. The seastar Diplasiaster productus has 

been previously collected at the exact same depth (1,456 meters) as our specimen, near Grand Bahamas Island. 

Table 7.7 

Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the U-166 Site, 

Including Number and Proximity to Wreck, Substrate, and Depth. 

U-166 

Specimen ID Number 

Near Wreck 

(< 61 m) 

Number 

far from 

wreck 

(>61 m) 

Unknown 

collection 

location 

Substrate Depth (m)

Crustacea 

Bathynomous giganteus 1 1451-1470

Chaceon quinquedens 8 Silt 1454-1457

Munidopsis sp. 1 Silt 1464 

Plesionika sp. 2 1 Silt 1451-1455

Glyphocrangon sp. 3 1 Silt 1452-1465

Echinodermata 

Apollonaster yucatanensis 1 1451-1470

Diplasiaster productus 1 Silt 1456 

Nymphaster arenatus 1 Silt 1465 

Asteroidea 1 Silt 1453 

Porifera 

Hexactinellida 1 Silt 1467 

Scleractina, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea 

None observed at this site. 
139 

7.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology 

Fish Community Structure 

Visibility at U-166 was much greater than at the three shallower sites. The mean transect width was approximately 

4.8 meters over the ship and 2.6 meters adjacent to and away from the wreck (Table 7.8). The difference in these 

two figures was caused by the ROV maintaining a greater distance from the ship than the seafloor during transects. 

Ichthyofaunal diversity was low at U-166 and species composition was similar over and away from the wreck. 

Observed fishes included cuskeels (Order: Ophidiiformes), Halosaurs (Family: Halosauridae), eels (Order: 

Anguilliformes), and grenadiers (Family: Macrouridae) (Tables 7.8-7.12). Most individuals could not be identified 

below order or family from video, the exception being the cutthroat eel (Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis). This 

species also was captured in traps. The two species captured with the suction sampler were a halosaur (Aldrovandia 

gracilis) and Mexican grenadier (Coryphaenoides mexicanus). 

Table 7.8 

Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video During Biological Sampling Over, 

Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from (Distant) U-166. 

Transect 

Line 

Relation 

to Ship Taxon Min 

Count

Max 

Count

Min 

Density 

100 m-2

Max 

Density 

100 m-2

1 Over Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 1 0.44 0.44 

 Halosauridae 1 1 0.44 0.44 

 Anguilliformes 1 1 0.44 0.44 

 Teleost 1 2 0.44 0.88 

2 Over Anguilliformes 1 2 0.46 0.92 

 Ophidiiformes 1 4 0.46 1.85 

 Teleost 1 2 0.46 0.92 

3 Over Ophidiiformes 1 5 5.27 26.37 

446 Distant Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 2 0.68 1.37 

 Halosauridae 1 2 0.68 1.37 

 Macrouridae 1 1 0.68 0.68 

Teleost 1 5 0.68 3.42 

447 Distant Teleost 1 2 0.57 1.14 

448 Distant Halosauridae 1 1 0.73 0.73 

Teleost 1 1 0.73 0.73 
140 

Table 7.9 

Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at U-166 on Other than Biological Transects. 

(Location indicates if video was collected over or away from the ship.) 

Location Taxon Min Count Max 

Count 

Over ship Hexanchus griseus 1 1 

Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 2 7 

Synaphobranchus sp. 8 146 

 Halosauridae 1 2 

 Macrouridae 1 2 

 Anguilliformes 1 3 

 Ophidiiformes 1 4 

 Teleost 1 7 

Away from ship Aldrovandia gracilis 1 3 

Coryphaenoides mexicanus 1 1 

Dicrolene sp. 1 1 

Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 3 

Synaphobranchus sp. 2 14 

Alepocephalidae 1 3 

Halosauridae 1 41 

 Ipnopidae 1 12 

 Macrouridae 1 3 

 Synaphobranchidae 1 3 

 Anguilliformes 1 5 

 Ophidiiformes 1 3 

 Teleost 1 15 

Table 7.10 

Estimated Total Lengths of Fishes Observed on Video at U-166. 

(All individuals were captured on video with both ROV-mounted lasers scale striking them.) 

Taxon Number 

Measured 

Mean 

TL mm 

Standard 

Deviation 

Range 

TL mm 

Aldrovandia gracilis 1 691 

Coryphaenoides mexicanus 1 552 

Hexanchus griseus 1 6,350 

Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 3 850 154.7 710-1,016 

Synaphobranchus sp. 6 817 280.6 535-1,191 

Alepocephalidae 2 162 21.7 147-178 

Halosauridae 5 423 159.9 247-624 

Ipnopidae 1 269 67.3 229-346 

Macrouridae 1 826 

Ophidiiformes 1 454 
141 

Table 7.11 

Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (Large) and Baitfish (Small) Fish Traps Deployed Adjacent to (Ship) and 

300 Meters Away from (Distant) U-166. 

Trap Type Location Species Number 

Large Distant Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 2 

Small Ship Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 

Small Distant Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 

Table 7.12 

Fishes Caught with the ROV Suction Sampler at U-166. 

Date Species Number 

8/6 - 8/7 Aldrovandia gracilis 1 

Coryphaenoides mexicanus 1 

Figure 7.25. (a) Cutthroat eels around a chevron fish trap, (b) a large unknown Ophidiiform fish over the ship, and 

(c) a six-gill shark near a chevron fish trap at U166. 
142 

Diet and Trophic Structure 

Stomachs were dissected from six fish sampled at U-166. Four fish (66%), had food items present (Fig. 7.26). 

Cutthroat eels had mostly fish, but they also had some unidentifiable prey items in their guts. A halosaur had 

invertebrate taxa remains present and none of the prey items in the Mexican grenadier’s gut contents were 

identifiable. 

Figure 7.26. Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at U-166. Sample sizes are indicated for 

each species. 

Few fish and invertebrate samples from U166 and Robert E. Lee were available for stable isotope analysis. No 

samples were available from Alcoa Puritan. Thus, data from all the samples collected at the U-166 and Robert E. 

Lee sites were plotted together (Figure 7.27 and 7.28). Digitate cuskeels, (Dicrolene introniger), and a Mexican 

grenadier had δ13C and δ15N values indicating feeding at middle trophic levels. Their δ34S values also indicated 

pelagic rather than benthic foraging. Cutthroat eels, (Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis), showed much greater 

variability in δ13C than did D. introniger individuals. The depleted δ13C value of a single cutthroat eel collected at a 

methane seep site near Robert E. Lee suggests some component of its biomass may have been derived from 

chemosynthetic production. Stable isotope values of the two other eels plotted in Figure 7.27 also may indicate 

some component of their diet was derived from chemosynthetic production. The stable isotope values of the single 

deepwater shrimp (Notostomus gibbosus) also indicate some component of its diet likely was derived from 

chemosynthetic production (Figure 7.28). Stable isotope values of the red deep-sea crab (Chaceon quinquedens) 

were consistent with a benthic scavenger. 
143 

Figure 7.27. Results of stable isotope analysis of fish muscle samples collected during biological sampling at the 

deep wreck sites of U-166 and Robert E. Lee. Filled symbols are species-specific mean values. 

Figure 7.28. Results of stable isotope analysis of invertebrate tissue samples collected during biological sampling 

at U-166 and Robert E. Lee. Filled symbols are species-specific mean values. 

Age Estimation 

Otolith samples were available from few fishes and invertebrates collected at U-166 and Robert E. Lee for age 

estimation and no samples were available from Alcoa Puritan. Thus, data from all samples collected at U-166 and 

Robert E. Lee were plotted together (Figure 7.29). Annual opaque zone formation has been validated for none of the 

fishes collected at the U-166 and Robert E. Lee sites. Otoliths of the Pacific grenadier (Corphaenoides acrolepis) 

were validated radiometrically by Andrews et al. (1999), but, to our knowledge, annual opaque zone formation has 

not been validated for congeners of any other species collected at our deep sites. Following the logic presented in 

Section 6.5.3, however, we assumed annual opaque zone formation for all species sampled. 
144 

Similar to the Gulfpenn site, several long-lived individuals were sampled at U-166 and Robert E. Lee. Andrews et 

al. (1999) estimated longevity in the Pacific grenadier to be over 70 years and Burton (1999) estimated the giant 

grenadier (Albatrossia pectoralis) could live approximately 60 years. Thus, the old ages of fishes we report is 

within the range for other deep-sea species, some of which are closely related to the grenadiers we sampled. 

Figure 7.29. Size at age estimates for fishes captured at U166 and Robert E. Lee sites. 

7.6 Sediment Core Analysis 

Four sediment core samples were taken at the designated distances from the wreck (Table 7.13). Each sample, after 

be brought to the surface was taken out of the sampling device and stored in a clean glass container at approximately 

4o Celsius. U-166 core samples did not indicate any visible differences. They all appeared to be smooth, gray/black 

sediment with a sour smell. The sour smell is indicative of the anaerobic biological activity (sulfate reduction) 

normally found within sediment samples. The core sample’s lower portion did have small rocks mixed within the 

sediment. The rock samples were approximately 2-3 centimeters in diameter. Samples were sent to a certified 

laboratory for organic chemistry analysis. The U-166 site samples from each of the four cores all tested below 

detection levels for hydrocarbon C6-C36, as well as total petroleum hydrocarbons. 

Table 7.13 

U-166 Core Analysis. 

Site Date Sample Location Concentration 

U-166 August 6, 2005 Beside Ship <1 ug/g 

 30 meters <1 ug/g 

 152 meters <1 ug/g 

 305 meters <1 ug/g 
145 

8.0 ROBERT E. LEE SITE 

8.1 Historical Background of the Freighter Robert E. Lee 

Figure 8.1. Robert E. Lee while in service to the Old Dominion Line (photograph courtesy of the Mariner's 

Museum, Newport News, Virginia). 

The passenger and freight steamer Robert E. Lee (Official Number 224339) was built in 1925 at Newport News, 

Virginia (Figure 8.1). The vessel was commissioned and owned by Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc. of Boston, 

Massachusetts. Robert E. Lee's sister ship, George Washington, was constructed in 1924, and the two vessels were 

practically identical. Each ship was 373.4 feet (113.8 meters) long, 53.8 feet (16.4 meters) wide, and had a 17-foot 

(5.2 meters) draft. Both vessels had a single propeller powered by two steam turbines. George Washington and 

Robert E. Lee were constructed to serve the Old Dominion Line, which was a smaller subdivision of Eastern 

Steamship Lines. The vessels primarily ferried passengers and cargo between Norfolk, Virginia and New York City 

(Figure 8.2). The two ships were popular with people taking weekend cruises or traveling during the tourist season 

(ACVC 1945; Browning 1996; Land et al. 1942; Talbot-Booth and Sargent 1942). 

Robert E. Lee was in the Old Dominion Line’s regular service until the early 1940s. In 1941, following America’s 

entrance into World War II, the Alcoa Steamship Company contacted Eastern Steamship Lines and requested use of 

Robert E. Lee for transporting Alcoa personnel and cargo from New York to Bermuda and other eastern Caribbean 

ports. The Alcoa Steamship Company needed additional transport ships to replace the two vessels, Acadia and 

Evangeline that were under military contract. A.B. Sharp, president of Eastern Steamship Lines, agreed that because 

of the war, Robert E. Lee should be chartered to the Alcoa Steamship Company (Figure 8.3). Alcoa Steamship 

Company officially chartered Robert E. Lee on February 11, 1942, and an agreement was made with Eastern 

Steamship Lines whereby the Alcoa Company could retain the vessel until November 30, 1942 (Robson 1942; 

Stevenson 1942). 
146 

Figure 8.2. Page 6 and 7 of the Eastern Steamship Line Brochure, May 24, 1941. Page 6 shows the deck 

layout and page 7 shows the schedules and fares for SS George Washington and SS Robert E. 

Lee. 
147 

Figure 8.3. Robert E. Lee, early 1942 (photograph courtesy of the Mariner's Museum). 

Soon after the Alcoa Steamship Company contracted Robert E. Lee, the War Shipping Administration (WSA) 

expressed interest in becoming the sole charterer of the vessel and requisitioned it from Eastern Steamship Lines. 

The WSA agreed that even though they would be the sole charter, the Alcoa Steamship Company would maintain 

the vessel for WSA. Eastern Steamship Lines agreed to the conditions, and a formal bareboat charter contract was 

signed on March 11, 1942 (official contract number WSA-1650). The contract stated the Eastern Steamship Lines 

would deliver Robert E. Lee to the War Shipping Administration on June 6, 1942, at New Orleans, Louisiana, and 

the Administration could utilize the ship for at least one year. To prepare Robert E. Lee for delivery, the Alcoa 

Steamship Company had the vessel dry-docked in New York City where the steamer was degaussed and armed 

between April 6 and May 2, 1942. One of the most noticeable changes made to the ship during this time was the 

addition of a stern mounted gun. Robert E. Lee was officially delivered to the War Shipping Administration at 8:00 

a.m. on the aforementioned date, and preparations were made for departure on July 4 for Port-of-Spain, Trinidad 

(Browning 1996; Land et al. 1942; Sharp 1942; Sharp 1946). 

Robert E. Lee, commanded by William C. Heath, was scheduled to depart New Orleans at midnight on July 4, but 

the ship was delayed for one hour and ten minutes because of difficulties finding qualified crew for the journey. The 

war caused a shortage of qualified merchant marine throughout the entire Gulf region. The most significant staff 

shortage on Robert E. Lee was in the steward's department. The steamer left port without a third radio operator, a 

junior third mate, and a junior third assistant engineer (AMMII 1942; Browning 1996). 

After arriving in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, freight cargo was unloaded from Robert E. Lee, and a group of American 

construction workers disembarked. The ship picked up approximately 270 passengers, most of whom were 

construction workers, their families, and victims of U-boat attacks in the Caribbean. Six Merchant Marine officers 

and 131 general crewmembers were aboard Robert E. Lee when the vessel left port on July 20 for the return trip to 

New Orleans. Throughout the voyage, the Merchant Marine officers kept rotating watches to look for enemy 

activities. Robert E. Lee crossed the Caribbean as part of a convoy, but on the morning of July 29 it broke from the 

group to rendezvous with the United States Navy Patrol Craft 566 near Key West, Florida. PC-566, commanded by 

Herbert C. Claudius, was designed for anti-submarine warfare. Escorting Robert E. Lee was the vessel's first 

mission and Lt. Commander Herbert C. Claudius’ first naval command. Under orders from the Commander of the 

Gulf Sea Frontier, PC-566 was to escort Robert E. Lee to Tampa, Florida, where the steamer would take on 

provisions (Charlton 2003; Church et al. 2002; Henderson 1942; USS PC-566 1942). 
148 

Around 9:45 p.m. on July 29, Robert E. Lee and PC-566 arrived at Edgemont Key Light near Tampa Bay. Robert E. 

Lee’s captain attempted to secure a pilot to enter the harbor. He was informed that no pilots were available and the 

harbor was closed for the night. The steamer then communicated with PC-566 using Morse code and blinker lights 

to state its intention to proceed to New Orleans. At 11:25 p.m., PC-566 radioed the Gulf Sea Frontier Command 

that Robert E. Lee was continuing to New Orleans and requested orders regarding escort duties. PC-566 received 

orders to escort Robert E. Lee to New Orleans (Church et al. 2002; Henderson 1942; USS PC-566 1942). 

Robert E. Lee and the patrol craft transited the Gulf of Mexico on July 30 without incident until the vessels were 72 

kilometers southeast of the Mississippi River's Southwest Pass. It was a clear day with calm glassy seas. Robert E. 

Lee's speed was 16 knots, and a lookout was stationed on the bridge, on the forecastle head, in the wireless shack, 

and on the stern gun stand. At 4:40 pm, PC-566 initiated a radio call to the Port Director of New Orleans. 

Suddenly, passengers and crew on Robert E. Lee noticed an elongated shape about 200 meters off the starboard side 

of the ship. The object, appeared to be 6 meters long, approached from Robert E. Lee’s stern starboard side running 

parallel to the steamer. The passengers who noticed the object argued that it was either a shark or a dolphin. The 

shape in the water reportedly turned sharply towards Robert E. Lee, and the passengers realized the object was a 

torpedo. The torpedo struck Robert E. Lee’s starboard side aft of the engine room. The resulting explosion 

extended up through the "C" and "B" decks and stopped the engines. Lookouts aboard PC-566, a half mile ahead 

and to Robert E. Lee’s port side, observed a periscope off the steamer’s starboard side. PC-566 changed course and 

headed towards the submarine. The steamer settled fast by the stern while PC-566 moved to attack the U-boat. Six 

lifeboats and 16 life rafts were launched as the passengers and crew frantically abandoned the ship. The more 

desperate passengers jumped or fell climbing down ladders draped over the vessel's side. Those already in a boat or 

raft, swiftly retrieved the passengers in the water. Robert E. Lee’s bow rose out of the water until it reached a 

precariously steep angle, and the vessel plunged to the bottom of the Gulf (Church et al. 2002; Henderson 1942; 

USS PC-566 1942; Winnier 2003 and 2004). 

Robert E. Lee sank within ten minutes following the torpedo attack. The disaster resulted in the deaths of ten 

crewmembers and fifteen passengers. While the freighter was sinking, PC-566 crossed the submarine’s suspected 

location twice and dropped five depth charges during each run. The depth charges were close enough to Robert E. 

Lee’s lifeboats and rafts that the survivor’s felt the shockwaves from the explosions. The only evidence of the 

submarine's presence aside from the torpedo was an oil slick, which appeared after the depth charges were dropped. 

The submarine, finally identified as U-166, was indeed destroyed by PC-566's depth charges. After attacking the 

submarine, PC-566 began rescuing Robert E. Lee's survivors. Naval vessel SC-519 and the tug Underwriter arrived 

to help with the rescue. Survivors were brought ashore at Venice, Louisiana, and then transferred by bus to New 

Orleans, where the injured were hospitalized and others were lodged at the Jung and Palace Hotels (Charlton 2003; 

Henderson 1942; USS PC-566 1942; Winnier 2003 and 2004). 

8.2 Previous Investigations 

In 1986, Shell Offshore, Inc., hired John E. Chance and Associates to conduct a geophysical survey in the 

Mississippi Canyon Area in the Gulf of Mexico using a EDO 4075 deep-tow system operating at 120 kHz. During 

the survey they found two shipwrecks in approximately 1,500 meters of water. The only shipwrecks the MMS listed 

in the vicinity were two World War II casualties, Robert E. Lee (Figure 8.4) and Alcoa Puritan (Prior et al. 1988). 

No further investigation of the shipwrecks was undertaken because of the expense and time involved in conducting 

deeptow surveys. Robert E. Lee was correctly identified, but the vessel believed to be Alcoa Puritan in 1986 was 

actually U-166. The U-boat’s true identity was not discovered until additional survey work in 2001 with new survey 

technology and stricter MMS archaeological guidelines (Church et al. 2003). 
149 

25 M 

Figure 8.4. Robert E. Lee, Deep-tow side scan sonar image, 1986 (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production). 

In January 2001, C & C Technologies conducted a deepwater pipeline survey in the Mississippi Canyon Area for BP 

Exploration and Production Inc., and Shell International Exploration and Production Inc., using C & C’s C-Surveyor 

I AUV. The survey passed near Robert E. Lee’s location and the shipwreck was imaged on a wing line of the 

pipeline survey corridor. C & C’s Marine Archaeologists requested additional survey of Robert E. Lee and of the 

reported Alcoa Puritan. In March, the oil companies directed C & C to conduct an area survey encompassing 

Robert E. Lee and Alcoa Puritan’s reported locations (Figure 8.5). C & C archaeologists informed the oil 

companies that the suspected Alcoa Puritan wreck was possibly U-166 based on the survey data and historical 

evidence. The oil companies then notified the MMS of the potential discovery. In May 2001, BP and Shell 

contracted C & C to conduct a site-specific survey of Robert E. Lee and the alleged U-boat site. The site specific 

surveys were conducted at a tighter line spacing of 20 meters and utilized the AUV’s high-resolution 410 kHz side 

scan sonar (Figure 8.6) (Church et al. 2002). 

On May 31, 2001, C & C marine archaeologists Robert Church and Daniel Warren, with MMS archaeologists Jack 

Irion and Richard Anuskiewicz joined BP and Shell representatives to lead an ROV investigation of Robert E. Lee

and the suspected U-166 site. The research team used M/V Gary Chouest, which was equipped with Oceaneering’s 

Millennium VI ROV (Church et al. 2003). The investigation helped confirm both site’s identities and allowed a 

preliminary assessments of each wreck’s condition. Although Robert E. Lee is mostly intact, parts of the vessel’s 

superstructure are heavily damaged and the bridge is missing. Part of the bridge was found approximately 80 meters 

off the vessel’s port side with the ship’s telegraph standing upright on the seafloor as if it was still on Robert E. 

Lee’s bridge (Figure 8.7). 
150 

Figure 8.5. 120 kHz side scan sonar image of Robert E Lee, from the 2001 “grid survey” with C- Surveyor I AUV 

(Courtesy of BP, Shell, and the National D-Day Museum, New Orleans, Louisiana). 

 25 METERS 

Figure 8.6. 410 kHz side scan sonar image of Robert E Lee, from the 2001 “site specific survey” with C-Surveyor I

AUV (Courtesy of BP, Shell, and the National D-Day Museum, New Orleans, Louisiana). 
151 

Figure 8.7. The telegraph from the bridge of the Robert E. Lee as found in 2001 (Courtesy of BP, Shell, and the 

National D-Day Museum, New Orleans, Louisiana). 

2003 ROV and AUV Investigation 

In October 2003, C & C Technologies conducted an archaeological and microbiological project focused on U-166. 

The project was conducted under a NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration grant and in partnership with Droycon 

Bioconcepts and the PAST Foundation. The work was conducted from the NOAA R/V Ronald H. Brown utilizing a 

Sonsub Innovator ROV (See description in Section 7.2, U-166 Site, Previous Investigation). During the 2003 

project, limited archaeological inspection and microbiological collection was conducted at the Robert E. Lee site. 

Targets near the wreck as well as those away from Robert E. Lee were investigated, but the debris field to the north 

was not examined. A large sonar target recorded during the 2001 AUV survey approximately 250 meters from the 

wreck was investigated and found to be a wall section from the freighter’s superstructure. This debris is near the 

southern edge of the Robert E. Lee’s debris field. In addition, two unidentified targets documented by the AUV 

survey approximately 700 meters away from the Robert E. Lee wreck site were investigated and identified as two 

lifeboats (Figure 8.8). Their extreme distance from the wreck site suggests these boats were possibly abandoned 

after the survivors in them were rescued. 
152 

Figure 8.8. Lifeboat from Robert E. Lee, documented during the 2003 ROV Investigation (Courtesy of C & C 

Technologies Inc.). 

8.3 Geographical Setting 

The site area is located in the eastern portion of the Mississippi Canyon Area of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The 

site is southeast of the Mississippi River’s mouth, on the northern edge of the Upper Mississippi Fan, and south of 

an area dominated by diapiric salt uplifts. The seafloor in this region gently slopes at approximately 4° toward the 

south (Figure 8.9). There is a low sedimentation rate in this area of approximately 1.52 millimeters per year. 
153 

Figure 8.9. Robert E. Lee site overview map. 
154 

Table 8.1 

ROV Navigation Fix Points at Robert E. Lee

No. Description Time No. Description Time 

1 Loading docks 3:34 32 Bathroom shack with toilet 8:31 

2 Davit cable 3:42 33 Possible Signal Light 8:43 

3 Davit cable 3:45 34 Sink 8:44 

4 Davit cable 3:46 35 UWD - metal pipe 8:46 

5 Davit cable 3:49 36 Ventilation cowl 8:51 

6 Davit cable 3:51 37 UWD - metal 9:29 

7 Grating, winch, wires, 

gallery doors, and davit 3:52 38 Possible portion of deckhouse pipes, decking, and machinery 9:31 

8 Stern 4:33 39 UWD - metal beams 9:37 

9 BOW 5:15 40 Window and door 9:47 

10 Experiment 5:32 41 China plates 9:53 

11 Experiment 2 5:46 42 UWD - metal 11:06 

12 Obstruction 5:57 43 Bathroom stalls 11:11 

13 Obstruction 5:59 44 Shoes and piece of textile 12:11 

14 Obstruction 6:01 45 Cable and grating 13:49 

15 Obstruction 6:03 46 Restart location 14:23 

16 Obstruction 6:03 47 UWD - round 19:51 

17 Obstruction 6:05 48 Copper/brass rod 1:26 

18 Obstruction 6:09 49 Rope 2:52 

19 Ventilation cowl 7:08 50 Pipes, light, ornate metal 3:13 

20 Stern fix 2 7:23 51 Large fish trap 12:05 

21 Textile 7:54 52 Small fish trap 12:13 

22 UWD - pipe or rail 8:01 53 Core D 12:30 

23 Possible refrigerator 8:04 54 Small trap 13:23 

24 UWD - pipe or rail 8:06 55 Big trap 13:36 

25 UWD - hull piece? 8:11 56 Core B 16:34 

26 UWD 8:13 57 Core C 16:44 

27 UWD 8:17 58 Core A 16:54 

28 UWD - metal pipes 8:19 59 Stern 3 16:57 

29 UWD - metal pipes 8:22 60 Core E 17:14 

30 UWD 8:24 61 Telegraph 19:21 

31 UWD 8:29 

UWD = Unidentified Wreck Debris 
155 

8.4 Discussion of Findings – Archaeology 

8.4.1 Physical Site 

The following analysis is based on the 2004 expeditions findings at the Robert E. Lee wreck site. The survey was 

conducted with Sonsub's Triton X11 ROV on August 7, 8, 9, and 12, 2004. Currents at the wreck site were 

negligible, and the visibility was clear. Sediments disturbed by the ROV, however, remained suspended in the water 

column for an extended time drastically decreasing visibility. 

Robert E. Lee’s wreckage lies 1,481 meters BSL and is oriented with the bow pointing west and the stern east. 

Upon initial inspection, the vessel appears to lie evenly on the sea floor, but at the bow the ship rises 10.9 meters 

above the ambient seafloor while at the stern it stands only 7.6 meters above the sediment. Considering the stern is 

buried deeper than the bow, it is likely that Robert E. Lee impacted the seafloor stern first. 

The ROV survey of the hull indicated it is largely intact, but there is severe damage to the upper superstructure. A 

light layer of sediment covers the wreck, and is likely from the initial impact plume paired with 62 years of sediment 

deposition. Torpedo damaged areas were buried below the sediment and could not be assessed. 

The ship's bower anchors are in their original stowed position (Figure 8.10), and the windlass and chains are clearly 

visible on the forecastle. The foremast has buckled near its base and fallen forward. The cargo booms to each side 

of the mast have also collapsed. Robert E. Lee's funnel has fallen to the port side, crushing and covering that section 

of the boat deck. The most extensive damage is between the funnel and the forward portion boat deck. The entire 

bridge and boat deck superstructures, as well as, the underlying promenade deck’s ceiling in this region are missing 

(Figure 8.11). The superstructures may have been destroyed by the shockwaves of PC-566's depth charges. 

Figure 8.10. Robert E. Lee’s bow and both bower anchors. 
156 

Figure 8.11. Looking down on the remaining forward structure of the promenade deck. The ship's bridge and 

underlying boat deck structures would have been in this location.

The boat deck's superstructure is intact between the vessel’s funnel and stern, although much of its top is gone or is 

in the process of collapsing. Many electrical wires and pipes, which would have run along the ceiling, now lie along 

the deck. The ceiling over the aft passenger staircase is gone, allowing a view into the wreck’s upper three decks. 

The aft mast has fallen forward and to the starboard side. The bottom portion of the mast's ladder has broken away 

and fallen into the stair well. On each side of the boat deck near the aft staircase, sections of an outer wooden wall 

still remain. The wall section is located between two large vents, which may have protected this area. 

There is no significant damage at the Robert E. Lee’s stern. The most prominent structure in this area is a 4-inch 

gun mounted on the top deck of the fantail (Figure 8.12). The gun points aft and is covered with biological growth. 

The stern light fixture and flagpole bracket are also intact. 

The geophysical survey indicated a large debris field surrounds the wreck site. Following the initial reconnaissance, 

two ROV survey lines were run east-west crossing the hull. Fourteen east-west lines were then run to the north of 

the main hull and three lines were run south of the main hull. The survey extended approximately 182 meters north 

and 46 meters south of the main hull. All the survey lines were at least 430 meters long. Three additional survey 

lines were run at the debris field’s extreme southern edge, approximately 300 meters away from the hull. One line 

was 364 meters long while the other two were 182 meters long. 
157 

Figure 8.12. The gun mounted on Robert E. Lee's stern. 

The survey of the debris field focused on the northern area because of the lack of data from previous investigations. 

The artifact scatter extends 150 meters north of the hull’s center. Artifacts within the northern debris field include 

various items from the ship as well as personal items from the crew and passengers. Two pairs of shoes along with 

other textile remains are located 52.7 meters north of the hull (Figure 8.13; Navigation Fix No. 44). The shoes 

appear to have been packed in a suitcase or bag that has all but disintegrated. Stacks of dishes are 8.2 meters north 

of the hull amidships (Figure 8.14; Navigation Fix No. 41). Bathroom stalls from the vessel’s interior were 

discovered 24.4 meters off the starboard bow (Figure 8.15; Navigation Fix No. 43). 
158 

Figure 8.13. Shoes and Other Textiles in the Northern Debris Field. 

Figure 8.14. Dishes off the Starboard Side of the Vessel. 
159 

Figure 8.15. Bathroom Stalls found in the Northern Debris Field. 

Lying 11 meters off the vessel’s starboard side is a tangled heap of metal, wire, and miscellaneous debris. A signal 

bell, rudder controls, and an engine order telegraph indicate this is part of the ship’s bridge that fell to the starboard 

side of the wreck (Figures 8.16 and 8.17). The remainder of the bridge section was found on an earlier expedition 

88 meters to port side of the ship. 

Figure 8.16. Section of Bridge debris located to the starboard side of the vessel. 
160 

Figure 8.17. (a) Bridge signal bell, (b) Engine Order Telegraph lying across the Base of the Rudder Controls, and 

(c) Close-up of the Rudder Controls’ Face. 

Only the edges of the southern debris fields and areas near the hull were surveyed during the initial site 

investigation. Tropical Storm Bonny, however, forced the team back to the west later in the expedition, presenting 

an opportunity to return to the Robert E. Lee site to conduct additional work. During this time a more systematic 

examination of the area south of the main hull was undertaken. Eleven additional lines were surveyed to cover the 

area. Two of these lines, the first of which was run 12.1 meters away from the vessel, were extended to 

approximately 760 meters, while the remaining lines were shortened to 364 meters. The southern debris field 

stretches approximately 338 meters south-southeast from the ship's center. 

The overall dimensions of the debris field are 478 meters north-south by 389 meters east-west. The debris field is 

wider at the southern end than at the northern. The greatest debris concentration is between 12 to 18 meters off 

either side of the main hull. The artifact scatter consists of a variety of smaller materials including metal beams, 

portholes, lifeboat davits, railings, and vent hoods (Figure 8.18). The proximity of these objects to the ship’s hull 

suggests they were dislodged when the hull impacted the seafloor. 

Figure 8.18. One of many vent hoods found within the debris field. 
161 

One of the most spectacular finds in the southern debris field was two ship’s engine order telegraphs. They are 

attached to a dislodged piece of bridge decking about 85 meters south of the ship's stern. One of the telegraphs, 

documented on earlier expeditions, is standing upright, but the other is laying face down. The upright telegraph’s 

face is visible and the controls are set to “Finished with Engines” (Figures 8.7 and 8.19). The telegraph lying down 

is 14 meters north of the upright telegraph, but was not documented on previous visits to the site (Figures 8.20). 

Figure 8.19. Engine Order Telegraph stands upright south of Robert E. Lee. 

Figure 8.20. The second of two telegraphs found on a deck section in the southern debris field. 
162 

Large objects including wall sections, refrigerators, the bathroom stalls previously discussed, and the deck section 

with the telegraphs is found farther away from the ship within the debris fields. The distance these objects are from 

the main hull indicates the vessel's superstructure began breaking apart soon after the ship sank. Two lifeboats were 

found 56 meters off the ship's port bow. The lines were still attached to these two lifeboats, which were lying with a 

section of railing. They may have never been launched, but rather ripped away from the ship as it sank, supporting 

accounts that crewmembers were unable to launch all the boats after Robert E. Lee was torpedoed (Figure 8.21). 

Figure 8.21. Two lifeboats in the southern debris field. 

8.4.2 Site Preservation 

Other than the severe damage done to Robert E. Lee's superstructure along the boat deck, the wreck site is in a good 

state of preservation. Portions of the wooden planking on the forecastle and the remaining boat deck are in the 

process of collapsing. Rusticle coverage is relatively light along the vessel's hull, and most of the wreck is covered 

with anemones and small branching polyps. 

8.5 Discussion of Biological Findings 

8.5.1 Microbiology 

Gravimetric elemental analysis using ICP-AES of the rusticles recovered from Robert E Lee’s port and starboard 

sides are given in Table 8.2. It was found that the dominant three elements were iron (97%), sodium (1.7%), and 

magnesium (0.2 %). 
163 

Table 8.2 

Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of a Brown Rusticle (C1) from Robert E Lee 

Iron 97.446% Manganese 0.026% 

Sodium 1.772% Vanadium 0.012% 

Magnesium 0.221% Molybdenum 0.011% 

Phosphorus 0.145% Boron 0.011% 

Calcium 0.140% Cadmium 0.008% 

Potassium 0.109% Strontium 0.006% 

Zinc 0.055% Lead 0.005% 

Aluminum 0.031% Barium 0.002% 

Robert E Lee rests at the northern edge of the Upper Mississippi Fan at a depth of 1,490 meters. The most obvious 

difference with the biota on this ship was the population density of the sea anemones that had an average population 

of 8 anemones per square meters of visible surface. The high population meant these organisms dominated the 

activity occurring on the ship. Brown hanging rusticles (C1) were numerous occupying 20% of the visible areas and 

were generally at sites away from sea anemone colonies. Brown rusticles ranged in sizes up to two meters with 

widths ranging up to 250 millimeters. In addition to the C1 rusticles there were also C2 white rusticles but they only 

occupied 5% of the surface areas occupied by the C1 rusticles. Seventy percent of the ship’s surface was coated in a 

dendritic concretion that was thick (15 – 25 millimeters) and partially coated (less than half) by a slime (B1), which 

was one to five millimeters thick. Concretions (C4) were observed occurring in a few dense patches that amounted 

to 15 percent of the viewable surface area. Where these patches occurred, they were very intense with the branches 

forming tight whorls. No blobs were observed. Moderate electrical potentials were created on the bio-battery 

(Figure 8.22). 

49.6 11.4 39.5

6.9

1.1

Figure 8.22. Voltages (millivolts) detected on bio-battery coupons 

deployed on Robert E. Lee. 
164 

8.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology 

Invertebrates observed in the seven transects over, adjacent to, and distant from Robert E. Lee largely reflect the 

collections from fish traps and by the ROV. The deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) was again the 

predominant or numerically conspicuous species, with specimens observed on all transects adjacent to the wreck site 

but not over the site or on distant transects (Table 8.3). Large numbers, however, were collected both adjacent and 

distant from Robert E. Lee in collections away from the original transect lines. Squat lobsters belonging to the 

genus Munidopsis were observed on four of the seven transects. Anemones were abundantly attached to the hard 

substrate provided by Robert E. Lee, and only a single specimen was observed on the six transects adjacent to and 

distant from the wreck. 

. 

Table 8.3 

Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over, 

Adjacent and Distant (300 m) from the Robert E. Lee Site. 

Transect Number 

Adjacent Over Distant 

Robert E. Lee 415 416 417 420 438 439 440 

Crustaceans 

Chaceon quinquedens 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Munidopsis sp. 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Shrimp 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.7 

Echinoderms 

Sea star 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 

Cnidarians 

Anemone 0.0 0.0 0.4 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sediment in the meiofauna cores was mainly clay and silt, with some portion in the form of biogenic pellets created 

by deposit feeding macrofauna such as polychaets. Nematodes were numerically most abundant, followed by 

harpacticoid copepods and polychaets (Table 8.4). A single individual of the caudofoveatan Scutopus sp. was found 

in each core. 

Table 8.4 

Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2

) from Sediment Cores 

Collected Adjacent to and Away from Robert E. Lee. 

Wreck Robert E Lee 

Number per 10 cm2

Taxon Core A Core C 

Harpacticoida 5.4 0.0 

Nematoda 81.6 139.6 

Polychaeta 0.0 3.6 

Mollusca –

Scutopus sp. 

1.8 1.8 

Seventy-seven voucher specimens belonging to 11 taxa were collected (Table 8.5). Three species were collected 

near the wreck, seven away from the wreck and two from unknown locations in the water column. Forty-six 

specimens of the red deep-sea crab (Chaceon quinquedens) were collected. Squat lobster (Munidopsis sp.) were 

common and 12 specimens were collected, as were two Munida sp. Squat lobsters (family Galatheidae) and pinch 
165 

bugs (family Chirostylidae) of the super family Galatheoidea become increasingly conspicuous with increasing 

depth. Four species of shrimp (Notostomus gibbosus, Notostomus sp. Plesionika sp., Glyphocrangon sp.) were 

collected; all of the shrimp were collected away from the main hull, which might be expected since most are known 

to be associated with soft sediments. 

Table 8.5 

Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the Robert E. Lee Site, 

Including Number and Proximity to Wreck, Substrate, and Depth. 

Robert E. Lee

Specimen ID Number 

Near 

Wreck (< 

61 m) 

Number 

far from 

wreck 

(>61 m)

Unknown 

collection 

location 

Substrate Depth (m)

Crustacea 

Bathynomous giganteus 3 Traps; basket 

Chaceon quinquedens 27 19 Silt; traps 1488-1491

Munida sp. 2 Silt 1491 

Munidopsis sp. 12 Wreck; silt near wreck 1485-1491

Notostomus gibbosus 6 Water column 

Notostomus sp. 2 Water column 

Plesionika sp. 1 Silt 1494-1499

Glyphocrangon sp. 2 Silt 1490-1498

Amphipoda 1 Far fish trap 

Echinodermata 

Goniasteridae 1 Silt 1499 

Ophiuroidea 1 Silt 1492-1499

Scleractina, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea 

None observed at this site. 

8.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology 

Fish Community Structure 

Visibility at Robert E. Lee was good. The mean width of the single transect over the ship was approximately 8.9 

meters (Table 8.6). Transects flown adjacent to and away from the wreck averaged 5.7 meters wide. The difference 

in these two figures was because the ROV maintained a greater distance from the wreck than the seafloor when 

flying transects. 

Ichthyofaunal diversity was low at Robert E. Lee and species composition was similar over and away from the 

wreck. Fishes observed included cuskeels (Order: Ophidiiformes), Halosaurs (Family: Halosauridae), eels (Order: 

Anguilliformes), and grenadiers (Family: Macrouridae). Most individuals could not be identified below order or 

family from video, the exceptions being the cutthroat eel (Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis) and the Halosaur, 

(Aldrovandia gracilis). Both species were captured in traps and/or with the suction sampler. Other species captured 

with traps or the suction sampler included the distate cuskeel (Dicrolene intronigra), the brotula (Cataetyx laticeps), 

and the thickbeard grenadier, (Coryphaenoides zaniophorus). 
166 

Table 8.6 

Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video Over, 

Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away from Robert E. Lee. 

Transect 

Line 

Relation 

to Ship Taxon Min Count 

Max 

Count 

Min 

Density 

100 m-2

Max 

Density 

100 m-2

420 Over Ophidiiformes 1 1 0.10 0.10 

416 Adjacent Synaphobranchidae 1 1 0.14 0.14 

 Teleost 1 1 0.14 0.14 

438 Distant Halosauridae 2 7 0.18 0.62 

 Teleost 1 1 0.09 0.09 

439 Distant Aldrovandia gracilis 1 3 0.06 0.18 

 Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 1 0.06 0.06 

 Halosauridae 1 2 0.06 0.12 

 Nettastomatidae 1 3 0.06 0.18 

 Teleost 1 1 0.06 0.06 

440 Distant Aldrovandia gracilis 2 8 0.18 0.72 

 Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 2 0.09 0.09 

 Halosauridae 1 2 0.09 0.18 

 Macrouridae 1 1 0.09 0.09 

 Teleost 1 4 0.09 0.36 

Table 8.7 

Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at Robert E. Lee on Other than Biological Transects. 

(Location Indicates if Video was Collected Over or Away from the Ship.) 

Location Taxon Min 

Count 

Max 

Count 

Over Ship Cataetyx laticeps 1 3 

Synaphobranchus sp. 2 4 

 Alepocephalidae 1 1 

 Halosauridae 1 3 

 Macrouridae 1 3 

 Anguilliformes 1 1 

Ophidiiformes 2 10 

 Teleost 1 2 

Away From Ship Aldrovandia gracilis 1 4 

Cataetyx laticeps 1 1 

Coryphaenoides sp. 1 1 

Dicrolene intronigra 1 5 

Rajella purpuriventralis 1 1 

Synaphobranchus sp. 1 1 

 Alepocephalidae 1 4 

 Halosauridae 2 45 
167 

 Macrouridae 1 12 

 Ophididae 1 1 

 Anguilliformes 1 2 

 Ophidiiformes 1 9 

 Teleost 1 22 

Table 8.8 

Estimated Total Fish Lengths Observed on Video at Robert E. Lee. 

(All individuals were captured on video with both ROV-mounted lasers striking them.) 

Taxon Number 

Measured 

Mean 

TL mm 

Standard 

Deviation 

Range 

TL mm 

Aldrovandia gracilis 5 498 115.3 381-656 

Cataetyx laticeps 4 729 266.8 406-1,048 

Dicrolene introniger 3 409 27.9 381-437 

Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 3 883 158.5 780-1,066 

Coryphaenoides sp. 1 762 

Halosauridae 6 667 244.2 363-953 

Macrouridae 1 318 

Nettastomatidae 2 1,424 81.0 1,367-1,482 

Anguilliformes 1 529 

Ophidiiformes 2 484 483.1 142-826 

Table 8.9 

Fish Taxa Caught in Chevron (Large) and Baitfish (Small) Fish Traps Deployed Adjacent to (Ship) and 

300 meters Away from (Distant) Robert E. Lee. 

Trap Type Location Species Number 

Small Distant Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 

Table 8.10 

Fishes Caught with the ROV Suction Sampler at Robert E. Lee. 

Date Species Number 

Aug 7 - Aug 9 Cataetyx laticeps 1 

Coryphaenoides zaniophorus 1 

Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 

Aug 12 Aldrovandia gracilis 1 

Dicrolene intronigra 2 

Synaphobranchus brevidorsalis 1 
168 

 a) b) 

Figure 8.23. (a) A purple belly skate, (b) a thickbeard grenadier. 

 a) b) 

Figure 8.24. (a) Brotula (Cataetyx laticeps), and (b) distate cuskeel from video captured adjacent to Robert E. Lee. 

Diet and Trophic Structure 

Stomachs were dissected from eight fish collected at Robert E. Lee and five (63%) had food items present (Fig. 

8.25). Gut content analysis indicated fish dominated the diet of cutthroat eels captured at Robert E. Lee. The sole 

halosaur analyzed had invertebrates present in its gut, but almost half the prey items present were unidentifiable. No 

prey items found in the Mexican grenadier’s gut were identifiable. Stable isotope values for fishes captured at 

Robert E. Lee are reported in Section 7.5.3. 

Figure 8.25. Prey taxa contribution to diets of fishes sampled at the Robert 

E. Lee. Sample sizes are indicated for each species. 
169 

Age Estimation 

Size at age estimates for fishes collected at the Robert E. Lee are presented in Section 7.5.3 

8.6 Sediment Core Analysis 

Four samples were taken at the designated distance from the ship structure. Each sample, after coming to the 

surface was taken out of the sampling device and stored in a clean glass container at approximately 4° Celsius. The 

Robert E. Lee core samples did not indicate any visible differences. They all appeared to be smooth, gray/black 

sediment with a sour smell. The sour smell is indicative of the anaerobic biological activity normally (sulfate 

reduction) found within sediment samples. The lower portion of the core sample did have small rocks mixed within 

the sediment. The rock samples were approximately two to three centimeters in diameter. Samples were sent to a 

certified laboratory for organic chemistry analysis. The Robert E. Lee site samples from the four cores all tested 

below detection levels for hydrocarbon C6-C36, as well as total petroleum hydrocarbons (Table 8.11). 

Table 8.11 

Robert E. Lee Core Analysis. 

Site Date Sample Location Concentration 

Robert E. Lee August 9, 2005 Beside Ship <1 ug/g 

 30 meters <1 ug/g 

 152 meters <1 ug/g 

 305 meters <1 ug/g 
171 

9.0 ALCOA PURITAN SITE 

9.1 Historical Background of the Freighter Alcoa Puritan

Figure 9.1. Alcoa Puritan, United States Coast Guard Photograph, November 11, 1941 (Courtesy of the Steamship 

Historical Society of America, University of Baltimore). 

Alcoa Puritan was a 6,795-ton cargo steamship built by the Bethlehem Steel Company in San Francisco, in 1941. 

She was one of fifteen C-1 B type cargo ships built by Bethlehem Steel. Alcoa Puritan was owned and operated by 

the Alcoa Steam Ship Company at the time of her loss. The vessel’s length between the perpendiculars was 395 feet 

(120.4 meters) with an overall length of approximately 417.9 feet (127.4 meters). The ship was 60 feet (18.3 

meters) wide at the beam, had a depth of hold of 37.4 feet (11.4 meters) from the main deck, and drew 27.5 feet (8.4 

meters) of water when fully loaded. Like Alcoa Pathfinder, a sister ship, she had three forward cargo holds and two 

aft cargo holds. Three of the cargo hold openings measured 31.5 feet by 19.6 feet (9.6 meters by 6 meters) and the 

other two cargo hold openings measured 27.5 feet by 19.6 feet (8.4 meters by 6 meters). The holds were fitted with 

'tweendecks’ including traditional wood hatch covers and steel weather-deck hatch covers. There were two masts 

forward and one aft. Sixteen booms (derricks) served the holds, four booms at the holds amidship, and the 

traditional two booms at the aft and forward holds. The cranes utilized Westinghouse electric motors instead of 

traditional steam driven windlasses (Marine 1941: 106; and Conwell 1986: 55). 

Alcoa Puritan could carry a typical compliment of 10 officers and 33 crew with berths for 8 to 10 passengers. On 

her last voyage she carried 41 officers and crew with seven passengers. At least six passengers were survivors of the 

tanker T.C. McCobb, which had been torpedoed off Brazil. (Marine 1941: 106; Conwell 1986: 55 and 65; and 

Browning 1996: 96). 

The vessel accommodations were of a high standard utilizing many of the latest innovations. All quarters and living 

areas were supplied with forced air ventilation. Propulsion for Alcoa Puritan was provided by Bethlehem crosscompound steam turbines, which drove a single four-blade propeller. Typically the vessel carried approximately 

879 tons of fuel oil, and could travel 16,093.4 kilometers at a speed of 14 knots fully loaded (Conwell 1986: 55; and 

Marine 1941: 147). 

As America geared up for World War II, aluminum was in great demand and production by ALCOA (Aluminum 

Company of America) increased by 600 percent. ALCOA had steamships such as Alcoa Puritan built to transport 

the raw bauxite ore from mines in South America to their American plants (Alcoa 2002). ALCOA’s principle 

sources of bauxite were in Dutch and British Guiana. The Alcoa Puritan’s typical operation for loading the ore 

consisted of traveling up the Suriname River to Paranam. At high tide water depth at the river’s entrance was 5.5

meters. Alcoa Puritan could load only half her cargo capacity at Paranam because of the shallow sand bars at the 
172 

mouth of the river. It then transited to Trinidad to take on the balance of her cargo. The Alcoa Steamship Company 

used lighters to ferry the remaining ore to Port of Spain, Trinidad. After a freighter was fully loaded it headed for 

Portland, Maine or Mobile, Alabama (Conwell 1986: 59-66). 

In 1941, Trinidad was a busy island. With World War II well underway in Europe, Trinidad was a staging area for 

Atlantic convoys. On December 7, 1941, America entered the war following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Alcoa 

Puritan’s crew learned of the attack from a U.S. destroyer berthed along side and they wasted no time preparing the 

ship for wartime conditions. They painted the ship gray from the mast truck to the waterline. They operated in 

black out conditions while underway hoping that U-boats would not spot them. Some vessels were armed with deck 

guns and a navy gun crew, but not Alcoa Puritan (Conwell 1986: 59-66). 

In May 1942, Alcoa Puritan was en route from Port of Spain, Trinidad to Mobile, Alabama, with a cargo of 10,000 

tons of bauxite. The vessel, under Captain Yngvar Axelstien Krantz’s command, plied the Gulf of Mexico’s 

relatively unprotected waters when she crossed paths with the German U-boat U-507 (Moore, 1993: 10). It was a 

clear day with fine weather. There was no wind and the sea was calm, like glass (Conwell 1986: 67). The third 

mate David M. Conwell relates the following account of the attack: 

...a torpedo passed astern of the ship. The wake of the torpedo was sighted by one of our survivorpassengers who was idling on the boat deck; in a few seconds the loud clanging of our general alarm 

bell was heard throughout the ship. Our position was about forty-three miles south-southeast of the 

entrance to the Mississippi River at Southwest Pass; we were steaming at fourteen knots on a course 

approximately north-by-east....(Conwell 1986: 66) 

The torpedo reportedly missed Alcoa Puritan’s stern by 4.5 meters. It was 11:55 am, visibility was good, and no 

other ships were in sight (Powers 1942a). 

Mr. Conwell continues: 

While we discussed the possibility of the torpedo’s being merely a porpoise, a submarine 

surfaced at what appeared to be an initial range of two miles directly astern. Immediately he broke 

water he fired a single warning shell which passed overhead and landed in the water ahead of the ship. 

This was at 1205. Captain Krantz telephoned chief engineer Brewster in the engine room, and 

Brewster opened up the ship’s engines to what was probably a speed of 17 knots. The captain hoped 

that at this speed we could out-distance our attacker. 

About a minute later the U boat (sic) fired a second shot which splashed close enough to send a 

tremor through the ship. I then found a place between the captain and the junior third mate who were 

lying flat on the grating abaft the steering wheel. The ship was on ‘automatic’, and so she made her 

courses without a helmsman. Captain Krantz steered by reaching up and adjusting the steering 

apparatus from time to time. The first two misses were followed by a hit about twenty seconds later, 

and there followed about 75 shells, of which probably 70 were hits on the PURITAN. These were at a 

rate of three a minute for twenty-five minutes. Apart from terrifying us all, the shelling laid open the 

ship’s superstructure, perforated the funnel, broke all the windows and instrument faces, set fire to 

parts of the interior, shot away our anchors and chain, and, finally, disabled the steering machinery at 

the stern.... 

I mentioned above that the captain changed course from time to time. First Assistant engineer J. 

W. Thomas, who had been with us on the deck of the wheelhouse, took up a position in the port wing 

of the bridge from where he could look aft at the submarine. As the submarine would gain on us, first 

on one side and then the other, Thomas would shout into the wheelhouse, “he’s coming up on the port 

side”, or “now he’s coming up to starboard.” With this guidance from Thomas, Krantz was able to 

change the PURITAN’s course to the extent necessary to keep the submarine directly astern. Mr. 

Thomas, an older man, proved himself a person of uncommon courage. 

Our radio operator was, of course, on the air immediately to call for assistance. By the time our 

antenna was shot away he had communicated with naval authorities ashore on the Gulf coast, and they 

had acknowledged his messages. 

At about 1230 when the submarine was at point-blank range the ship started to turn in circles. 

Captain Krantz had no choice but to order us to abandon. Krantz rang the engines to ‘full astern’, and 

Brewster stayed by the engineroom (sic) throttle until the signal came down to ‘stop engines.... 
173 

Hurrying next to my station, which was the ship’s No. 2 lifeboat on the port side, I threw my 

briefcase over the gunwale and into the boat and then undertook to launch it.... When we were ready 

to lower the boat I looked under it to ensure that all was clear. What I discovered was that the bottom 

of the boat had been torn open and perforated by gunfire. The boat was useless. 

I was turning with the others to seek some other avenue of escape when a shell struck the ship 

close to where we were standing. We were peppered with fragments, and Dewy Hart was badly hit in 

the neck. By then our ship was dead in water; the submarine was close aboard on our port side, 

parallel to the PURITAN at about 150 yards.... 

I then ran aft along the port side of the main deck, now covered with heaps of bauxite from our 

holds, and jumped over the taffrail into the water. The rafts lay about two hundred yards astern, and it 

was easy to swim to them, clad as I was in a lifebelt. 

Captain Krantz was at this time launching the other lifeboat on the starboard side. Despite its 

being perforated by shrapnel fragments, as was he, he got it clear and rowed it to where the crew clung 

to the rafts. He was assisted by five crew members who pulled the oars. His own face and eyes were 

covered with blood, and I don’t think he could see. 

By the time the captain’s boat reached us the submarine fired a second torpedo, which struck the 

ship in the engineroom (sic) on the port side. The PURITAN started to list heavily to port and within a 

minute she sank below the surface. There was no bubble and very little flotsam came up (Conwell 

1986: 66-70). 

After being torpedoed the freighter sank in approximately eight minutes and reportedly went down stern first. All 

the passengers and crew survived the encounter, some with minor injuries, but two crewmembers were later 

hospitalized for shrapnel wounds. The U-boat approached the survivors before leaving the area, allowing them a 

close look at the U-boat and its commanding officer (Powers 1942a). 

The submarine then seemed to turn in her length and headed back toward the rafts on which we 

were sitting.... The sea-green colored submarine was about 300 feet in length. A number of men on 

deck were picking up empty shell cases from their two deck guns and throwing them down a hatch. 

One man took pictures of us with a motion-picture camera while a second crew-member held a 

machine gun. It was about 1245.... 

As he passed close aboard us the boat’s captain shouted across the water that he was sorry and 

that he hoped we “make it in all right.” He then gave a parting wave, followed his crew down a 

scuttle, and submerged... (Conwell 1986: 69-70). 

After the survivors were in the water about an hour, a U.S. Navy patrol plane arrived. At approximately 1605, after 

being adrift for four hours, the U.S. Cost Guard Cutter Boutwell arrived and picked up the survivors. They were 

landed at the Burrwood base and then taken to New Orleans (Powers 1942a; and Conwell 1986: 70). 

9.2 Previous Investigations 

In 1986, Shell Offshore, Inc., was exploring oil and gas prospects in the Mississippi Canyon Area of the Gulf of 

Mexico. During the Kepler field deep-tow survey, two shipwrecks were discovered and one thought to be Alcoa 

Puritan. Not until 2001 was it revealed that the wreck site was really U-166 and Alcoa Puritan’s true location was 

discovered 23 kilometers away. Between March and June 2001, about the same time as U-166’s discovery, Shell 

International Exploration and Production contracted Fugro GeoServices, Inc. (FGSI) to conduct a deep-tow survey 

for the Nakika Pipeline Project. The survey took place aboard M/V Geodetic Surveyor using the FGSI DeepTow II 

system, equipped with 120 kHz side scan sonar and subbottom profiler, and a multibeam bathymetry system 

(Church et al. 2003). 

During the survey, a large shipwreck was discovered in 1,965 meters of water 23 kilometers southeast of the Robert 

E. Lee and U-166 sites. Marine archaeologist Laura Landry conducted the archaeological assessment for the survey. 

Based on survey data and historical information, Landry identified the wreck as Alcoa Puritan (USDI MMS 2002). 

The shipwreck was imaged on only one wing line of the survey and the tow-fish crossed the vessel near mid-ships. 

Although much of the vessel is obscured by the side scan sonar’s nadir, the bow and three forward cargo hatches are 
174 

discernable (Figure 9.2). The multibeam data clearly shows the vessel’s entire structure and a wide depression is 

apparent at the freighter’s stern (Figure 9.3). 

Figure 9.2. Side scan sonar image of Alcoa Puritan from the FGSI DeepTow II system 

(Courtesy of Shell International Exploration and Production Inc.) 

Figure 9.3. Multibeam image of Alcoa Puritan from FGSI DeepTow II system (Courtesy of Shell 

International Exploration and Production Inc.). 

Following the vessel’s initial identification, Shell asked C & C if they would conduct further investigations of the 

wreck site with their AUV (C-Surveyor I). In February 2002, C & C surveyed the wreck site while conducting 

AUV tests after mobilizing C-Surveyor I on a new support vessel, R/V Rig Supporter. Survey lines were run around 

the site from three directions to box in the vessel. Several parallel survey lines were run in each direction. Each set 

of parallel survey lines were at a 30-degree angle to the other two sets of lines, creating a "star pattern" survey grid. 

This provided a 202,500 square meter area of overlapping survey coverage and required less than 1 1/2 hours to 

complete (Church et al. 2003). 

The swath bathymetry and dual frequency sonar (120 kHz and 410 kHz) images left little doubt that the site was 

Alcoa Puritan. The sonar images (Figures 9.4 and 9.5) clearly showed the mid-ship superstructure with its central 
175 

stack, the crane bases, and five cargo hatches. The vessel’s dimensions exactly match Alcoa Puritan. The vessel is 

oriented with the stern to the northwest and the bow to the southeast. The bow is slightly more elevated than the 

stern and the seafloor depression is deeper at the stern. It appears the ship’s stern impacted the seafloor first, which 

is consistent with the historical account of the vessel sinking stern first (Church et al. 2003). 

Figure 9.4. 120 kHz side scan sonar image of Alcoa Puritan from the C-Surveyor I AUV (Courtesy of C & 

C Technologies, Inc.). 

Figure 9.5. 410 kHz side scan sonar mosaic image of Alcoa Puritan from the C-Surveyor I AUV (Courtesy 

of C & C Technologies, Inc.). 

Shell International and Production Inc. conducted the first ROV investigation of the wreck site on July 3, 2002. The 

visual inspection was conducted with Sonsub’s ROV vessel HOS Dominator while in the area as a support vessel 

for the Nakika pipeline’s construction. The ROV investigation confirmed the site’s identity and provided valuable 

data for researchers (Church et al. 2003). The geophysical survey data and ROV investigation footage discussed 

above was used to plan the 2004 site investigations. 
176 

Figure 9.6. Alcoa Puritan site overview map. 
177 

Table 9.1 

ROV Navigation Fix Points at Alcoa Puritan

No. Description Time 

1 Experiment 1 8:54 

2 Bow 9:01 

3 Wire Obstruction 9:33 

4 Wire Obstruction 9:36 

5 Davit 9:48 

6 Davit 9:48 

7 Stern 10:16 

8 Wire and Rail Obstructions 10:20 

9 Experiment 2 10:49 

10 Bow 2 11:09 

11 Remnants of a Conveyor or Walkway 12:39 

12 POSSIBLE FUNNEL 12:58 

13 METAL PIPES 15:54 

14 METAL GRATING 18:36 

15 SHELL CASING 21:04 

16 UWD 21:37 

17 METAL FRAME 22:28 

18 TOP OF MAST 22:57 

19 LARGE 1000' TRAP 1:19 

20 SMALL 1000' TRAP 1:25 

21 MINNOW 1000' TRAP 1:31 

22 CORE D 1:34 

23 CRAB TRAP HULL 2:44 

24 LARGE FISH TRAP HULL 2:49 

25 SMALL FISH TRAP HULL 2:51 

26 CORE A 3:07 

27 CORE E 3:15 

28 CORE B 3:23 

29 CORE C 3:41 

30 HATCH COVER 15:23 

31 TELEGRAPH 16:01 

32 HATCH COVER 16:34 

33 HATCH COVER 16:38 

34 HATCH COVER 16:47 

UWD = Unidentified Wreck Debris 

9.3 Geographical Setting 

The site area is located in the Mississippi Canyon’s eastern portion in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The site is 

southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi River and south of an area dominated by diapiric salt uplifts. The seafloor 

in this region slopes gently at approximately 2° to the southwest at the wreck site (Figure 9.6). There is a low 

sedimentation rate in this area of approximately 1.52 millimeters per year. 
178 

9.4 Discussion of Archaeological Findings 

9.4.1 Physical Site 

The following wreck site description is from the 2004 expedition. The investigation was conducted with the Triton 

X11 ROV on August 9 and 10, 2004. The survey time at this site was limited because of Tropical Storm Bonnie’s 

approach. There was no measurable current at the site and any silt that was disturbed during the investigation 

remained in the water column for a prolonged period of time. 

The wreck is oriented with the bow pointing southeast and stern northwest. The vessel lies in 1,964 meters of water. 

The bow stands 4.3 meters proud of the ambient seafloor and is elevated higher than the stern. There is a seafloor 

depression around the stern measuring approximately 50 meters across and 4 meters deep. The stern is 

approximately 1.2 meters lower than the ambient seafloor outside the depression. 

ROV reconnaissance of the main structure revealed the hull is mostly intact with moderate superstructure damage. 

Numerous shell holes are visible along the hull. The larger shell holes, probably from U-507’s 105-mm deck gun, 

measure between 43 and 88 centimeters across (Figure 9.7). The smaller shell holes are likely from U-507’s 37-mm 

or 20-mm guns. There is moderate damage on the vessel’s starboard side, but the most extensive damage is to the 

port side. On this side near the mud line, below the superstructure’s aft portion there is a large hull breach caused by 

a torpedo (Figure 9.8). The tear measures 11.4 meters across and extends 2.5 meters above the mud line. Physical 

deterioration is substantial in this area; part of the aft bridge roof has collapsed exposing the interior of the bridge. 

One of the ship’s bridge telegraphs, lying on its side, is visible through the opening. 

Figure 9.7. 105-mm shell damage on Alcoa Puritan’s starboard side. The breach is approximately 47 centimeters 

across. 
179 

Figure 9.8. Mosaic of the vessel’s port side torpedo damage just below the superstructure’s aft section. 

The anchor windlass and chain are in place on the forecastle (Figure 9.9). Although the historical account states the 

ships anchors were shot away, both anchors are intact (Conwell 1986: 67). Just below the anchors, the bow is 

buckled (Figure 9.10). The buckling of the hull most likely occurred when the bow impacted the seafloor. 

Figure 9.9. Two views of the ship’s windlass: the view from starboard (left image), and the view from the bow 

looking aft (right image). 

Figure 9.10. Starboard views of the buckling at Alcoa Puritan’s bow. 

No masts remain standing on Alcoa Puritan’s forward deck, but the square mast steps are intact. The top of the 

forward mast lies directly over the No. 1 hold’s hatch, obscuring the view into that hold (Figure 9.11). According to 

the third officer’s journal, an automobile was loaded into the No. 1 hold before the ship left Trinidad (Conwell 1986: 
180 

66). The automobile is not visible in the footage. The Nos. 2 and 3 holds are unobstructed. Nothing notable was 

observed in these holds except thick silt. There are boom and rigging remnants scattered around the deck, and the 

electric motors that serviced the booms are present at each cargo hatch. The deck is otherwise relatively free of 

debris, but a thick silt layer covers the wreck’s surface. The sediment rate is relatively low (1.52 millimeters per 

year), suggesting the sediment covering the site are from the sediment plume created when the vessel impacted the 

seafloor. 

Figure 9.11. The top of the foremast laying over the No. 1 hold (looking aft). 

On the aft deck, the view into the Nos. 4 and 5 holds are unobstructed. In the No. 4 hold, directly aft of the bridge, 

there is a bulky material, possibly bauxite, covered with silt that is built up higher than in any of the other holds. 

The mizzen (aft) mast is absent, leaving only one of the three masts present on the vessel’s deck. 

There is a slight, but noticeable twist in the hull between the superstructure and stern along the port side. The ship’s 

name “ALCOA PURITAN” and homeport “NEW YORK” are visible embossed across the stern. 

Figure 9.12. On the port stern quarter the word “ALCOA” is visible with the word “NEW” beneath (left), and on 

the starboard stern quarter the word “PURITAN” is visible with the word “YORK” beneath (right) 

The geophysical survey data did not indicate an extensive debris field surrounding the wreck site. The ROV survey 

lines were run parallel to the vessel. Two survey lines were run the entire planned length of 760 meters. One line 

ran directly over the vessel and the other ran to the southwest or starboard side of the vessel. These lines extended at 
181 

least 300 meters past either end of the vessel. Six survey lines were run to the northeast or starboard side of the 

vessel, providing coverage out to 80 meters. These six survey lines extended 150 meters past either end of the 

vessel. The observed debris was limited, as expected, and only four scattered artifacts were recorded during this 

portion of the survey. The most notable artifact was one of U-507’s 105-mm shell casings located approximately 

112 meters east of Alcoa Puritan’s bow (Figure 9.13). Archaeologists recovered the shell casing after the survey 

and sent it to Texas A & M University for conservation. The casing is now displayed at the National D-Day 

Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Figure 9.13. 105-mm shell casing found near Alcoa Puritan wreck site. Shell casing standing upright on the 

seafloor (left), ROV Superintendent Joey Lecovick holds the shell casing with Chief Scientist Robert 

Church looking on after recovery (right). 

Two survey lines were run approximately 675 meters to the south in an attempt to locate any additional shell casings 

or debris. No other shell casings were found during the survey despite historical accounts that U-507 expended 

approximately 75 rounds at Alcoa Puritan. After Alcoa Puritan sank and the survivors were in lifeboats and rafts, 

the freighter’s third mate reported seeing the U-boat’s crew throw the used shell casings down a hatch into the Uboat (Conwell 1986: 70). This may explain why more shells were not found. 

Three transect survey lines were run 300 meters north of the vessel location. A large debris field was discovered on 

these transects. Additional survey lines were ran to document this debris zone. Investigations indicated the debris 

field covers a 213 meter by 213 meter area and contains large sections of wreckage, including a ship’s mast and 

telegraph (Figures 9.14 and 9.15). The mast in the debris zone stands proud of the seafloor at a 45-degree angle. 

Only its top is visible as the lower portion is deeply embedded in the seabed. It is impossible to discern how much 

of the mast is intact, but there is a sufficient amount in the seafloor to allow the mast’s heavy top section to remain 

upright. The observed artifacts included twisted sheet metal, pipe, and railing. Some items such as chair remains 

and several heavily constructed panels (probably hatch covers) were also noted (Figures 9.16 and 9.17). The steel 

panels measure 2 meters by 12 meters and appeared to be upside down. 
182 

Figure 9.14. Top of one of the masts from Alcoa Puritan found embedded in the seafloor in the wreck’s northern 

debris field. 

Figure 9.15. Bridge telegraph or rudder control from Alcoa Puritan within the northern debris field. 
183 

Figure 9.16. Chair found lying on the seafloor within the northern debris field. 

Figure 9.17. Hatch cover section found lying on the seafloor north of the wreck site. 

The distribution of materials at the site supports the historical accounts regarding U-507’s attack on Alcoa Puritan. 

U-507 chased Alcoa Puritan from the south, finally crippling the freighter with a shot from its deck gun. The Uboat then torpedoed the freighter to finish it off near the location of the large debris field. The debris is distributed 

widely, as is to be expected of debris falling from the surface 1,966 meters to the seafloor below. The vessel 

reportedly sank quickly, but appears to have landed some distance south of where it was torpedoed. 
184 

9.4.2 Site Preservation 

The wreck site is in a relatively good state of preservation. There is heavy damage to the vessel’s port (northeast) 

and upslope side. Rusticle formations are considerably more extensive on this side of the vessel. For a detailed 

analysis of the bacteria activity and rate of deterioration of the site see the following microbiology analysis. 

9.5 Discussion of Biological Findings 

9.5.1 Microbiology 

Gravimetric elemental analysis using ICP-AES of the rusticles recovered from the port and starboard sides of Alcoa 

Puritan are given in Table 9.2. The three dominant elements were iron (96%), sodium (3.7%), and magnesium (0.4 

%). At 1,964 meters BSL, Alcoa Puritan was the deepest shipwreck investigated. The wreckage had the greatest 

density of brown rusticles in the study with 35% of the observable surfaces infested with brown rusticles (C1). 

These rusticles tended to be the narrower (less than 100 millimeters) and longer (up to five meters) and mostly clung 

to the hull rather than hanging down from it. In many ways this rusticle form may be similar to what occurred on 

RMS Titanic in 1974 after she too had been submerged for 62 years (Cullimore et al. 2001). While RMS Titanic has 

been the subject of many scientific investigations, with dives by submersibles or remotely operated vehicles in 1996, 

1998, 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005, (Cullimore and Johnston 2005) The natural iron extraction from the steels is still 

the subject of an ongoing investigation (Garzke et al. 1997). Four steel test platforms (one Mark I, two Mark II and 

one Mark III) have been deployed since 1998, and three have since been recovered for analysis (Cullimore and 

Johnston 2000). Based on available data, microbiologists developed a model projecting the Titanic’s rate of the 

deterioration (Ballard 2004). From these parallel investigations of rusticle impact on vessel deterioration, further 

analysis can be made on the rusticle growths at Alcoa Puritan (Cullimore and Johnston 2005). It could be 

considered that Alcoa Puritan is generating similar types and intensities of rusticle infestations to those currently 

being observed at RMS Titanic. Given that Titanic sank in 1912 and Alcoa Puritan sank in 1942, the rusticle growth 

appears to be following a similar progression. This indicates that structural deteriorations of the steel 

superstructures will be apparent by the 2020’s for Alcoa Puritan if the trends continue. 

Dendritic concretions (C3) were observed over 65% of the observable surface area but they were generally thin 

(three to eight millimeters) and thin slimes (B1, one to two millimeters) were present on 15% of the surfaces. Sea 

anemones were rarely observed on the shipwreck and had a density of only 0.1 organisms per square meter. 

Significant electrical activity was detected on the bio-battery platforms (Figure 9.18) 

Table 9.2 

Gravimetric Elemental Analysis of a Brown Rusticle (C1) from Alcoa Puritan 

Iron 95.636% Vanadium 0.014% 

Sodium 3.277% Molybdenum 0.010% 

Magnesium 0.376% Strontium 0.009% 

Calcium 0.247% Cadmium 0.007% 

Potassium 0.197% Barium 0.005% 

Phosphorus 0.140% Lead 0.005% 

Manganese 0.034% Zirconium 0.001% 

Aluminum 0.023% Chromium 0.001% 

Boron 0.016% 

An opportunity arose to test a 6” x 6” coupon of mild steel coated with “Royal Copper” (a mixture of copper flakes 

in an epoxy binder). Royal Copper is a hard non-leaching and abrasion resistant coating. This coating is widely 

used on surface ships to prevent fouling of the exterior hull and between double hulls. Given the extreme nature of 
185 

the deep-sea environment at Alcoa Puritan, it was decided to include a Royal Copper coupon when the bio-battery 

platform was deployed. Site exposure time was two days before the coupon and bio-battery were recovered. Sixtyseven pitted areas were recognizable on the coupon where copper particles had been lost from the epoxy binder. All 

of these pitted sites were easily recognizable due to the discoloration of the brilliant copper colored surface to a dull 

matt gray. In all cases the edges of these pitted regions were very irregular, but generally had an ellipsoid or circular 

form. Average diameters ranged from one to 13 millimeters with the average size being approximately eight 

millimeters. Fourteen percent or 33.7 square centimeters of the total 234 square centimeter surface area had already 

been compromised by the copper particle loss. If this were a linear rate of loss all of the copper would be stripped 

from the epoxy binder in fourteen days. Clearly the test was in an environment far harsher than would be 

experienced on, or inside, a surface ship’s steel hull, but it demonstrates the potential value of using deep ocean 

environments for corrosion testing of novel materials, coatings, and composites. 

52.7 119.5

18.5

55.4

84

44.5

179.5

Figure 9.18. Voltages (millivolts) detected on bio-battery coupons 

deployed on Alcoa Puritan. 

9.5.2 Invertebrate Zoology 

Many of the deepwater invertebrate species are widely distributed or cosmopolitan. A bright red carid shrimp, 

Notostomus sp., a member of the deepsea shrimp family Oplophoroidea, was observed in low numbers on four of the 

six transects (Table 9.3). The shrimp observed in the videos resembled N. gibbosus, which has been reported from 

the western Atlantic Ocean, and also around Hawaii and in deepwaters on the east coast of Australia. The genus, 

however, has at least 11 congeners, which are widely distributed. Squat lobsters belonging to the genus Munidopsis

are extremely speciose, and 23 species of the genus have been reported from Cuba. Squat lobsters were observed in 

four of the nine transects conducted at the Alcoa Puritan site; all appeared to be of the same species, but this could 

not be confirmed without collections. Elaspodid sea cucumbers were observed on seven of the nine transects. 

These swimming cucumbers are deposit feeders, settling to the benthos to feed on organics in the sediment, and 

become more common with increasing depth. These delicate cucumbers generally are torn during collection and 

transit to the surface. 
186 

Table 9.3 

Density (number per 100 m-2) of Invertebrates Observed on Transects Over, 

Adjacent, and Distant (300 m) from the Alcoa Puritan site. 

Transect Number 

Distant Adjacent Over 

Alcoa Puritan 500 501 502 516 517 518 519 520 521 

Crustaceans 

Munidopsis sp. 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 

Shrimp (cf. Notostomus 

gibbosus) 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Unidentified crustacean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Echinoderms 

Elasopodid cucumber 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 12.2 

Holothurian 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sea star 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cnidarians 

Anemone 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 

Sediment at Alcoa Puritan and all deeper sites, although still predominantly clay and silt, had fewer biogenically 

derived pellets. Nematodes were the most abundant meiofauna taxon in samples at Alcoa Puritan, followed by 

harpacticoids and polychaets (Table 9.4). Densities of all taxa were unusually low in comparison to those found in 

the shallower sites, as expected for a deeper site. The order of magnitude difference in abundance of specimens in 

the two cores is probably the result of the spillage of Core B during processing. 

Table 9.4 

Density of Meiofauna (numbers per 10 cm2

) from Sediment Cores Collected 

Adjacent to and Away from Alcoa Puritan. 

Wreck Alcoa Puritan 

Number per 10 cm2

Taxon Core A Core B* 

Harpacticoida 3.6 0.0 

Isopoda 0.0 1.8 

Nematoda 257.5 30.8 

Polychaeta 1.8 1.8 

Unknown 3.6 0.0 

*Spilled sample while sieving, may have affected total counts. 

Sixty-three specimens belonging to eight taxa were collected, mainly from fish traps and the suction sampler. The 

red deep-sea crab (Chaceon quinquedens) was the predominant species and 48 specimens were collected, but a 

hermit crab of the genus Parapagurus was also collected. Although not observed in the transects, Munidopsis sp. 

and Bathynomous giganteus were also collected in the traps. A number of sea cucumbers and a single echinoid were 

collected. The largest of the three articulate brachiopods (lamp shells) collected was only nine millimeters in 

diameter; all were of the same species, perhaps belonging to the genus Terebratulina. 
187 

Table 9.5 

Macroinvertebrate Species Collected at the Aloca Puritan site, Including Number and Proximity to Wreck, 

Substrate, and Depth. 

Alcoa puritan 

Specimen ID 

Number Near 

Wreck 

(< 61 m) 

Number far 

from wreck 

(>61 m) 

Unknown 

collection 

location 

Substrate Depth (m)

Crustacea 

Bathynomous giganteus 2 Silt, Water Column 1968 

Chaceon quinquedens 48 Silt; Traps 1966 

Munidopsis sp. 3 Debris; Water Column 1965-1969

Parapagarus sp 1 Silt 1968 

Polychaeta 

Sepulidae 1 Wreck 1960-1968

Brachiopoda – cf. Terebratulina 3 Wreck 1960-1968

Echinodermata 

Holothuroidea 4 Silt; Water Column 1966-1969

Echinoidea 1 Silt 1965-1970

Scleractina, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea 

None observed at this site. 

9.5.3 Vertebrate Zoology 

Fish Community Structure 

Visibility at Alcoa Puritan was good. The mean transect width over the ship was approximately 7.1 meters (Table 

9.6). Transects flown adjacent to and away from the wreck averaged 5.3 meters wide. The difference in mean 

width was due to the ROV maintaining a greater distance from the wreck than the seafloor when flying transects. 

Ichthyofaunal diversity was low at Alcoa Puritan (Tables 9.6-9.8). As was true of U-166 and Robert E. Lee, the fish 

community observed over the wreck was similar to that observed away from it. Fishes observed included cuskeels 

(Order: Ophidiiformes), Halosaurs (Family: Halosauridae), grenadiers (Family: Macrouridae), and a tripod fish 

(Family: Ipnopidae). Individuals could not be identified below order or family from video and no fishes were 

captured in traps or with the suction sampler at Alcoa Puritan. Thus, no samples were available for gut content, 

stable isotope, or age and growth analyses. 
188 

Table 9.6 

Abundance and Density Estimates for Fish Taxa Identified from ROV Video During Biological Sampling Over, 

Adjacent to, and 300 Meters Away (distant) from Alcoa Puritan. 

Transect 

Line 

Relation 

to Ship Taxon Min Count 

Max 

Count 

Min 

Density 

100 m-2

Max 

Density 

100 m-2

521 Over Halosauridae 1 3 12.23 36.68 

516 Adjacent Teleost 1 1 0.15 0.15 

517 Adjacent Halosauridae 1 1 0.24 0.24 

518 Adjacent Halosauridae 1 3 0.18 0.53 

Teleost 1 2 0.18 0.35 

500 Distant Halosauridae 1 2 0.19 0.29 

Ipnopidae 1 1 0.10 0.10 

Macrouridae 1 1 0.10 0.10 

Ophidiiformes 1 1 0.10 0.10 

Teleost 1 2 0.10 0.20 

501 Distant Halosauridae 2 3 0.19 0.29 

Teleost 1 1 0.10 0.10 

502 Distant Teleost 1 2 0.11 0.23 

Table 9.7 

Abundance of Fish Taxa Identified from Video Collected at Alcoa Puritan on Other Than Biological Transects. 

(Location indicates if video was collected over or away from the ship.) 

Location Taxon Min 

Count 

Max 

Count 

Over Ship Aldrovandia gracilis 1 1 

Cataetyx laticeps 1 1 

Rajella purpuriventralis 1 1 

 Halosauridae 2 26 

 Ipnopidae 1 2 

 Ophididae 1 1 

 Ophidiiformes 1 2 

 Teleost 1 13 

Away from Ship Aldrovandia gracilis 2 8 

Dicrolene kanazawai 1 1 

Halosauridae 2 96 

Ipnopidae 1 5 

Macrouridae 1 1 

Ophidiidae 1 5 

Anguilliformes 1 2 

Ophidiiformes 1 10 

 Teleost 2 52 
189 

Table 9.8 

Estimated Total Fish Lengths Observed on Video at Alcoa Puritan.

(All individuals were captured on video with both ROV-mounted lasers striking them.) 

Taxon Number 

Measured 

Mean 

TL mm 

Standard 

Deviation 

Range 

TL mm 

Aldrovandia gracilis 3 619 230.4 370-826 

Cataetyx laticeps 1 914 

Dicrolene kanazawai 1 640 

Halosauridae 21 433 167.4 265-847 

Ipnopidae 3 235 150.9 131-408 

Ophidiidae 4 190 33.0 149-227 

Anguilliformes 1 154 

Ophidiiformes 3 393 314.1 206-756 

 (a) 

 (b) 

Figure 9.19. (a) a tripod fish and (b) a halosaur captured during video sampling at Alcoa Puritan. 

9.6 Sediment Core Analysis 

Four samples were taken at the designated distance from the ship. Each sample, after be brought to the surface was 

removed from the sampling device and stored in a clean glass container at approximately 4o Celsius. Alcoa Puritan

core samples did not indicate any visible differences. They all appeared to be smooth, gray/black sediment with a 

sour smell. The sour smell is indicative of the anaerobic biological activity (sulfate reduction) normally found 

within sediment samples. The core sample’s lower portion did have small rocks mixed within the sediment. The 

rock samples were approximately two to three centimeters in diameter. Samples were sent to a certified laboratory 

for organic chemistry analysis (Table 9.9). The Alcoa Puritan site samples from the four cores indicated that the 

core sample closest to the ship was positive for the hydrocarbons in the C6-C10 range, indicating that gasoline-type 

hydrocarbons are present. The sample taken from the furthest point also tested positive for trace amounts of 

hydrocarbon in the C10-C14 carbon range. The positive samples were then analyzed using gas chromatography. 

Concentrations are as indicated: 

Table 9.9 

Alcoa Puritan Core Analysis 

Site Date Sample Location Concentration 

Alcoa Puritan August 10, 2004 Beside Ship <1 ug/g 

 30 meters <1 ug/g 

 152 meters <1 ug/g 

 305 meters 16 ug/g 
191 

10.0 ANONA SITE 

10.1 Historical Background of the Steam Yacht Anona 

Figure 10.1. Steam Yacht Anona circa 1906-1915 (Courtesy Library of Congress Detroit Publishing Company 

Collection). 

Anona (Figure 10.1) was a steam yacht commissioned by Theodore DeLong Buhl, a wealthy Detroit Industrialist in 

1904 from the master yacht builders George Lawley and Son, Boston, Massachusetts. Anona was built during the 

heyday of steam yacht construction for the owner of Buhl Sons Company, Detroit for use on the Great Lakes. She 

was built and designed by a yard that had already produced two America’s Cup winners, Puritan, and Mayflower

(MacTaggart 2001:67). Anona displaced 146 gross tons. Her steel hull was 136 feet (length over all), 110 feet at 

the waterline, a 17 feet 5 inch beam, and drew only 7 feet 6 inches of water. She had two masts, a propeller, an 

elliptical stern, and graceful swept bow (Figure 10.2 and 10.3). A three-cylinder Lawley engine gave Anona a 

cruising speed of 12 knots and a maximum speed of 13.5 knots. A generator provided power for electrical lighting. 

According to the yacht journal, The Rudder, Anona was well adapted for coastal and Great Lake’s use, and her 

beautiful accommodations included four staterooms, a piano, two full service heads, a saloon and a pantry, all 

finished in mahogany and teak (Rudder 1908). In 1907, while registered in the Port of Detroit, it was under the 

control of the Detroit Trust Company, the firm that was administrating Theodore Buhl’s estate following his death in 

April 1907 (Whittington 2002). In 1908, ownership of Anona was transferred to Mrs. J. Elizabeth Buhl, Theodore 

Buhl’s wife and the daughter of Canadian Club Whiskey Distillery founder Hiram Walker. The yacht remained in 

the Buhl family until it was transferred to Alfred E. Mathers in 1924. 

Mathers changed the registry from American to Canadian shortly after taking possession of the yacht. He retained 

ownership of Anona until 1926 when, possibly because of Mathers’ death, it came under the ownership of the 

Canadian Trust Company of London, Ontario. Anona remained under the control of this Trust until at least 1931, 

but disappeared from the registries until 1936. The owner at that point was John Wigle of Windsor, Ontario. Wigle 

retained ownership until 1937 when the yacht was sold to the Ye Olde Towne Hotel located in Toronto, Ontario. A 

year later, Anona was sold to Karl A. Eyre of Timmons, Ontario who owned the yacht until 1943 when it came 

under control of the Pan-American Banana Producers Association of Montreal, Quebec (Milwaukee Public Library 
192 

1989). Under the Pan-American Banana Producers Association Anona was no longer used as a recreational yacht, 

but instead hauled freight between the West Indies and North America. In June 1944, Anona was bound for the 

British West Indies with a load of potatoes when the lower steel hull plates buckled and Anona sank in the Gulf of 

Mexico. After two days adrift all nine crew were rescued by American PBY aircraft and returned to shore (TimePicayune 1944). 

Figure 10.2. Out board profile of the steam yacht Anona, drawn by the George Lawley and Sons Corporation, 

April 20, 1904 (from the Haffenreffer-Herresheff collection, Nautical MIT Museum). 

Figure 10.3. Cabin plan and elevation drawing of the steam yacht Anona, by the George Lawley and Sons 

Corporation, June 8, 1904 (from the Haffenreffer-Herresheff collection, Nautical MIT Museum). 

10.2 Previous Investigations 

Oil And Gas Exploration 

In 1995, an oil and gas survey by Fugro, Inc., detected an unknown shipwreck in the Viosca Knoll Area. The survey 

was performed with a deep-tow side scan sonar, which depicted a wreck in approximately 1,219 meters of water. 

The vessel was identified as a probable crew boat based on the sonar image and the presence of linear debris, 

interpreted as pipe, in the wreck’s vicinity (Warren 2002). 
193 

During May 2002, BP Exploration (BP) contracted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C & C) to perform a site-specific 

archaeological study over the shipwreck site as part of a larger block study. This site-specific survey was carried out 

on May 9, 2002 using the C-Surveyor I AUV. 

The project’s survey grid provided overlapping wreck site coverage. Nine lines were run northwest to southeast, 

parallel to the wreck site and a possible debris field north of the wreck site. One line was run over the wreck site to 

obtain multibeam bathymetry data, the first two wing lines were run at 25 meter spacing from the wreck site, and the 

remaining six wing lines were run at 50 meter spacing from the wreck site. Eight tie lines were run northeast to 

southwest over the shipwreck area and the possible debris field to the north to provide additional coverage. The site 

specific survey lines were run utilizing a 410 kHz side scan system and EM 2000 multibeam system. 

Sonar data showed the partially buried remains of an unknown vessel at the wreck’s reported location (Figure 10.4). 

Approximately 42.67-meters long and 5.18-meters wide at the beam, the vessel seemed relatively intact. The data 

indicated the ship is oriented with the bow to the southeast on a seafloor slope. The vessel is upright on the seafloor 

but listing slightly to starboard. Water depth at the wreck location is approximately 1,258 meters BSL. A moderate 

debris field was observed around the wreck. Sonar imagery indicated the ship has a sweeping bow and a squared 

stern with the widest point amidships. Near the vessel’s center is an area of debris that reaches 0.61 to 2.13 meters 

above the deck. Thirteen unidentified sonar contacts were noted during the site-specific survey. The majority of 

these contacts were located north of the wreck site and it was hypothesized that they represented debris that was 

dislodged from the vessel as it sank. The debris distribution suggested the vessel was lost north of its current 

position. 

 40 METERS 

Figure 10.4. High-resolution side scan image of Anona (Courtesy of BP Exploration). 

Multibeam bathymetry data collected during the site-specific survey was processed and displayed in Fledermaus, a 

three-dimensional visualization program. The multibeam imagery verified the sonar data interpretation. 

Dimensions of the area of relief amidships noted on the sonar images were confirmed from the multibeam data. The 

debris area was found to be approximately 9.14-meters in length, 4.27-meters wide, and at the highest point 

protrudes 2.13-meters above the rest of the vessel. A plan of the wreck produced in Fledermaus shows the area of 

debris amidships (Figure 10.5). 
194 

Figure 10.5. Fledermaus multibeam image of Anona wreck site (Courtesy of BP Exploration). 

In June 2002 BP contracted Oceaneering International to undertake a ROV investigation of the wreck. Imagery 

from the survey showed a single deck vessel sitting upright on the seafloor but listing slightly to starboard as 

indicated in the side scan sonar and bathymetry data. The hull appeared to be carvel constructed of iron plate riveted 

to iron framing. The portion of the hull above the mud line appeared intact and in a good state of preservation, 

albeit covered with a variety of biological growth. 

The video images confirmed the bow’s sharp cutwater seen on the side scan sonar data. A bowsprit support 

extended out from the stem, but the bowsprit is gone. The trail board on both sides of the bow displays ornate metal 

work representing an intricate botanical pattern (Figure 10.6). No lettering indicating a vessel name was seen in this 

area although it may be covered by biological growth (Figure 10.7). 

,

1 1 0'

METERS

SEAFLOOR

Figure 10.6. Profile drawing of trail board on Anona’s bow (Drawing by Robert A. Church). 

In the forecastle area, a steam powered windlass sits aft of the bowsprit deck bracket. On either side of the windlass, 

near the gunwales, are single davits that may have acted as catheads to assist in securing the anchors. Two anchors 

are visible on either side of the bow adjacent to the windlass. They are at or near the locations where they would 
195 

have been secured during transit. At least one appears to be a variant of the fisherman’s anchor known as a closestowing anchor. In the area of the forecastle deck aft of the windlass, the decking appears partially intact. A 

collapsed hatch combing is visible in this part of the deck. The entire forecastle area is littered with extensive 

amounts of debris including exhaust and vent pipes, electrical wire, wire rigging, and what appears to be a fire 

extinguisher among other items. Through an open portion of the forecastle deck a series of interconnected tubes are 

visible (Figure 10.8). 

Figure 10.7. Detailed floral scrollwork depicting a plant on Anona’s bow (Courtesy of BP 

Exploration). 

Figure 10.8. Extant decking and exposed piping on Anona’s forecastle (Courtesy of BP 

Exploration). 

The area of relief visible on the side scan sonar data near the wreck’s mid-section was identified as a single 

smokestack and possibly a piece of engine-related machinery. The stack and machinery indicate the vessel was 

probably steam-powered and utilized screw propulsion. The stack and machinery are resting on an area of deck 

reinforced with iron beams. Aft of the stack remains, the deck is strewn with more debris, including what appears to 

be a possible heat exchanger for a condenser or small engine (Figure 10.9). 
196 

Figure 10.9. Debris on Anona’s deck; the rectangular object in the upper right may be a 

condenser or small engine (Courtesy BP Exploration). 

ROV imagery indicated several radial lifeboat davits were in their original positions and another had fallen across 

the vessel’s aft deck. A gangway opening is clearly visible near the starboard stern area. Another hatch combing 

appears to have fallen between the iron frames in the after deck area. At the vessel’s stern the deck planking has 

disintegrated exposing the internal framing and steerage mechanism (Figure 10.10). The propeller and rudder are 

not visible because of the silt deposits around the stern. The stern appears to be elliptical but no name was 

distinguishable. 

Figure 10.10. Filtered image of Anona’s steering mechanism and internal framing 

(Courtesy of BP Exploration). 

Based on data acquired during the 2002 AUV and ROV surveys, it was determined that the 1995 assessment of the 

wreck as a modern crew boat was incorrect. Using the side scan sonar and ROV imagery the wreck was determined 

to be a steam/sail powered vessel from the late 19th to early 20th Centuries. Part of this research focused on the 

bow’s intricate botanical design (Figure 10.6 and 10.7). Three historic shipwrecks are reported lost in the area. One 

of the vessels, named Anona, was reported lost 14.4 kilometers north of the wreck site. Historical research focusing 

on Anona turned up two photographs and construction information indicating it was a steam yacht. After careful 
197 

comparison of the Viosca Knoll wreck’s physical remains and Anona’s photographic record this vessel was 

identified as Anona. The vessel’s architectural drawings were found through archival research focusing on Anona. 

Figures 10.11 and 10.12 are artistic 3-D modeling representations of Anona based on the extensive architectural 

drawings. 

Figure 10.11. Hull profile of Steam Yacht Anona (Illustration by Andy Hall and the PAST Foundation). 

Figure 10.12. Waterline view of Steam Yacht Anona (Illustration by Andy Hall and the PAST Foundation). 

10.3 Geographical Setting 

The survey area is located in the southeastern corner of the Viosca Knoll Area of the Gulf of Mexico. The regional 

geology in this area is part of the northeastern Mississippi fan (upper fan), which is defined as a channel-leveeoverbank system (Bouma et. al. 1985). The Mississippi fan is a submarine fan in the northeastern deep Gulf of 

Mexico. During Middle Miocene, a pronounced eastward migration of ancestral Mississippi River depocenter 

occurred and progradational sediments were deposited east of the present-day Mississippi River delta. Submarine 

fan deposition was extended into South Pass and the Viosca Knoll Areas during this epoch. The last progradational 

sediment across the Viosca Knoll Area occurred in Upper Pliocene when the depocenter migrated basinward and 

westward and submarine fan facies expanded into deep water across a wide area from Garden Banks to Viosca 

Knoll Areas (Hunt and Burgess 1995; and Lee and George 2002). 

10.4 Discussion of Findings – Archaeology and Biology 

Before the project team could investigate the Anona wreck site, Tropical Storm Bonnie developed in the central Gulf 

of Mexico. Bonnie’s path carried it almost directly over Anona’s location preventing archaeological or biological 

investigations of the site during the 2004 project season. 
199 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 

11.0 SHIPWRECK DEBRIS DISTRIBUTION MODEL 

Three primary debris distribution patterns were observed during this study (Figure 11.1-3). The first pattern is 

centralized debris scatter (Figure 11.1). In this pattern debris is densely distributed near the wreck’s main section(s) 

and widely dispersed at distances away from it. The debris is usually distributed unevenly over the wreck site. This 

pattern is best illustrated by the Robert E. Lee site, but was also observed to a lesser degree at the Halo site. This 

pattern may result from debris separating from the vessel as it sinks nearly straight to the seafloor or by debris 

spreading out from the shipwreck upon impact. Debris may also be dispersed in this manner as a result of manmade or environmental impacts to the site. 

Figure 11.1. Debris field scattered out from a wreck site. Based on Robert E. Lee’s debris field. 

The second debris pattern is a scattered debris trail (Figure 11.2). This pattern consists of a trail of debris leading to 

the main wreck sections. This pattern is best illustrated by the Gulfpenn site. This pattern may occur as debris falls 

away from a ship moving horizontally through the water column while falling to the seafloor. As a result, the debris 

trail is often denser nearer to the main wreckage. A debris trail may also result if materials are dispersed from the 

wreck by man-made or environmental intrusions after the sinking event. Debris trailing away from the shipwreck 

would be expected on shallow water sites impacted by currents or trawling activities. 

The third debris pattern is a separated debris field (Figure 11.3). In this pattern a dense debris zone is located away 

from the main hull with little or no materials observed around the main wreckage or between the two locations. This 

pattern is best illustrated by the Alcoa Puritan site. This pattern may occur when a ship loses a substantial 

component before or during the sinking event then drifts away coming to rest on the seafloor some distance from the 

initial wreckage with only limited additional debris dislodged from the main hull. 
200 

Figure 11.2. Scattered debris trail leading to the wreck site. Based on Gulfpenn’s debris field. 

Figure 11.3. Dense debris field way from the wreck site. Based on Alcoa Puritan’s debris field. 
201 

Most deepwater shipwreck debris fields fit into one of these patterns or a combination of them. For example, the 

debris pattern of U-166 is a combination of the centralized and trailing pattern (Figure 11.4). U-166 broke into two 

main sections, one accounting for approximately 84 percent of the vessel (approximately 61-meter section including 

the stern and bridge) and the other for approximately 16 percent of the vessel (approximately 16-meter section of the 

bow). As the two sections separated, debris trailed from both sections with the densest debris leading to the bow 

section. Additionally a large amount of debris is dispersed out from the main concentration towards the south. This 

debris becomes increasingly sparse as distance from the main wreckage increases. Interestingly, the debris fields of 

U-166 and Robert E. Lee both extend south-southwest, which may be an indicator of the mid-water current direction 

at the time these vessels sank on July 30, 1942. 

One of the study’s primary objectives was to document the debris fields associated with each shipwreck site and 

determine site boundaries. Establishment of site boundaries is crucial to deepwater cultural resources management. 

Well-defined site limits are essential for developing adequate avoidance criteria for existing deepwater wreck sites 

and those yet to be discovered. Additionally, data related to site formation processes in deep water will significantly 

aid in the development of better research designs for future site investigations. 

An examination of debris distribution data from this study revealed the trend that site size increases proportionately 

with depth. This is illustrated with the graph in Figure 11.5. The maximum distance to the edge of the site 

boundaries from the shipwreck location forms a uniform curve with respect to water depth closely following the 

mean distribution average between boundary distance and water depth. 

Figure 11.4. Debris field distribution at the U-166 site. 
202 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Distance (meters)

Depth (meters)

Max Density

Max Distance

Mean Distribution

Figure 11.5. Debris distribution graph. 

The data used to generate the graph is presented in Table 11.1. This table shows the maximum distance at which 

debris was documented from each wreck site (Column 5), the distance from the shipwreck to the densest area of the 

debris field (Column 3), and displays these distances as a function of the percentage of water depth (Columns 4 and 

6). All the shipwrecks included in this study, with the exception of Anona (which is not included in this data set)

and U-166, were torpedoed, and began breaking up at the surface. U-166 was submerged when it was depth charged 

and broke up underwater. The depth entered for U-166 was adjusted to account for its depth relative to the seafloor 

at the time it was lost by subtracting its crush depth from the site’s water depth. 

Table 11.1 

Shipwreck Debris Distribution 

Site Name Average Max Debris % of water depth Max Debris % of water depth

 Depth (m) Density (m) Max Density Distance (m) Max Distance 

Virginia 87.17 0.61 0.70% 3.05 3.50% 

Halo 142.65 1.52 1.07% 15.54 10.90% 

Gulfpenn 554.27 112.17 20.24% 158.19 28.54% 

*U-166 1,255.78 114.60 9.13% 269.14 21.43% 

Robert E. Lee 1,489.86 14.94 1.00% 301.45 20.23% 

Alcoa Puritan 1,963.52 303.58 15.46% 445.01 22.66% 

*Water depth adjusted –220 meters to account for the U-boat being submerged 
203 

Using the current study’s data the following formula was developed to estimate a radius slightly larger than the 

boundary size of a given shipwreck site: 

(.20wd + vl > site boundary)

wd=water depth 

vl=vessel length 

The formula takes into account a set percentage of water depth and the suspected shipwreck’s estimated length. 

Table 11.2 shows the formula’s result calculated using 20 and 25 percent of water depth compared with the actual 

measured extent of the study wreck sites. 

Table 11.2 

Avoidance Criteria Estimates 

Tentative working avoidance formula = 20% to 25% plus vessel length 

Site Boundary from Depth Length 

Name At 20% At 25% center of wreck (m) (m) (m) 

Virginia Avoidance area = 170.14 174.50 79.40 87.17 152.70 

Halo Avoidance area = 161.12 168.25 81.84 142.65 132.59 

Gulfpenn Avoidance area = 257.16 284.87 231.34 554.27 146.30 

U-166 Avoidance area = 368.20 441.05 307.55 1,456.94 76.81 

Robert E. Lee Avoidance area = 412.27 486.77 358.60 1,489.86 114.30 

Alcoa Puritan Avoidance area = 514.62 612.80 505.97 1,963.52 121.92 

It is cautioned that the data presented here is based on steel-hulled vessels that sank under catastrophic conditions. 

This formula does not take into account wooden shipwrecks or smaller iron vessels (such as Anona) that foundered. 

The above Estimated Shipwreck Avoidance Formula is provided solely as a working model for future research to 

build upon. 
205 

12.0 MICROBIOLOGY 

All the ships investigated were heavily coated in various types of biological growth (summarized in Table 12.1). 

From this investigation it can be seen that considerable differences existed in the types of attached growths on the 

various ships. The shallowest shipwreck investigated was Virginia at 87 meters in the South Pass Area. This ship 

was dominated by surface concretions overlain with biofilms with a few brown rusticles growing through these 

intense growths. Halo, resting at a depth of 143 meters in Grand Isle exhibited similar growths to Virginia. Halo,

however, exhibited emerging microbial concretion and brown rusticle growths. Next in depth was Gulfpenn lying at 

538 meters at the edge of the Mississippi Canyon. This ship showed greater growth type divergence with dendritic 

concretions and microbial concretions dominating although there was also significant presence of brown rusticles, 

biofilms and even the brief observation of a large “slime blob” attached on the hull’s starboard side. Sea anemones 

were commonly observed as active at this site. At a depth of 1,463 meters, U-166 showed intense sea anemone 

clusters as the dominant growth form. Other attached growths were less significant including white and a very few 

brown rusticles, and some dendritic concretions and biofilms. Only slightly deeper at 1,490 meters was Robert E 

Lee. This ship was also heavily coated with sea anemones and a wide diversity of attached growths dominated by 

dendritic concretions. Alcoa Puritan was the deepest site investigated at 1,964 meters. Here brown rusticles and 

dendritic concretions dominated. Other attached growths observed included a low density of sea anemones and the 

presence of biofilms. 

Table 12.1 

Semi-Quantitative Dominance of Attached Organisms on the Project Shipwrecks 

Type Virginia Halo Gulfpenn Robert E 

Lee U-166 Alcoa Puritan 

C1 Brown 

rusticle 

C2 White 

rusticle 

C3 Dendritic 

concretion 

C4 

Microbial 

Concretions 

 

B1 Biofilm 

 

B2 Blob 

 

Sea 

anemones 

Note: This table summarizes the intensity of the various attached biological growths observed on the shipwrecks’ 

exterior surfaces during the 2004 expedition. The six columns to the right indicate each ships investigated and the 

rows represent the different recognizable growth forms. For each cell the observed growth level is shown by the 

shading in which a black fill indicates dominant growths and a barred pattern indicated the growths were observed 

frequently. A clear cell indicates that the growths were frequently observed or absent from that site. 

For the rusticles recovered and analyzed from all of the ships, one major factor was the ability of these organisms to 

bio-accumulate oxidized forms of iron. From parallel work being conducted on RMS Titanic it is evident that iron 

is being extracted from steel coupons deployed for six years at rates equivalent to 0.03 grams of iron per square 

centimeter per year. From the rusticle data gathered in 2004 it appears that the brown rusticles had an average iron 

content of 96.3±1.04%, placing the rusticles in the same category of iron content as pig iron. By comparison, the 

rusticles infesting the steel coupons on the platforms had iron contents of 97.8±0.78%. 

Three other elements were also considered significant based on anomalies in the accumulated levels from ship to 

ship. These were lead, strontium, and phosphorus. Selection of these elements is based on the fact that hydrocarbon 
206 

based fuels once employed lead as a principal anti-knock (biocide) agent. Lead was as also used in antifouling 

paints. Strontium is a common ingredient in explosives. While phosphorus is also used in explosives, and is a 

major nutrient and energy storage driver for all organisms. 

Lead was recovered from rusticles on all of the ships with a gravimetric percentile concentration of 0.012±0.02%. 

Comparison of the concentrations for each of the ships revealed that Virginia was 38% below this average, Halo was 

66% below, Gulfpenn was 60% below, Robert E Lee was 52% below and Alcoa Puritan was also 52% below but U166 was 453% above indicating that the rusticles on this ship had bioaccumulated significantly greater amounts of 

lead. This much higher lead level may be the result of the degradation and releases of diesel fuel containing lead 

biocides during and after the sinking. While some of the lead may come from anti-fouling paints this would have 

been a universal event for all of the ships being studies. 

Strontium, commonly employed in explosives and flares, is commonly found in rusticles. The 2003 survey found 

higher levels of strontium at U-166 than from any other rusticles that had been investigated up to that time. In 2004, 

the average strontium percentile concentration was 0.014±0.015%. Comparison of the concentrations for each ship 

revealed Virginia was 36% below this average, Halo was 80% below, Gulfpenn was 89% below, Robert E Lee was 

84% below and Alcoa Puritan was also 76% below but U-166 was 23% above, indicating that the rusticles on this 

ship had bioaccumulated significantly greater amounts of strontium than rusticles from the other ships. In 

comparison with 2003, it was found that the strontium concentration at the time was much higher at 0.21% for U166 (0.046%, 2004) and Robert E Lee at 0.12% (0.006%, 2004). This raises the possibility that rusticles growing in 

regions where there are releases of strontium from degrading munitions and flares are likely to accumulate much 

greater concentrations of strontium. Such information may have considerable forensic value in the determination of 

the role of munitions and their explosions or releases in the sinking of a ship. If such forensic work were to be 

conducted, then the precise location of the rusticles being analyzed would be a key factor in determining the location 

of the strontium releases. 

Phosphorus is a major nutrient for living organisms and plays a major role in the storage of energy within the cell. 

Direct links have been established between environmental phosphorus levels and the scale of growth and function 

observed at a site. Generally, microorganisms accumulate phosphorus as polyphosphate within the cell as reserves 

against future starvation. Some forms of phosphorus (red, white, and amorphous) also have played roles in the 

production of explosives, munitions, and flares. For the rusticles on the ships in the cluster examined in 2004, 

anomalies were noted in the phosphorus concentrations determined in the rusticles. In 2004, the average percentile 

concentration of phosphorus was 0.138±0.0.071%. Comparison of the concentrations for each of the ships revealed 

Virginia was 69% below this average, Halo was 47% below, Gulfpenn was 40% below, Robert E Lee was 25% 

below and Alcoa Puritan was also 27% below but U-166 was 49% above indicating that the rusticles on this ship 

had bioaccumulated significantly greater amounts of phosphorus than the rusticles from the other ships. 

Given that U-166 rusticles proved to have significantly higher levels of lead, strontium, and phosphorus, the 

following conclusions may be drawn: (1) the lead probably came from the biocides placed in the diesel fuel to 

prevent fouling while the other ships were fired by bunker oils that did not need such an additive to assure efficient 

use; and (2) the higher strontium and the phosphorus levels in U-166’s rusticles probably comes from degrading 

munitions and flares stored on the submarine at the time of the sinking. 

There is clear evidence that the investigated ships are deteriorating as a result of biological activity extracting iron 

from the ship’s steel hulls. At this time it can be seen that the microbiological challenges differs from ship to ship. 

For Virginia and Halo, both were dominated by concretious growths over most of the hull and so the major iron 

losses on these ships would be dependent upon the rates at which iron moves out through the concretions into the 

oceanic environment. Some rusticle activity was evident on Halo and this may mean increases in the rate of iron 

loss from the steel. Gulfpenn had the greatest diversity of biological activity with the greatest presence of microbial 

concretions. No chemical or biological analyses have yet been undertaken on the coral, but the color (shades of 

white) would suggest low iron contents at least in the walls and possibly a low ability to extract iron. Perhaps most 

unusual of the events was the observation of a large blob to Gulfpenn’s starboard side that dissipated during the 

investigation. These types of activities are not likely to materially increase the rates of steel compromise through the 

removal of iron. Robert E. Lee also supported a very diverse group of organisms with a very dense number of sea 

anemones. Sea anemones appeared to dominate parts of the ship and acted as limiters to the amount of concretions 

and rusticles observed. However, inside the ship veritable “forests” of rusticles could be seen (through open doors, 
207 

windows, port holes and torn walls) meaning that in these cases deterioration will probably be from the inside out. 

Without a small ROV that could enter the ship, it is difficult to project the level of deterioration and evaluation 

would have to wait until secondary impacts on the outer ships structures and hull occurs. 

While U-166 lies in close proximity to Robert E Lee, there are significant differences in the growths observed on the 

two ships except sea anemones, which were dominant on both ships. Dendritic concretions (C3) were dominant of 

on Robert E Lee but only abundant on U-166. Brown rusticles (C1) and microbial concretions (C4) were also 

abundant on Robert E Lee but were insignificant on U-166. For U-166 it was also noted that sections of the ship’s 

stern appear to be relatively free from infestations. This submarine (U-166) does appear to generate rusticles with 

higher lead (due to the diesel fuel), strontium, and phosphorus (due to the stored munitions and flares that would 

have been carried on the submarine). It may be that these higher concentrations of strontium and lead are inhibiting 

the growth rate of the attached organisms. Inboard of the stern, the region appears virtually sealed, which would 

have the effect of: (1) creating a very reductive condition due to the lack of oxygen; and (2) changes the nature of 

the challenges to the steel to those created by electrolytic corrosion commonly involving sulphate reducing bacteria 

and acidulysis caused by the creation of an acidic environment by the acid producing bacteria. Such a closeted 

reductive environment in the stern section is likely to cause lateral embrittlement and perforation of the steel. The 

rate at which this will occur is very dependent upon organic loading and the levels of inorganic forms of sulphur. 

The outcome of such corrosive activities is likely to cause hull perforation, entry of oxygen, and a subsequent 

increase in biological activity. 

Alcoa Puritan appears to be subjected to a different set of biological challenges and at present appears dominated by 

brown rusticles (C1), dendritic concretions (C3) and biofilms (B1) but with very sparse numbers of sea anemones. 

The manner in which the rusticles grow appears to follow the same trends as have already been experienced by RMS

Titanic. Here, therefore, the ship’s deterioration is likely the function of rusticles extracting iron from the ship steel. 

From this investigation, the primary observations are that all the ships have become heavily infested with attached 

biological activity that varies from ship to ship. Depth may be a factor since the ships sit along a transect line from 

87 meters to 1,964 meters. Depth cannot be the only influencing factor since the ships also sit within influence of 

the Mississippi River’s discharges. Clearly the two shallow ships, Virginia and Halo, being closer to these 

discharges already exhibit the effects of the more eutrophic environment causing thicker attached growths and a 

greater density of fish populations. The deeper ships all show some differences with the deepest ship Alcoa Puritan

standing out as the most different with brown rusticles dominating. 

There was a considerable disparity in the voltage levels (in millivolts) generated between individual coupons (shown 

as arrows). The upper left quadrant (C12L14, Brass HR, Flat Bar, and ZA12) generally showed more electrical 

activity than the remaining coupons on the bio-battery platform. In terms of the levels of EMF detected, it was 

found (Table 12.2) that the most electrical activity was recorded on Halo, while the greatest intensity was observed 

on Alcoa Puritan. 

Table 12.2 

Average Millivolts Recovered from Bio-battery Coupons 

Ship Number of EMF readings Average millivoltage generated 

Halo 8 28.6 

Alcoa Puritan 6 35.7 

Robert E Lee 5 7.2 

Gulfpenn 3 13.5 

This comparison may reflect the ability of microorganisms to occupy narrow gaps between individual coupons and 

generate an EMF potential. For the two ships that generated higher voltages (29 and 36 millivolts average) there 

was evidence that the ships supported very aggressive microbial populations. Alcoa Puritan was dominated by 

rusticles that would be attracted to the dissimilarly charged coupons. Halo, on the other hand, was shallow at 143 

meters and set in an environment with a very diverse range of microbial activities, some of which could also be 
208 

attracted to the electrically dissimilar coupon surfaces. Gulfpenn and Robert E Lee tended to support a diverse range 

of attached growths including sea anemones, corals, or hydrozoans that deterred dominance by some microbial 

growths. On these two ships, fewer coupons generated charges, which were much weaker (on average only a third 

to a half of those recorded for the other two ships). 

While it appears that the short term deployment of bio-battery platforms on a ship may give some evidence of the 

ability of the indigenous microbial flora to bridge electrically dissimilar metal coupons and generate a charge, the 

outcome of these experiments is twofold: (1) there appears to be the potential to relate the data gathered to the 

amount of aggressive microbial biofouling occurring at the site; and (2) the experiments were too brief in length to 

achieve sustained electrical activity. These experiments proved dissimilar metals in a deep ocean environment could 

develop determinable EMF measurable in the millivoltage range. Additionally there appears to be a potential to 

determine microbial activity levels through the rates of EMF generated after the metal coupons were selectively 

infested. Ongoing research is now being conducted at the DBI research facility and greater EMF is being generated 

through longer termed exposures with 0.5 volts DC having been obtained. In future expeditions it is proposed to 

include the bio-battery platforms in a modified form that would, with greater exposure times, deliver a significant 

sustainable voltage. 

For the investigation’s microbiological component, the main focus was the observable form and level of microbial 

activities (through imaging) and detected using three different methodologies. At-site, experiments were deployed 

to examine the rates at which ship steels are compromised by microbial activities and the functional ability of 

indigenous microbes to manipulate and impress electrical charges through biofouling. These experiments used both 

the steel tests platforms (Table 12.3) and bio-battery platforms with each deployed on four ships (Halo, Gulfpenn, 

Robert E Lee, and Alcoa Puritan). Recovered concretion and rusticle samples were later subjected to laboratory 

investigations to determine microbial loadings and chemical composition. Additionally, laboratory investigations 

were conducted to determine differences related to depth and potential nutrient loading at the shipwreck sites. This 

report includes an interpretation of the at-site observations and the subsequent laboratory investigations. Of prime 

interest is that there were significant differences between the ships in the form of attached microbiological growths 

from dendritic concretions (shallower depths), to very mixed growths including aggressive sea anemone populations 

(deeper), to a virtual dominance of rusticles and concretious growths on the deepest ship (Alcoa Puritan) lying at 

1,964 meters. 

Table 12.3 

Deployment of Mark II Steel Test Platforms in Ship Cluster, 2004 

Platform # Ship Position (on Superstructure) 

A Gulfpenn Aft, amidship, port 

B Alcoa Puritan Portside towards stern 

C Robert E Lee Port, amidship 

D Halo Port, amidship 
209 

13.0 INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY 

Identification of invertebrate species from video transects could be made with certainty only for a few distinctive, 

macrofaunal species, including some decapod crustaceans, the giant isopod, the giant pycnogonid, a few sea stars, 

two species of sea urchins, and the venus flytrap anemone. The problem was exacerbated by turbidity at the 

shallower sites. Most specimens from the video transects were identified to higher taxa only. 

The metazoan meiofauna, or meiobenthos, are defined as those organisms which pass through a 0.500 millimeter 

mesh sieve and are retained on a 0.063 millimeter or 0.045 millimeter mesh sieve; the upper and lower size limits of 

the group vary among specialists and with bathymetric depth. Often smaller size limits are used for both the upper 

and lower size criteria in the deep sea. We used the accepted standard, >0.500 millimeter and <0.063 millimeter for 

all samples from the wreck sites (Higgins and Thiel 1988; Giere 1993). Meiofauna can be found in or on almost any 

substrate (e.g., soft sediments, macroalgae, or as epibionts on macrofauna), but the group is perhaps most closely 

associated with sediments. Most marine taxa have representatives in the meiofauna, however many of these are only 

temporary members (meromeiofauna), and as they metamorphose from larval stages or increase in size, they join the 

macrofauna. Although metazoan meiofauna lack any taxonomic distinctiveness separating them from nonmeiofaunal taxa, a characteristic that all members of the true meiofauna (holomeiofauna) share is that they lack 

pelagic larvae or have abbreviated development. A few taxa are more common in the meiofauna (such as the 

harpacticoid copepods and nematodes, and thus are always treated as meiofauna even if they do not fit the size 

criteria, 

In our samples, nematodes predominated the meiofauna community, comprising more than 90% of the fauna 

numerically, with densities ranging from 81 to 1,117 per 10 cm2

. Our values in our shallow sites are slightly higher 

than the average values reported from 34 stations sampled off the south Texas continental shelf, but fall within the 

reported ranges of minimum and maximum values (Flint and Rabalais 1981). Nematodes numerically predominate 

in terms of numbers and biomass in most marine sediments at depths below 1 centimeter into the sediment at 

stations in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Fleeger et al. 1995). Although many nematode species are aerobic, most 

are facultative or obligate anaerobes (Giere 1993). Although we did not measure the depth of the RPD (redox 

discontinuity profile) in our cores, it often is within the upper centimeters of sediment in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico (Fleeger et al. 1995). Nematode densities generally decrease with bathymetric depth and distance from 

shore, and often are correlated with organic content of sediment. Nematode densities in our samples followed this 

trend, and densities were lower at the deeper sites. The densities of nematodes at the deeper sites decreased by 

almost an order of magnitude between the shallowest and deepest sites and hence a pronounced relationship with 

depth was evident (Figure 13.1). 
210 

Meiofauna density 

by depth

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 1000 2000 3000

Depth (m)

Meiofauna (10 cm 2)

Figure 13.1. Changes in average meiofauna density (number per 10 cm2

) 

with bathymetric depth. 

Mechanisms maintaining the diversity of macrofauna and meiofaunal communities often differ, as meiofaunal live 

on smaller spatial and temporal scales than macrofauna (Thistle 2003). Diversity of surficial dwelling meiofaunal 

species such as harpacticoid copepods was inversely related to flux of particulate organic matter (POM) in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (Baguley et al. 2006). Generally, deep sea communities depend upon surface derived 

production, but the sedimenting organic material may have to pass through a microbial loop before they become 

available to harpacticoid copepods (Fleeger and Shirley, 1990). Conversely, species richness of harpacticoid 

copepods declined linearly with increasing depth and was maximal at approximately 1200 meters (Baguley et al. 

2006). At sites, harpacticoids were always a minor component of the total meiofaunal community. In general, 

meiofaunal abundance decreases with bathymetric depth. 

A total of 301 voucher specimens of macroinvertebrates, conservatively belonging to 79 taxa, were collected. 

Crustaceans were the most abundant higher taxon, with 47 species, followed by echinoderms (14 species), mollusks 

(13 species), polychaets (3 species) and brachiopods and sponges (1 species each). Many more specimens were 

collected near (<61 meters) wreck sites (209 individuals) than away from (>61 meters) wreck sites (72 individuals), 

with 20 specimens being recovered from sediment or water samples from unknown locations. 

Several sampling biases resulted in more extensive collections at some sites, e.g., the Gulfpenn site was visited three 

times, and the Halo and Robert E. Lee sites were visited twice. In sharp contrast, no collections could be made 

directly from U-166, and visibility was extremely limited at the Virginia site, decreasing collection efficiency. The 

specimens collected at each site are voucher specimens, and are not necessarily representative of the abundance of 

species within each site, the differences in abundance of species between sites, or even of species richness (the 
211 

number of species present). These voucher specimens, however, allowed identification of some specimens viewed 

on video imagery, and allowed more accurate quantification of species assemblages from analysis. Many voucher 

specimens could not be identified to species because of their ontogenetic size (immature individuals), sex 

(description of some species requires a particular sex), or condition (many were damaged during collection; others 

are incomplete). Other specimens will require scrutiny by taxonomic specialists. Undoubtedly more species will be 

added to the catalogue. A number of specimens appear to represent undescribed species, particularly several 

galatheoid crabs. With these caveats noted, species richness varied greatly among the sites: Gulfpenn (26), Halo

(18), Virginia (12), Robert E. Lee (11), U-166 (10), and the Alcoa Puritan (8). The differences in species richness 

between sites suggested by the voucher collections may be indicative of the species richness values, even with the 

noted caveats. 

18

26

10

11

8

12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

87

148

554

1256

1490

1964

Depth (m)

Macroinvertebrate Species Richness

Virginia

Halo

GulfPenn

U-166

Robert E. Lee

Alcoa Puritan

Figure 13.2. Changes in species richness with depth (meter) among the wreck 

sites. 

A strong bathymetric component was evident in the distribution of crustacean species. For example, Bathynomous 

giganteus (giant isopod), Chaceon quinquedens (red deep-sea crab) and Munidopsis sp. (squat lobsters) were present 

at the four deeper wreck sites, but not at the two shallowest sites. Rochinia crassa (inflated spiny crab) was 

abundant at the intermediate depths (538-557 meters) of the Gulfpenn site, but was not collected at other sites 

(Figure 13.3). 
212 

Figure 13.3. The spider crab Rochinia crassa was abundant at the Gulfpenn site (Photo by Morgan Kilgour and 

Aaron Baldwin). 

The deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) was found at the four deepest sites. It supports a commercial fishery 

on the continental slope of the United States in New England and is distributed from 100 to 2800 meters depth. The 

species is generally thought to move into shallower depths with increasing age and size, and females are found 

shallower than males. Females were only at the three deepest sites, while males were found at all four deeper sites. 

The smallest specimens were found at the shallowest sites, in direct contradiction to published information 

(Lockhart et al., 1990; Lindberg and Lockhart 1993), with the largest crabs at intermediate depths. We found no 

segregation with either sex or size. Our specimens largely were collected in fish traps and pot bias (e.g., small crabs 

may be less likely to enter a pot with large crabs; larger males may out compete smaller ones or females for pot 

access) may have affected both the size and sex ratio of the collected specimens. 

Many macrofaunal invertebrates have been associated with deepwater corals and other bioherms (Buhl Mortensen et 

al. 1995; and Buhl Mortensen and Buhl Mortensen 2004), The galatheoid crab Eumunida picta has commonly been 

associated with hydrothermal vents, however we observed the species in association with the deep water coral 

Lophelia pertusa at the Gulfpenn site. Eumunida picta was observed on only 1 of the 6 wrecks, from 533 meters to 

556 meters in depth. Although only 20% of the corals harbored E. picta, 81% of the E. picta were observed in 

association with the deep-sea coral Lophelia pertusa. E. picta was usually within 1 m of the coral when it was not in 

direct contact with it. The coral may be providing an optimum feeding location for the crab, refuge from predation, 

or some combination. 

In contrast, echinoderms did not appear to have an obvious bathymetric component in voucher specimen collections. 

Pencil urchins were collected only at the Halo site, while several asteroid species (Apollonaster yucatanensis, 

Diplasiaster productus and Nymphaster arentaus) were collected only at the U-166 site. 
213 

A number of micromolluscan specimens belonging to the classes Gastropoda and Bivalvia were qualitatively 

collected from sediments or as epibionts on other macrofauna at four of the collection sites (Halo, Gulfpenn, Robert 

E. Lee, and U-166). Dr. Emilio Garcia (University of Louisiana Lafayette) graciously identified the specimens. The 

microhabitat of most of the species is unknown within each shipwreck site. Many of the specimens represent adult 

mollusks, while others represent juveniles of macromollusks. The inequality of sampling availability and sorting 

effort among the sites decreases the utility of the impressive species list for ecological analysis, but several 

deductions are readily obvious. Of the 73 species (Table 13.1) identified, no species was collected at more than a 

single site; 38 unique families and 64 genera were collected. Species distribution among the sites was extremely 

skewed: 61 species were from Halo, the shallowest site, with only four species from Gulfpenn, five from Robert E. 

Lee, and three from U-166. Most species were without congeners; that is, they were the sole representatives of their 

genus within our collections. Similarly, most of the 38 unique families identified represented a single genus and 

species. The gastropod family Turridae is extremely speciose and widely distributed globally; it was collected at 

four shipwreck sites and was represented by 17 genera and 17 species. Only four other families were found at more 

than one site. Other families with a large number of genera were the gastropod families Cavoliniidae (six species), 

and Columbellidae (four species; dove shells). A few of these species are far outside their reported geographic 

ranges (e.g. Seguenzia cf. formosa f. lin is reported from off northeastern Brazil), while many are from much deeper 

depths or different habitats than previously reported. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the collections is the 

high species richness and taxonomic diversity. High diversity is common in the deep sea, however most of these 

specimens were from Halo shipwreck, at only 146 meters depth. Species richness of micromollusks, particularly 

gastropods, decreased abruptly with depth; although this pattern might be partially explained by the qualitative 

nature of our sampling, the sharp bathymetric zonation of gastropod diversity is widely accepted (Rex et al., 1990) 

and supported by our observations. 

Table 13.1 

List of Micromollusks Identified from Four Shipwreck Sites. 

VESSEL FAMILY GENUS SPECIES AUTHOR & DATE 

Halo Acteonidae Rictaxis punctostriatus (C. B. Adams, 1840) 

 Architectonicidae Heliacus bisulcatus (d'Orbigny, 1842) 

 Arcidae Barbatia candida (Helbling, 1779) 

 Atlantidae Atlanta peronii Lesueur, 1817 

 Buccinidae Antillophos elegans (Guppy, 1866) 

 Cardiidae Nemocardium tinctum (Dall, 1881) 

 Carditidae Pleuromeris armilla (Dall, 1903) 

 Carditidae Pleuromeris tridentata (Say, 1826) 

 Cavoliniidae Cavolinia tridentata (Niebuhr, 1775) 

 Cavoliniidae Diacavolinia deblainvillei van der Spoel, Bleker, Kobayashi, 1993

 Cavoliniidae Cavolinia uncinata (Rang, 1829) 

 Cavoliniidae Clio pyramidata Linnaeus, 1767 

 Cavoliniidae Creseis acicula (Rang, 1828) 

 Cavoliniidae Diacria trispinosa (Blainville, 1821) 

 Columbellidae Costoanachis lafresnayi Fischer & Bernardi, 1858 

 Columbellidae Astyris lunata Say, 1826) 

 Columbellidae Cosmioconcha calliglypta (Dall & Simpson, 1901) 

 Columbellidae Nassarina Glypta (Bush, 1885) 

 Coralliophilidae Babelomurex cf. dalli (Emerson and D’Attilio, 1963) 

 Coralliophilidae Coralliophila cf. profundicola (Haas) 
214 

VESSEL FAMILY GENUS SPECIES AUTHOR & DATE 

 Cylichnidae Scaphander watsoni Dall, 1881 

 Eulimidae Niso aeglees Bush, 1855 

 Galeommatiidae Cymatioa bibsae (Novelle-Usticke, 1969) 

 Muricidae Pteropurpura bequaerti (Clench & Pérez-Farfante, 1 

 Muricidae Siratus beauii (Fischer & Bernardi, 1857) 

 Nassariidae Nassarius species 17 (of Lee) Undescribed 

 Nuculanidae Nuculana acuta (Conrad, 1831) 

 Nuculanidae Nuculana carpenteri (Dall, 1881) 

 Olividae Olivella mutica (Say, 1822) 

 Ostreidae Ostrea equestris Say, 1834 

 Poromyidae Poromya rostrata Rehder, 1943 

 Pteriidae Pinctada imbricata Röding, 1798 

 Pyramidellidae Eulimella cf. smithi (A. E. Verrill, 1880) 

 Pyramidellidae Turbonilla species A 

 Pyramidellidae Turbonilla species B 

 Retusidae Volvulella recta (Mörch, 1875) 

 Ringiculidae Ringicula semistriata d'Orbigny, 1842 

 Rissoidae Benthonellania xanthias (Watson, 1886) 

 Rissoidae Rissoina sagraiana (d'Orbigny, 1842) 

 Semelidae Abra aequalis (Say, 1822) 

 Sequenziidae Carenzia cf. carinata (Jeffreys, 1877) 

 Gadilidae Polyschides greenlawi Henderson, 1920 

 Tellinidae Macoma tenta (Say, 1834) 

 Terebridae Terebra doellojuradoi Carcelles, 1953 

 Tonnidae Tonna galea (Linnaeus, 1758) 

 Trochidae Dentistyla dentifera (Dall, 1889) 

 Turridae Bactrocythara cf. asarca (Dall & Simpson, 1901) 

 Turridae Cochlespira radiata (Dall. 1889) 

 Turridae Kurtziella citronella (Dall, 1886) 

 Turridae Cryoturris cerinella (Dall, 1889) 

 Turridae Drillia species A 

 Turridae Drillia species B 

 Turridae Ithycythara lanceolata (C. B. Adams, 1850) 

 Turridae Leptadrillia cookei (E. A. Smith, 1888) 

 Turridae Lioglyphostoma species 2 of García & Lee 

 Turridae Lioglyphostoma species B of Garcia 

 Turridae Microdrillia comototropis (Dall, 1881) 

 Turridae Polystira species (undescribed) 

 Turridae Stenodrillia species A 

 Cornirostridae Tomura bicaudata (Pilsbry & McGinty, 1946) 

 Yoldiidae Yoldia solenoides Dall, 1881 
215 

VESSEL FAMILY GENUS SPECIES AUTHOR & DATE 

Gulfpenn Buccinidae Eosipho canetae (Clench & Aguayo, 1944) 

 Volutidae Scaphella robusta Dall, 1889 

 Turridae Inodrillia aepynota (Dall, 1889) 

 Mytilidae Amygdalum politum (Verrill & Smith, 1880) 

U166 Siphonodentaliida Platischides pandionis (Verrill & Smith, 1880) 

 Turridae Benthomangelia cf. bandella (Dall, 1881) 

 Turridae Pleurotomella ipara (Dall, 1881) 

R. E. Lee Arcidae Bentharca asperula (Dall, 1881) 

 Neritidae Vittina usnea (Röding, 1798) 

 Propeamusiidae Propeamusium dalli E. A. Smith, 1886 

 Seguenziidae Seguenzia cf. formosa f. lin Watson, 1879 

 Turridae Pleurotomella ipara (Dall, 1881) 

Scleractinia, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea 

Representatives of Scleractinia, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea were collected from and/or observed on the three 

shallow wrecks: Virginia (87 meters depth) Halo (143 meters depth) and Gulfpenn (554 meters depth). 

Scleractinians were found on all three wrecks (Table 13.1). Four of the five scleractinians species occurred on 

Virginia (Madracis myriaster, Oculina varicosa, Paracyathus pulchellus and Pourtalosmilia conferta), two species 

on Halo (Madracis myriaster and Pourtalosmilia conferta), and two species on Gulfpenn (Pourtalosmilia conferta

and Lophelia pertusa). Pourtalosmilia conferta was found on all three wrecks (but only once on Gulfpenn in the 

video records), M. myriaster was found on the two shallowest wrecks (Virginia and Halo), O. varicose and P. 

pulchellus occurred only on Virginia and L. pertusa occurred only on Gulfpenn. Gorgonians were collected from 

and/or observed on the two shallowest wrecks; Virginia and Halo (Table 4.3). A single, large colony of Muricea 

pendula, growing on the top of main superstructure, was all that was found on Virginia. On the other hand, Halo

had a well-developed gorgonian fauna. Examples of four species, Placogorgia rudis, Thesea sp. cf. T. grandiflora, 

Thesea sp. cf. T. rubra and Thesea sp., were collected from this wreck and one unidentified species was recorded on 

video. Just two species of antipatharians were collected, Antipathes furcata and Stichopathes sp. cf. S. pourtalesi, 

and both were only found on Virginia (Table 4.3). 

Available surfaces on Virginia and Halo generally appeared to be either densely colonized with combinations of 

their epibenthic fauna or had little to no colonization of these fauna at all. On Virginia the dominant species, in 

terms of numbers and possibly biomass, was the black wire coral S. sp. cf. S. pourtalesi. Large field-like 

assemblages have developed on horizontal to near-horizontal surfaces; frequently attaining densities estimated at 

400-500 colonies per square meter and occasionally extremely dense concentrations on the order of 80-100 colonies 

per 0.1 square meter. This configuration of colonies, which commonly includes clusters of the fan-shaped A. furcata, 

results in an open, loosely constructed vertical complex extending as much as 20-30 centimeters above the 

attachment surface. In addition, a partial canopy often forms when the top portions of the longer S. sp. cf. S. 

pourtalesi colonies lean over into a more horizontal plane. Colonies of two of the scleractinian corals, M. myriaster 

and P. conferta, also form structurally complex cover, albeit relatively low profile, on all types of structures and 

surfaces throughout Virginia. They occur as isolated colonies, small groups of aggregating colonies, and large 

clusters of both living and dead coral. 

On Halo, structurally complex cover has been developed by both the scleractinians and the gorgonians. Generally, 

colonies of the gorgonians provide the most vertical or horizontal extension from their attachment surfaces but only 

as isolated individuals, in small groupings, or in widely spaced field-like assemblages of single or mixed species 

composition. In contrast, the two scleractinians, M. myriaster and P. conferta, form a mostly low profile structurally 

complex cover, similar to what occurs on Virginia, on surfaces throughout the entire wreck. The most complex 

habitat develops where the two corals co-occur in association with other encrusting epibenthic fauna. In addition, 
216 

fragments of living M. myriaster that have fallen off the wreck are growing into new colonies that are providing 

additional habitat on the adjacent muddy sediment. 

Lophelia pertusa is the dominant species, both in terms of numbers and biomass, on Gulfpenn. It is estimated that L. 

pertusa has colonized at least 12-15 percent of available exposed surfaces and structures throughout the wreck. The 

most successful development of coral is on the starboard side most often on surfaces or structures that have a 

vertical orientation or an upright, raised, or open construction or arrangement. Additionally, L. pertusa was also 

found living on the sediment adjacent to the hull and colonizing wreckage in Gulfpenn’s debris field. The coral 

cover, which ranges from small patches of low-relief, newly formed colonies to solitary colonies up to 1.5 meters in 

height and breadth to a vertical assemblage of at least five or six coalescing colonies six to seven meters high by 

three to 3.5 meters wide, is responsible for the formation of a variety of extremely complex structural habitats. 
217 

14.0 VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY 

Fish Community Structure 

Several factors that potentially affected fish community structure estimates derived from ROV transect sampling 

must be discussed briefly prior to offering a synthesis of those results. First, and most obviously, video sampling is 

sensitive to turbidity. Halo had the most diverse fish community, yet it is likely some small, cryptic taxa were 

overlooked. Clearly, the potential to miss taxa at Virginia was greatest among all sites given the very poor visibility 

encountered. Even when fishes were seen, identification to species often was not possible from video. In shallow 

environments, body form and coloration was used to distinguish species. In the deep sea, however, many taxa have 

similar morphometrics and coloration, even ones only distantly phylogenetically related. Individuals collected in 

traps or with the ROV suction sampler provided voucher specimens of taxa present at all sites, but it remains likely 

that species diversity at the deepest wrecks (U-166, Robert E. Lee, and Alcoa Puritan) was underestimated. 

A total of 105 taxa were observed in video and/or collected in traps and with the ROV suction sampler among all 

sites. Halo had the greatest community richness with 54 taxa observed. This was followed by Gulfpenn (n = 38 

taxa), Robert E. Lee (n = 21 taxa), Virginia (n = 17 taxa), U-166 (n = 14 taxa), and Alcoa Puritan (n = 11 taxa). One 

potential source of bias occurred in that Halo was visited twice and Gulfpenn visited three times to collect biological 

samples. Thus, there was a greater probability of documenting ichthyofauna associated with those two sites than the 

other four. It should be noted, however, that if species observed on subsequent visits to those sites were removed 

from the sum of taxa documented, Halo and Gulfpenn still would rank first and second in ichthyofaunal diversity by 

a wide margin. 

There was a significant difference in the fish community among wreck sites (ANOSIM; p < 0.01) and among 

transect locations nested within site (ANOSIM; p < 0.01). The three shallowest (Virginia, Halo, and Gulfpenn) sites 

had soft or azooxanthellae hard corals that fouled the ships and added structural complexity required by reef fishes. 

It is likely reef fishes would have recruited to a given wreck without the coral yet present, but the fact that corals and 

rich fouling communities exist at those depths is the precise reason reef fishes are found at them. Thus, depthspecific reef fish fauna and fouling communities typical of natural reef environments in the northern Gulf were 

associated with each of the three shallowest wrecks. The fish community documented at the deepest wrecks (U-166, 

Robert E. Lee, and Alcoa Puritan), on the other hand, was similar among transects over, adjacent to, and away from 

the ships. These communities were typical of abyssal environments of the northern Gulf (Powell et al. 2003; 

Thompson et al. 1999) and no artificial reef effect of those wrecks was apparent for fishes. 

One of the most interesting finds of the study was the massive Lophelia thickets associated with Gulfpenn. 

Lophelia colonies in slope environments provide some of the deepest natural reefs in the northern Gulf (Reed 2002; 

Schroeder 2002). Thus, their discovery on Gulfpenn permited study of fishes that are among the deepest true reef 

fishes that occur in the Gulf. 

The three deepest sites (U-166, Robert E. Lee, and Alcoa Puritan) had very similar fish communities. As was 

expected a priori, we found no true reef fishes in the deep sea. Some fishes on the deepest wrecks were associated 

with a given ship’s rigging and superstructure, but individuals of the same or similar species also were found away 

from wrecks. As a result, the fish community at those sites did not differ among transects flown over, adjacent to, 

and away from the ships. There were some differences in the relative dominance of taxa present, but for the most 

part fishes seen at each of the deep sites were predominantly from only a few groups: orders Ophidiiformes 

(cuskeels) and Anguilliformes (eels), and families Halosauridae (Halosaurs) and Macrouridae (grenadiers), all of 

which are typical of the abyssal ichthyofauna of the northern Gulf. 

Diet and Trophic Structure 

Gut content analysis and analysis of muscle stable isotope ratios revealed much information about the trophic 

dynamics of fish population at and near shipwreck sites sampled in this study. By combing these two techniques, a 

wide variety of feeding ecologies was observed among fish communities at the three shallowest sites: Virginia, 

Halo, and Gulfpenn. At Virginia, vermilion snapper had stable isotope values consistent with feeding in the water 

column on invertebrates, yet gut contents of the four fish sampled were predominantly filled with fishes. Red 
218 

snapper and rock sea bass had stable isotope values a full trophic level higher than vermilion snapper, with δ34S 

values indicating both species feed predominantly on benthic prey. 

A much greater diversity of species was sampled at Halo and a greater diversity in feeding ecologies also was 

observed. Although Anthiinae basses had mostly empty stomachs, stable isotope analysis of muscle samples 

revealed a planktonic diet. At the opposite end of the spectrum, top predators amberjack, blacktail moray, king 

snake eels, and Epinephelus spp. groupers had stable isotope values at least two trophic levels higher than Anthiinae 

basses. All the fishes collected over the wreck, except for a red porgy and one grouper, as well as the blacktail 

moray and king snake eels, had δ34S values consistent with pelagic feeding. Amberjack followed the ROV closely 

and appeared to be targeting Anthiinae basses as potential prey, while one king snake eel captured away from the 

ship actually had an Anthiinae bass in its gut. Therefore, we infer Anthiinae basses may play an important roll in the 

transfer of carbon from plankton and invertebrates to fishes at higher trophic levels. 

Fishes captured away from Halo displayed an even greater diversity in feeding ecology than fishes captured over the 

wreck. Roughback batfish had δ13C and δ15N values indicating feeding at low trophic levels. Interestingly, they had 

δ34S values consistent with pelagic feeding yet these fishes are truly benthic organisms. Other benthic fishes, such 

as deepwater flounder and spotted hake, fed at least one trophic level higher than batfish, but they most likely were 

feeding on benthic rather than pelagic prey resources. 

Fishes sampled over Gulfpenn displayed greater breadth of diet than did fishes captured over Halo. Slimehead gut 

analysis indicated a diet split between fishes and macroinvertebrates. Stable isotope values of slimeheads, as well as 

hakes, were consistent with omnivorous diets derived from both pelagic and benthic prey. Some fishes sampled 

away from the wreck, such as grenadiers and the deepwater tonguesole, had intermediate δ13C and δ15N values, but 

clearly had benthic δ34S values. Perhaps the most interesting fishes sampled at the Gulfpenn were hagfish, 

deepwater conger, and offshore hake that had depleted δ13C values that may indicate some percentage of their 

biomass ultimately was derived from chemosynthetic production. 

Few samples were available for analysis from the deep wrecks (U166, Robert E. Lee, and Alcoa Puritan), but 

interesting observations also were made about the food webs at those sites. A single cutthroat eel captured at a 

methane seep site near Robert E. Lee had stable isotope values clearly indicative of chemosynthetic production. 

Other cutthroat eels collected over wrecks also had somewhat depleted δ13C values that may indicate 

chemosynthetic production. Overall, however, stable isotope values of the preponderance of samples from our deep 

sites indicated phytoplankton production was much more important to deep-sea fishes and invertebrates than 

chemosynthesis. 

Age and Growth 

Too few otolith samples were collected and processed to infer much about the age distributions of fishes at wreck 

sites, or to estimate growth rates. However, two general trends did emerge from the data. First, fishes on the three 

shallowest wreck sites tended to be larger at age than fishes on deep sites. Slower fish growth in the deep ocean is a 

function of limited carbon, extreme pressure, and low dissolved oxygen (Caillet et al. 2000), factors that also may 

explain the existence of many extremely long-lived deep-water fishes. The oldest fish sampled in this study was a 

50-year-old blackbelly rosefish captured at Gulfpenn. While old, this fish was only a fraction of the size of much 

younger fishes in shallower waters, such as amberjack or various groupers sampled at Halo. Other old fishes (> 20 

years) captured at the deepest sites included cutthroat eels and grenadiers, which again were much smaller at age 

than shallow water species of similar age, such as the king snake eels sampled at Halo. 

Little can be inferred about age at recruitment to study wrecks based on the limited number of samples available. 

No fish was aged to be older than the wrecks, but the possibility exists some fishes at Halo approached the age of 

that wreck. Several Scorpaeniform fishes have been aged to reach 100 years or greater (reviewed in Caillet et al. 

2000). As stated above, the only blackbelly rosefish we sampled was estimated to be 50 years old, and no Atlantic 

thornyheads were captured as none went in traps and all were too large for the ROV suction sampler. 

Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus), a congener of the slimehead sampled in this study, has been estimated to 

have a maximum longevity greater than 120 years (Smith et al. 1995). None of the slimeheads we aged was 

significantly older than 10 years; however, the largest slimeheads on Gulfpenn were able to avoid the ROV suction 
219 

sampler. Perhaps H. occidentalis does not live as long as H. atlanticus. Alternatively, H. occidentalis may be recent 

additions to Gulfpenn that began recruiting once Lophelia colonies reached some large size. 

Anthiinae basses captured at Halo were the only fishes sampled as juveniles. Counts of daily-formed opaque zones 

in otoliths of small basses confirmed several were less the one year old. Thus, Anthiinae basses were the only fishes 

sampled which we infer settled directly on a wreck site. Perhaps other species also settled directly on wrecks, as 

opposed to recruiting to wrecks as post-settlement juveniles or adults, but no data were collected to support or reject 

direct settlement. 
221 

15.0 CONCLUSIONS 

15.1 Archaeology 

This study focused on seven shipwrecks lost during the mid-twentieth century. Historically, this group of 

shipwrecks represents two distinct periods in America’s past. The historical significance of each wreck is related to 

the historical period it represents. The steam yacht Anona, for example, was once the pleasure vessel of a wealthy 

Detroit industrialist. Built in 1904, Anona represents America’s golden era in the late nineteenth and early twentieth 

centuries when the United States was a developing industrial power and extravagance the trademark of wealth and 

privilege. Anona is also significant because the ship is the work of a master craftsman. She represents the 

culmination of iron construction and steam propulsion technology to emulate a ship type that in many ways was 

representative of the privileged class: the wooden sailing yacht. 

The freighters Alcoa Puritan, Robert E. Lee, and the tankers Gulfpenn, Halo, and Virginia are reminders of a period 

when the world was embroiled in a conflict that changed the face of the globe, World War II. On a regional scale, 

these wrecks emphasize that the war came closer to the United States mainland than most Americans are aware. 

Additionally, these two freighters and three tankers are significant in that they represent the technological and 

industrial might of the United States, which played a significant role in turning the tide of the war. 

U-166 also fits within the World War II framework. The wreck site is within fifty miles of the Louisiana coast and 

accentuates how successful the German U-boat campaign in the Gulf of Mexico was in bringing the war to 

America’s shore. U-166 is also significant as a form of warfare condemned during the First World War, but 

embraced and developed to deadly precision by the combatants of the Second World War. 

Archaeologically, the seven wrecks provide details on deepwater wrecking processes over various depths. Site 

investigations were carried out in accordance with the project objectives to confirm site identity, determine site 

boundaries, assess preservation and environmental impacts, and evaluate potential eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Of the seven wrecks designated for this study, only four (Alcoa Puritan, Anona, Robert E. Lee, and U-166) were 

positively identified before the project. The remaining vessels (Gulfpenn, Halo, and Virginia) had only been 

tentatively identified based on geophysical surveys and limited video documentation. Water clarity at the Gulfpenn

and Halo sites allowed relatively easy confirmation of the vessel’s identity based on structural and hull 

characteristics. At the Virginia site, however, limited visibility and sedimentation made positive identification 

difficult. Close examination of the site’s physical evidence and historical documentation confirmed the vessel is 

Virginia. 

With the exception of Virginia and Anona, the extent of the debris fields (wreck site boundaries) were determined 

during the 2004 project. An investigation of the debris scatter at the Virginia site was not undertaken because of 

poor visibility and the geophysical data did not indicate substantial scatter debris at the site. Site investigations were 

also limited by a high sedimentation rate that may have buried debris as deep as 37 centimeters. Tropical storms 

near Anona prevented investigations of that site. Anona’s assessment as presented in this report is based on the 2002 

investigations that were limited to the main hull wreckage. Investigations at the other wreck sites provided enough 

data, however, to indicate a relationship between water depth, ship size, and the extent of the debris scatter. Based 

on this information a preliminary model for determining the extent of deepwater wreck sites for this group of ships 

was developed. Future data acquisition and testing will be required to further refine the model. 

The condition, state of preservation, and deterioration rate for each shipwreck, as well as potential environmental 

impact, was assessed. These results are discussed in detail in the Archaeological and Microbiological sections for 

each site, as is the impact of bio-fouling communities. In general there was a correlation between the wreck’s state 

of preservation and depth in this area of the Gulf of Mexico. Sediment core samples taken at various locations at 

each wreck site indicated the wreck sites are not contaminating or adversely impacting the surrounding seafloor at 

this time. 

Each wreck site was assessed for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. After reviewing the 

archaeological and historical data, it was decided that each site is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion 
222 

“A” for their association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. It 

was also determined that all the sites are potentially eligible under Criterion “D” as archaeological sites. 

Additionally, Anona and U-166 are deemed potentially eligible under Criterion “C” as representative examples of 

distinctive architecture, and in the case of Anona as representing the work of a master. 

15.2 Biological 

The northern Gulf of Mexico is one of the most productive coastal ecosystems in the world (Caddy and Bakun 1994; 

Turner and Rabalais 1994). The most significant source of nutrient inputs to the system is the outflow of the 

Mississippi River (Breed et al. 2004; Dagg and Breed 2003; Dinnell and Wiseman 1986; Hitchcock et al. 1997). 

Primary production fueled by the river’s nutrient load in turn stimulates pelagic secondary production, with a 

significant amount of water column production raining down, or actively transported by vertical migrants, to the 

benthos (Dagg and Breed 2003; Turner and Rabalais 1994). Results from stable isotope analyses in this study 

confirm the importance of phytoplankton production to benthic environments, even those located at considerable 

depths on the continental slope and rise. Chemosynthetic sources of primary production may be important in the 

deep Gulf (Carney 1994; MacDonald et al. 2003; Sassen et al. 1998), but seep communities are patchily distributed 

and data presented herein indicate photic zone production is perhaps a greater source of carbon than chemosynthesis 

to the deep benthos. 

Beyond the outer continental shelf, little natural hardbottom habitat is known to occur. Azooxanthellate corals 

associated with methane seeps are rare, and seeps themselves, with associated carbonate mounds, are patchily 

distributed (Reed 2002; Roberts and Aharon 1994). Therefore, as petroleum exploration and production expands 

into deeper Gulf waters, platforms potentially could add hard substrate for invertebrate and vertebrate taxa in the 

deep Gulf (Ponti et al. 2002; Roberts and Hirshfield 2003). For example, petroleum drilling and production 

platforms on the northern Gulf shelf and slope are known to provide substrate for attachment of sessile, suspensionfeeding organisms, leading to complex communities in areas where naturally occurring hard substrates are rare. 

Platforms may also deflect or enhance currents, provide variation in light conditions, serve as attachment sites for 

algae, and otherwise enhance habitat complexity, attracting a diverse community of resident and nektonic fishes, and 

mobile invertebrates (Beaver et al. 2003; Ponti et al. 2002; Stanley and Wilson 1997, 2000). Whether platforms 

serve to increase fish and invertebrate production over broader geographic areas, or simply serve as aggregation 

sites, is still debated. Some argue that platforms attract and concentrate fishes, rendering them more vulnerable to 

fishing (Bohnsack 1989). Larger, more fecund individuals that might have been more dispersed in natural habitats 

may now be concentrated and more susceptible to harvest. Some concerns exist that the more than 4000 offshore 

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico act as a steel archipelago which may serve as stepping stones for more tropical or 

offshore species to increase their geographic range (Unpublished observations). 

The contention that petroleum platforms serve as artificial reefs is unquestioned. Many studies conducted by a 

variety of funding agencies have investigated the effects of offshore platforms on marine communities. Fish 

densities have been reported to be 20 to 50 times higher in the vicinity of these platforms, and many invertebrate 

species common on the platforms are otherwise rare (Beaver et al. 2003; Roberts and Hirshfield 1999; Stanley and 

Wilson 1997, 2000). The platforms serve as popular fishing sites for both sport and commercial fishers, and are 

popular dive sites for scuba enthusiasts (Ditton et al. 2002a,b; Stanley and Wilson 1989). As a result, the Rigs-toReef program of MMS, in which obsolete offshore petroleum structures are converted to artificial reefs, has become 

increasingly popular (Kaiser and Pulsipher 2005; Kasprzak 1998; Stanley and Wilson 1997). 

As drilling for oil and gas has progressed into deeper waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the morphology of platforms 

used in the exploration has changed. Large structures will remain on the seafloor at the drill site, but the upper water 

column portion of the drilling platform for most wells will exist only during the drilling phase. Should these 

structures be left on the seafloor as artificial reefs? Little research has been conducted at depths to examine whether 

these deep-water structures will also serve as artificial reefs, what the successional trends of the community will be, 

and if the structures will enhance the diversity or density of marine organisms over long time periods. What will the 

rates of degradation or dissolution be for the drilling structures? Can the rates of electrolysis of the steel structures 

be modified to advance or retard their dissolution into seawater? 

In the current study, we examined the artificial reef effect of WWII shipwrecks, which may serve as surrogates to 

infer potential effects of deep-sea drilling structures on biological communities. All six of the shipwrecks originated 
223 

from the same time period, from May to late July, 1942, and are aligned along a depth gradient from 87 to 1963 

meters depth. Although we collected specimens by means of traps, suction devices and cores, and plates, most data 

were derived from video transects. Below, we generalize trends observed in microbiological, invertebrate, and 

vertebrate communities among shipwrecks studied, as well as differences between shipwrecks and nearby natural 

habitats at each site. 

Microbiology 

Major conclusions from this study include: 

(1) Shallower sites of Virginia and Halo nearer the outflow of the Mississippi River were coated with thick 

layers of dendritic concretions and biofilms (slimes). 

(2) Sea anemones were most abundant on U-166 and particularly Robert E. Lee. The anemones appeared 

to compete for space with both the microbial concretions and concretious growths. Some of these 

differences in the community structures relate to the degree of impact from nutrients flowing from the 

Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. 

(3) Alcoa Puritan is estimated to be paralleling RMS Titanic’s (sunk thirty years earlier in 1912) rusticle 

growth pattern based on the Titanic deterioration model. Alcoa Puritan is likely following a similar pattern 

to the Titanic and now probably resembles what the Titanic looked like in 1974, eleven years before its 

actual discovery. 

Marine Invertebrates 

Major conclusions from this study include: 

(1) Many rare or uncommon invertebrate species were encountered in this study. 

(2) Species richness (the number of species) and abundance of organisms was higher near the shipwrecks in 

comparison to away from the shipwrecks. This generalization holds primarily for species that were 

associated with hard substrates. Our sampling methodology, primarily video transects, was biased against 

infaunal species, those that live within sediments. 

• Scleractinia, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea were only collected from and/or observed on the three 

shallow wrecks: Virginia [87 meters], Halo [143 meters], and Gulfpenn [554 meters] (Table 4.3). 

• Scleractinians were found on all three shallow wrecks. 

• Four of the five scleractinians species occurred on Virginia, two on Halo and two on Gulfpenn. 

• One species was found on all three wrecks, one only on the two shallowest wrecks, two only on the 

Virginia and one only on Gulfpenn. 

• Gorgonians were collected from and/or observed on the two shallowest wrecks. 

• One individual of one species was found on Virginia while a well-developed gorgonian fauna 

comprised of five species was found on Halo. 

• Two species of antipatharians were collected from Virginia. 

• The dominant species on Virginia and Halo appear to be the antipatharian Stichiopathes sp. cf. S. 

pourtalesi and the scleractinian Madracis myriaster, respectively, while on Gulfpenn the scleractinian 

Lophelia pertusa was the predominant species. 

(3) The shipwreck (Gulfpenn) at an intermediate depth had 50% more species than the next most speciose 

site; shallower sites may have been stressed because of increased turbidity, while resource limitations may 

explain decreased abundance at deeper sites. 

• Surfaces on all three wrecks generally appeared either relatively densely colonized with these fauna or 

have little or no colonization at all. 

(4) A strong bathymetric component was evident in the distribution of many taxa, particularly the 

crustaceans. Many species were restricted to particular depth ranges. 

• Individuals and co-occurring species from Scleractinia, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea have developed 

combinations of simple to structurally complex biological cover on all types of surfaces and structures. 

• In addition, fragments of both living Madracis myriaster and Lophelia pertusa that have fallen off 

Halo and Gulfpenn respectively are growing into new colonies that are providing additional habitat on 

the muddy sediment adjacent to the hull. 

• Lophelia pertusa has also successfully colonized wreckage in the debris field of the Gulfpenn.

(5) A comparison of within-site species richness, near (<61 meters) and away from (>61 meters) from the 

shipwrecks, supports the argument that the hard substrate afforded by the shipwrecks supported a higher 
224 

species richness, and increased abundance of organisms, at all sites. Again, sampling bias may be evident: 

epifaunal species are more visible than infaunal species. 

(6) Comparison of species richness between sites may be complicated by collecting biases, e.g., decreased 

visibility because of increased turbidity and differential collecting effort. Alternately, shallower depths 

may be exposed to increased stress from surface phenomenon, such as increased wave action from storms, 

increased exposure to seasonal runoff that may cause seasonal variations in water temperature, salinity, and 

dissolved oxygen. 

Marine Vertebrates 

Major conclusions from this study include: 

(1) Ichthyfaunal diversity generally decreased with depth. One departure from this trend was the 

shallowest wreck, Virginia, did not have the most diverse fish community. It was noted, however, that 

observed diversity at Virginia likely was much lower than true diversity given the poor visibility. 

(2) Reef fishes were present at the three shallowest sites, where hard and soft corals were members of the 

fouling community colonizing the ships, but absent from the three deepest wrecks. This general trend was 

expected prior to the study. One deviation from expectation, however, was the observation of large 

numbers of structure-oriented slimeheads and scorpionfishes at Gulfpenn (depth = 554 meters). Finding 

reef-associated taxa on Gulfpenn was not anticipated but ichthyofauna documented there are characteristic 

of deepwater hard bottom areas, such as Lophelia reefs, located at similar depths in the north Atlantic. 

(3) At the deepest wreck sites, community structure and fish density estimates were not significantly 

different over the ships versus away from the ships. Therefore, we infer the three deepest shipwrecks in 

this study conveyed little if any artificial reef effect to fishes found at those depths. 

(4) The fish community differed over versus away from the three shallowest wreck sites, but no difference 

was observed among transect locations at the three deepest wreck sites. 

(5) The fish community over the three shallowest wrecks (Virginia, Halo, and Gulfpenn) was dominated by 

depth-specific reef taxa (e.g., Lutjanids, Serranids, Sebastids, and Trachichthyids). The observed 

ichthyofauna was quite different away from the wrecks versus over the wrecks from each of those sites, as 

the community away from wrecks was dominated by benthic and demersal fishes typical of a given depth. 

(6) No general trend was observed in the fish community over the wrecks versus away from the three 

deepest wreck sites (U-166, Robert E. Lee, and Alcoa Puritan). Typical deep-water demersal forms (e.g., 

Ophidiiforms, Anguilliforms, Halo saurids, and Macrourids) dominated the sites. Many families, genera, 

and species were similar among the deep sites. 

A few generalizations can be distilled from the study of the biota (microbes, macro and meiofaunal invertebrates, 

and fishes) on and around World War II shipwrecks in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The influence of the 

shipwrecks was evident in the kinds and numbers of epifaunal invertebrates associated with hard substrate, as the 

abundance and species richness decreased with distance from the shipwrecks at all depths. The abundance of 

sedimentary meiofauna decreased dramatically with depth, most likely linked to decreases in particulate organic 

matter derived from surface water production (Rex, 1981; Levin et al., 1994). Species richness of micromollusks, 

particularly gastropods, decreased abruptly with depth. Many of the distinctive macroinvertebrates also had 

pronounced bathymetric distributional patterns, being found only at the deeper sites, and not necessarily associated 

with the shipwrecks. Venus flytrap anemones were conspicuous and abundant members of the epifaunal community 

on the wrecks. Azooxanthellate hard and soft corals (Scleractinia, Antipatharia, and Gorgonacea) were associated 

with shipwrecks, but only at the shallowest three shipwrecks. The dense Lophelia colonies associated with the 

Gulfpenn may have been among the more dramatic biocenoses in the study. The complex matrix of living and dead 

branches of corals increase habitat complexity; the absence of these corals in deeper depths undoubtedly resulted in 

a loss of habitat complexity and some associated macroinvertebrates, as has been noted in Lophelia reefs in the 

northeast Atlantic (Fossa et al., 2002; Mortensen et al., 2001). These deep coral habitats associated with the 

shipwrecks permitted one of the deeper studies of true reef fishes in the northern Gulf. Reef fish assemblages did 

not occur at the deeper wreck sites, and the composition of the fish communities were similar among the deeper 

shipwreck sites, both near and away from the wrecks. 
225 

16.0 REFERENCES 

Abbott, R. T. 1974. American seashells. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. 541 pp. 

Academy of Natural Sciences (ANS). 2006. Academy of Natural Sciences Web Page. Online Biodiversity 

Databases. http://erato.acnatsci.org/databases/index.php. 

Administrator of the Committee on Vessel Compensation (ACVC). 1945. S.S. Robert E. Lee and S.S. George 

Washington: Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc.: Determination of Just Compensation for Loss and Requisition 

of Title. Report prepared by the Committee on Vessel Compensation. 

Alcoa. 2002. Corporate history. http://www.alcoaonline.com/history. 

Allman, R. J., G. R. Fitzhugh, and W. A. Fable. 2001. Report of vermilion snapper otolith ageing; 1994-2000 data 

summary. 

American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc. (AMMII). 1942. Manning Report of the Robert E. Lee. Unpublished. 

Anderson, G., R. Heard, and K. Larsen. 2005. The Tanaidacea Web Site. http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/tanaids. 

December 20. 

Andrews, A. H., G. M. Cailliet, and K. H. Coale. 1999. Age and growth of the Pacific grenadier (Coryphaenoides 

acrolepis) with age estimate validation using an improved radiometric ageing technique. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1339-1350. 

Baguley, J. G., P. A. Montagna, W. Lee, L. J. Hyde, and G. T. Rowe. 2006. Spatial and bathymetric trends in 

Harpacticoida (Copepoda) community structure in the Northern Gulf of Mexico deep-sea. J. Exp. Mar. 

Biol. Ecol. 330:327-341. 

Ballard, R. D. 2004. Why is the Titanic vanishing? National Geographic Magazine. December. Pp. 96-113. 

Bauer, R. T. 2004. Remarkable shrimps: Adaptations and natural history of the Carideans. Norman, OK: 

University of Oklahoma Press. 282 pp. 

Beaver, C., S. Childs, and Q. Dokken. 2003. Secondary productivity within biotic fouling community elements on 

two artificial reef structures in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In: D.R. Stanley and A. ScarboroughBull, eds. American Fisheries Society Symposium 36: Fisheries, Reefs, and Offshore Development. 

Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Pp. 205-220. 

Blair, Clay. 2000. Hitler's U-boat War: The Hunters, 1939-1942. New York: Modern Library. 

Bohnsack, J. A. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or behavioral 

preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 44:631-644. 

Bortone, S. A. 1999. Regional fisheries. In: W. W. Schroeder and C. F. Wood (eds.), Physical/Biological 

Oceanographic Integration Workshop for the DeSoto Canyon and Adjacent Shelf. OCS Study MMS 2000-

074. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region, New Orleans, 

LA. 168 pp. 

Bouma, A. H., J. M. Coleman, C. E. Stelting, and B. Kohl. 1989. Influence of relative sea level changes on the 

construction of the Mississippi Fan. Geo-Marine Letters 9(3):161-170. 

Bouma, A. H., N. E. Barnes, and W. R. Normark. 1985. Mississippi Fan: Leg 96 Program and Principal Results, 

Chapter 36. In: Submarine Fans and Related Turbidite Sequences. Reprint from Frontiers in Sedimentary 

Geology. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 
226 

Breed, G. A., G. A. Jackson, T. L. Richardson. 2004. Sedimentation, carbon export and food web structure in the 

Mississippi River plume described by inverse analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 278:35-51. 

Browning, R. M., Jr. 1996. U.S. Merchant Vessel War Casualties of World War II. Annapolis: Naval Institute 

Press. 

Buhl Mortensen, L., and P. Buhl Mortensen. 2004. Crustaceans associated with the deep-water gorgonian corals 

Paragorgia arborea (L., 1758) and Primnoa resedaformis (Gunn., 1763). Journal of Natural History 

38:1233-1247. 

Buhl Mortensen, P., M., Hovland, T. Barttegard, R. Farestveit 1995. Deep-water bioherms of the Scleractinian 

coral Lophelia pertusa (L.) at 64oN on the Norwegian shelf: structure and associated megafauna. Sarsia 

80:145-158. 

Burch, H. A. 1942a. Summary of Statements by Survivors of the SS Gulf Penn, U.S. Tanker. Navy department, 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. May 22. 

Burch, H. A. 1942b. Summary of Statements by Survivors of the SS Virginia, American Tanker. Navy 

department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. May 16. 

Burton, E. J. 1999. Radiometric age determination of the giant grenadier (Albatrossia pectoralis) using 210Pb:226RA 

disequilibria. M.S. thesis, San Francisco State University. 

Busch, R. and H. J. Röll. 1999. German U-boat commanders of World War II: A biographical dictionary. 

Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. 

Bush, G. W. 2001. United States Policy for the Protection of Sunken Warships. Office of the Press Secretary, 

Wahington, D.C. January 19. 

C & C Technologies Inc. 2005. Company Files Written by C & C Scientists and Technicians (Unpublished). 

Caddy, J. F., and A. Bakun. (1994). A tentative classification of coastal marine ecosystems based on dominant 

processes of nutrient supply. Ocean and Coastal Management 23: 201-211. 

Cailliet, G. M., A. H. Andrews, E. J. Burton, D. L. Watters, D. E. Kline, and L. A. Ferry-Graham. 2001. Age 

determination and validation studies of marine fishes: do deep-dwellers live longer? Experimental 

Gerontology 36:739-764. 

Cairns, S. D. 1978. A checklist of the ahermatypic Scleractinia of the Gulf of Mexico, with the description of a new 

species. Gulf Resource Report. 6(1):9-15. 

Cairns, S. D. 1979. The deep-water scleractinia of the Caribbean Sea and adjacent waters. Study Fauna Curaçao. 

57:341. 

Cairns, S. D. 2000. A revision of the shallow-water azooxanthellate Scleractinia of the Western Atlantic. Studies 

on the Natural History of the Caribbean Region. 75:1-231. 

Cairns, S. D., D. M. Opresko, T. S. Hopkins and W. W. Schroeder. 1993. New records of deep-water Cnidaria 

(Scleractinia and Antipatheria) from the Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Science 13(1):1-11. 

Campana, S.E., M.C. Annand, and J.I. McMillan. 1995. Graphical and statistical methods for determining the 

consistency of age determinations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:131-138. 

Carney, R.S. 1994. Consideration of the oasis analogy for chemosynthetic communities at Gulf of Mexico 

hydrocarbon vents. Geo-Marine Letters 14:149-159. 
227 

Charlton, M. J. 2003. Interview by M. K. Morgan at Mr. Charlton’s home, Monroe, Louisiana, January 31, 2003. 

Church, R. A. 2000. Archaeological, Engineering and Hazard Study, Block 705, Mississippi Canyon Area to Block 

115, Grand Isle Area. Prepared by C & C Technologies, Inc. for Pogo Producing Company. September. 

Church, R. A., D. J. Warren, A. W. Hill, and J. S. Smith. 2002. The Discovery of U-166: Rewriting History with 

New Technology. Proceedings of the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference. May. 

Church, R. A., D. J. Warren, J. B. Weirich, and D. A. Ball. 2004. Return to the U-166: Working Together to Meet 

the Challenge of Deepwater Archaeology. Proceedings of the Underwater Intervention Conference. 

February. 

Church, R. A., L. Landry, D. J. Warren, and J. Smith. 2003. The SS Alcoa Puritan: Deepwater Discovery and 

Investigation. Proceedings of the Underwater Intervention Conference. February. 

Clark, S. T. 2000. Age, growth, and distributions of the giant snake eel, Ophichthus rex, in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 67(3):911-922. 

Clarke, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of 

Ecology 18:117-143. 

Clarke, K. R. and R. N. Gorley. 2001. PRIMER v5: User Manual/Tutorial. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E Ltd. 90 pp. 

Coggan, R. A., J. D. M. Gordon, and N. R. Merrett. 1999. Aspects of the biology of Nezumia aequalis from the 

continental slope west of the British Isles. Journal of Fish Biology 54:152-170. 

Coleman, J. M., H. Roberts, and W. R. Bryant. 1991. Late Quaternary Sedimentation. The Geology of North of 

America (J):325-352. 

Connolly, R. M., M. B. Guest, A. J. Melville, and J. M. Oakes. 2004. Sulfur stable isotopes separate producers in 

marine food-web analysis. Oecologia 138:161-167. 

Conwell, D. M. 1986. Sea-Going Days, Part Two. Personal Memoir of D.M. Conwell. Unpublished. 

Cullimore, D. R., and L. Johnston. 2000. The Impact of Bioconcretious Structures (Rusticles) on the RMS Titanic: 

Implications to Maritime Steel Structures. Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Society of 

Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vancouver, Canada. 

Cullimore, D. R., and L. Johnston. 2005. Microbiology of Concretions, Sediments and Mechanisms Influencing the 

Preservation of Submerged Archaeological Submerged Archaeological Artifacts. Presentation at the 38th

Annual Society for Historical Archaeology Conference. York, England. January. 

Cullimore, D. R., C. Pellegrino, and L. Johnston. 2001. RMS Titanic and the Emergence of New Concepts on 

Consortial Nature of Microbial Events. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 173:117–141. 

Dagg, M. J. and G. A. Breed. 2003. Biological effects of Mississippi River nitrogen on the northern gulf of 

Mexico—a review and synthesis. Journal of Marine Systems 43:133-152. 

Dinnell, S. P. and W. J. Wiseman. 1986. Fresh water on the Louisiana and Texas Shelf. Continental Shelf 

Research 6:765-784. 

Ditton, R. B., C. E. Thailing, R. Riechers, and H. R. Osburn. 2002a. The economic impacts of sport divers using 

artificial reefs in Texas offshore waters. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 53:344- 356. 
228 

Ditton, R. B., H. R. Osburn, T. L. Baker, and C. E. Thailing. 2002b. Demographics, attitudes, and reef management 

preferences of sport divers in offshore Texas waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:S186 - S191. 

Felley, J. D. and M. Vecchione. 1995. Assessing habitat use by nekton on the continental slope using archived 

videotapes from submersibles. Fishery Bulletin 93:262-273. 

Fleeger, J. W. and T. C. Shirley. 1990. Meiofauna responses to sedimentation from a spring phytoplankton bloom 

in Auke Bay, Alaska. II. Harpacticoid copepods. Marine Ecology progress Series 54:51-59. 

Fleeger, J. W., T. C. Shirley and J. N. McCall. 1995. Fine-scale vertical profiles of meiofauna in muddy subtidal 

sediments. Can. J. Zool. 73(8):1453-1460. 

Fossa, J. H., P. B. Mortensen and D. M. Furevk. 2002. The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian 

waters: distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiologia 471(1-3):1-12. 

Freiwald, A., R. Henrich, and J. Patzold. 1997. Anatomy of a deep-water coral reef mound from Stjernsund, west 

Finnmark, northern Norway. In James, N. P., Clarke, J. A. D., (eds.), Cool-Water Carbonates. Society of 

Sedimentary Geologists (SEPM), Special Publication. 56:141-162. 

Fry, B. 1988. Food web structure on Georges Bank from stable C, N, and S isotopic compositions. Limnology and 

Oceanography 33:1182-1190. 

Fry, B. and E. B. Sherr. 1984. δ13C measurements as indicators of carbon flow in marine and freshwater 

ecosystems. Contributions in Marine Science 27:13-47. 

Fry, B., R. K. Anderson, L. Entzeroth, J. L. Bird, and P. L. Parker. 1984. 13C enrichment and oceanic food web 

structure in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Contributions in Marine Science 27:49-63. 

Gardner, J. V., P. Dartnell, K. J. Sulak, B. Calder, and L. Hellequin. 2001. Physiography and late QuartenaryHolocene processes of northeastern Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf off Mississippi and Alabama. 

Gulf of Mexico Science 19:132-157. 

Garrison, Ervin G., C. P. Giammona, F. J. Kelly, A. R. Tripp, and G. A. Wolff. 1989. Historic Shipwrecks and 

Magnetic Anomalies of the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Reevaluation of Archeological Resource 

Management Zone 1. Vol. II. U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Regional Office. New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0024. 

Garzke, W. H., D. K. Brown, P. K. Matthias, R. Cullimore, D. Wood, D. Livingstone, H. P. Leighley, T. Foecke, 

and A. Sandiford. 1997. Titanic, The Anatomy of a Disaster. A Report from the Marine Forensic Panel 

(SD-7). Proceedings of the 1997 Annual Meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine 

Engineers, Ottawa, Canada. 

Giere, O. 1993. Meiobenthology: the microscopic fauna in aquatic sediments. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 328 pp. 

Gulfpenn. 1921. Application of Owner or Master for Official Number. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Navigation. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington DC. April 25. 

Gulfpenn. 1942. Consolidated Certificate of Enrollment and License. The United States of America Treasury 

Department of Customs. March 11. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington DC. 

Helly. J. J. and L. A. Levin. 2004. Global distribution of naturally occurring marine hypoxia on continental 

margins. Deep-Sea Research I 51:1159-1168. 

Henderson, E. D. 1942. Summary of statements by survivors of the SS Robert E. Lee, U.S. Cargo-Passenger 

Vessel. Navy department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. August 13. 
229 

Hendler, G., J. Miller, D. L. Pawson, and P. M. Kier. 1995. Echinoderms of Florida and the Caribbean – sea stars, 

sear urchins and allies. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 390 pp. 

Henning, A. 2006. Email correspondence with Alison Henning at AOA Geophisics between March 24 to May 19, 

2006 conserning a survey conducted by Fugro USA between 22 December 2005 and 1 February 2006 for 

ChevronTexaco. 

Higgins, R. P. and H. Thiel (Eds.). 1988. Introduction to the study of meiofauna. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 488 pp. 

Hitchcock G. L., W.J. Wiseman, W.C. Boicourt, A.J. Mariano, N. Walker, T.A. Nelsen, and E. Ryan. 1997. 

Property fields in an effluent plume of the Mississippi river. Journal of Marine Science 12: 109-126. 

Hocking, C. 1969: Dictionary of disasters at sea during the age of steam, including sailing ships and ships of war 

lost in action, 1824-1962. Lloyd's Register of Shipping. 

Hood, P. B. and A. K. Johnson. 2000. Age, growth, mortality, and reproduction of red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, from 

the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 98:723-735. 

Hood, P. B., M. F. Godcharles, and R. S. Barco. 1994. Age, growth, reproduction, and the feeding ecology of black 

sea bass, Centropristis striata (Pisces: Serranidae), in the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 

54(1):24-37. 

Hughes, V. 2004. Edgar Anguish McKinnon: The Hughes Family History. http://worldconnect. 

genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=hughestree&id=I95&printer_friendly. May 14. 

Hunt, J. L. and G. Burgess. 1995. Depositional Styles from Miocene through Pleistocene in the North-Central Gulf 

of Mexico: An Historical Reconstruction, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies (GCAGS) 

Transactions. 45. 

International Marine Engineering. 1919. Oil Tank Steamer of 10,1000 Tons D. W. New York: Aldrich Publishing 

Co. April. 24(4):196-197 and Plate III. 

Kaiser, M. J. and A. G. Pulsipher. 2005. Rigs-to-reef programs in the Gulf of Mexico. Ocean Development and 

International Law 36:119-134. 

Kasprzak, R. A. 1998. Use of oil and gas platforms as habitat in Louisiana's artificial reef program. Gulf of 

Mexico Science 16:37-45. 

Kavanagh, D., J Curdy, and A. McCarron. 2001. Sun Shipbuilding History Log From 1916 thru 1919 and Sun 

Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company Hull Data. http://www.sunshiporg.homestead.com/files/hullmas.pdf

and http://www.sunshiporg.homestead.com/files/1916_1919.htm. October 22. 

Krieger, K. J. and B. L. Wing. 2002. Megafauna associations with deepwater corals (Primnoa spp.) in the Gulf of 

Alaska. Hydrobiologia 471(1):83-90. 

Land, E.S., D.F. Houlihan, and A.B. Sharp. 1942. War Shipping Administration Contract No. WSA-1650. March 

11. 

Landry, L. 1994. Archaeological Assessment for the Nakika Pipeline Project. Prepared by John E. Chance and 

Associates for Shell International Exploration and Production, Inc. December. 

Lee, E. and T. George. 2002. Geohazard Assessment for a Block Study in Blocks 914, 915, 916, 959, and 960, 

Viosca Knoll Area. Prepared by C & C Technologies, Inc. for BP Exploration and Production, Inc. 

August. 
230 

Levin, L. A. 2003. Oxygen minimum zone benthos: adaptation and community response to hypoxia. In Gibson, R. 

N. and R. J. A. Atkinson (Eds.), Oceanography and marine biology: an Annual Review 41:1-45. 

Levin, L.A., E. L. Leithold, T. F. Gross, C. L. Huggett, and C. Dibacco. 1994. Contrasting effects of substrate 

mobility on infaunal assemblages inhabting two high-energy settings on Fieberling Guyot. Journal of 

Marine Research 52:489-522. 

Lindberg, W. J. and F. D. Lockhart. 1993. Depth-stratified population structure of Geryonid crabs in the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Crustacean Biology 13 (4):713-722. 

Lockhart, F. D., W. J. Lindberg, N. J. Blake, R. B. Erdman, H. M. Perry, and R. S. Waller, 1990. Distributional 

differences and population similarities for two deep-sea crabs (family Geryonidae) in the northeastern Gulf 

of Mexico. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:2112-2122. 

MacAvoy, S. E., R. S. Carney, C. R. Fisher, and S. A. Macko. 2002. Use of chemosynthetic biomass by large, 

mobile, benthic predators in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 225:65-78. 

MacDonald, I. R., W. W. Sager, and M. B. Peccini. 2003. Gas hydrate and chemosynthetic biota in mounded 

bathymetry at mid-slope hydrocarbon seeps: Northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Geology 198:133-158. 

MacTaggart, R. 2001. The Golden Century: Classic Motor Yachts 1830-1930. New York: W.W. Norton & 

Company. 

Manickchand-Heileman, S. C. and D. A. T. Phillip. 2000. Age and growth of the yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus 

flavolimbatus, and the yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis, off Trinidad and Tobago. Fishery 

Bulletin 98:290-298. 

Manooch, C. S., III and D. L. Mason. 1987. Age and growth of the warsaw grouper and black grouper from the 

southeast region of the United States. Northeast Gulf Science 9(2):65-75. 

Marine. 1941. Cargo Ship Alcoa Pathfinder. Marine Engineering and Shipping Review. New York: Simmons 

Boardman Publishing Co. November. 46(11):106, 147. 

Marmaduke. 2003. A High-Resolution Geophysical Survey Report for the South Pass Area Blocks 79 and 80. 

Prepared by Gulf Ocean Services for Remington Oil and Gas. December. 

Martins, R. S. and M. Haimovici. 2000. Age, growth, and longevity of the hake, Urophycis cirrata, Goode & Bean, 

1896, (Teleostei: Phycidae) in Southern Brazil. Atlântica, Rio Grande 22:57-70. 

Michell, A. 2001. Telephone Interview by R. A. Church, August 14, 2001, and at Captain Michell’s home, New 

Orleans, Louisiana, August 24, 2001. 

Michell, A. 2004. Interview by R. A. Church and D. Aig at Captain Michell’s home, New Orleans, Louisiana, 

October 16, 2004. 

Miller, D. 2000. U-Boats: History, Development and Equipment, 1914-1945. London: Conway Maritime Press. 

Milwaukee Public Library. 1989. Ship File Central Hum Collection. “Vessel Anona.” 

Moore, A. R. 1993. Sixth edition. A Careless Word...A Needless Sinking. Knowlton and McLeavy. Farmington, 

Maine. 

Morales-Nin, B. and J. Panfili. 2005. Seasonality in the deep sea and tropics revisited: what can otoliths tell us? 

Marine and Freshwater Research 56:585-598. 
231 

Morgan, M. and C. J. Christ. 2003. Demise of U-166. World War II Magazine. July. 

Mortensen, P. B., T. Hovland, J. H. Fossa and D. M. Furevik. 2001. Distribution, abundance and size of Lophelia 

pertusa coral in mid-Norway in relation to seabed characteristics. Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom 81:581-597. 

National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) Taxonomic Database. 2003. Curators form records from the 

Department of Invertebrate Zoology: Stephen Cairns and Frederick Bayer. National Museum of Natural 

History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

National Museum of Natural History (NMNH). 2006. Dept. of Systematic Biology, Invertebrate Zoology 

Collections. http://www.nmnh.si.edu/iz. 

Parker, R. O., D. R. Colby, and T. D. Willis. 1983. Estimated amount of reef habitat on a portion of the U.S. South 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. Bulletin of Marine Science 33:935-940. 

Patterson, W. F., III and J. H. Cowan, Jr. 2003. Site fidelity and dispersion of tagged red snapper, Lutjanus 

campechanus, in the northern Gulf of Mexico. In D.R. Stanley and A. Scarborough-Bull (Eds.). American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 36: Fisheries, Reefs, and Offshore Development. Bethesda, Maryland: 

American Fisheries Society. Pp. 181-194. 

Patterson, W. F., III, J. C. Watterson, R. L. Shipp, and J. H. Cowan, Jr. 2001a. Movement of tagged red snapper in 

the northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:533-545. 

Patterson, W. F., III, J. H. Cowan, Jr., C. A. Wilson, and R. L. Shipp. 2001b. Age and growth of red snapper, 

Lutjanus campechanus, from an artificial reef area off Alabama in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Fishery 

Bulletin 99:617-627. 

Peterson, G. 2003. Interview by F. Beierl and O. Halmburger at the National D-Day Musuem, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, September 10, 2003. Shown In: History Uncovered Legend of U-166. History Channel. 

December 19, 2004. 

Ponti, M., M. Abbiati, and V. U. Ceccherelli. 2002. Drilling platforms as artificial reefs: distribution of 

macrobenthic assemblages of the ‘‘Paguro’’ wreck (northern Adriatic Sea). ICES Journal of Marine 

Science 59:S316–S323. 

Powell, S. M., R. L. Haedrich, and J. D. McEachran. 2003. The deep-sea demersal fish fauna of the northern Gulf 

of Mexico. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 31:19-33. 

Powers, A. J. 1942a. Summary of Statements by Survivors of the SS Alcoa Puritan, American Freighter. Navy 

department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. May 12. 

Powers, A. J. 1942b. Summary of Statements by Survivors of the SS Halo, American Tanker. Navy department, 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. June 19. 

Prior, D. B., E. H. Doyle, M. J. Kaluza, and M. M. Woods. 1988. Technical advances in High-Resolution Hazard 

Surveying, Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. In: Offshore Technology Proceedings. Houston, TX. 

Reed, J. K. 1980. Distribution and structure of deep-water Oculina varicosa reefs off central eastern Florida. Bull. 

Mar. Sci. 30(3):667-677. 

Reed, J. K. 1981. In situ growth rate of the scleractinian coral Oculina varicosa occurring with zooxanthellae on 6-

m reefs and without on 80-m banks. Proc. 4th Internat. Coral Reef Symp. 2:201-206. 
232 

Reed, J. K. 2002. Comparison of deep-water coral reefs and lithoherms off southeastern USA. Hydrobiologia 

471:57-69. 

Rex, M. A. 1981. Community structure in the deep-sea benthos. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 

12:331-353. 

Rex, M. A., R. J. Etter and P. W. Nimeskern. 1990. Density estimates for deep-sea gastropod assemblages. DeepSea Research 37A:555-569. 

Roberts, H. H. and P. Aharon. 1994. Hydrocarbon-derived carbonate buildups of the northern Gulf of Mexico 

continental slope: A review of submersible investigations. Geo-Marine Letters 14:135-148. 

Roberts, S. and M. Hirshfield. 2003. Deep-sea corals: Out of sight, but no longer out of mind. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment 2:123–130. 

Robson, H. H. 1942. Letter to A.B. Sharp, president of Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc. January 30. 

Rössler, E. 2001. The U-boat: The evolution and technical history of German submarines. London: Arms and 

Armour Press, reprint. 

Rudder. 1908. The steam yacht Anona. The Rudder. Portland, Maine. 

Sassen, R., I. R. MacDonald, N. L. Guinasso Jr., S. Joye, A. G. Requejo, S. T. Sweet, J. Alcala-Herrera, D. A. 

DeFreitas, and D. R. Schink. 1998. Bacterial methane oxidation in sea-floor gas hydrate: Significance to 

life in extreme environments. Geology 26:851-854. 

Sawyer, L. A. and W. H. Mitchell. 1974. Victory Ships and Tankers: The History of the “Victory” Type Cargo 

Ships and of the Tankers Built in the United States of America During World War II. Cambridge, England: 

Cornell Maritime Press, Inc. 

Schacht, H. 1942. War-Diary. Oberkommando Kriegsmarine Kriegstagebuch, Akten betreffend U-506, from 

March 26, 1942 through June 4, 1942. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington DC. 

Schroeder, W. W. 2002. Observations of Lophelia pertusa and the surficial geology at a deep-water site in the 

northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Hydrobiol. 471:29-33. 

Schroeder, W. W., S. D. Brooke, J. B. Olson, B. Phaneuf, J. J. McDonough III and P. Etnoyer. 2005. Occurrence of 

deep-water Lophelia pertusa and Madrepora oculata in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Freiwald A. and J.M. 

Roberts (eds), Deep-water Corals and Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. 297-307 pp. 

SeaWaves. 2005. Gulfpenn 1942. SeaWaves Today in History. http://www.seawaves.com/newsletters/. May 13. 

Sharp, A. B. 1942. Letter to the War Shipping Administration, Washington, D.C. October 13. 

Sharp, A. B. 1946. Letter to Joseph M. Quinn, Comptroller of the War Shipping Administration. April 25. 

Smith, D. C., G. E. Fenton, S. G. Robertson, and S. A. Short. 1995. Age determination and growth of orange 

roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus): A comparison of annulus counts with radiometric ageing Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 52:391-401. 

Smith, D.C., G.E. Fenton, S.G. Robertson, and S.A. Short. 1995. Age determination and growth of orange roughy 

(Hoplostethus atlanticus): A comparison of annulus counts with radiometric ageing. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 52:391-401. 

Squires, D. F. 1964. Fossil Coral Thickets. In: Wairarapa, New Zealand, Journal of Paleontology. 38:905-915. 
233 

Stanley D. R. and C. A. Wilson. 1997. Seasonal and spatial variation in the abundance and size distribution of 

fishes associated with a petroleum platform in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 54:1166-1176. 

Stanley, D. R. and C. A Wilson. 2000. Variation in the density and species composition of fishes associated with 

three petroleum platforms using dual beam hydroacoustics. Fisheries Research 47:161-172. 

Stanley, D. R. and C. A. Wilson. 1989. Utilization of offshore platforms by recreational fishermen and scuba divers 

off the Louisiana coast. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:767-775. 

Stevenson, T. J. 1942. Letter to Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc. April. 

Sulak, K. J., G. D. Dennis, III, D. C. Weaver, and J. V. Gardner. 2001. The origin, habitats and fish fauna of deep 

shelf edge reefs (60 - 200 m depth) in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Oral paper presented at the 54th

Annual Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Providenciales Island, Turks and Caicos, 

British West Indies, 12-17 November. 

Talbot-Booth, R.D. and E.B.R. Sargent. 1942. Merchant Ships: New York: The Macmillan Company. 

Thistle, D. 2003. On the utility of metazoan meiofauna for studying the soft-bottom deep sea. Vie Milieu 53:97-

101. 

Thompson, B. A., M. Beasley, and C. A. Wilson. 1999. Age, distribution, and growth of greater amberjack, Seriola 

dumerili, from the north-central Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 97:362-371. 

Thurman, P. E., R. S. McBride, K .J. Sulak, and G. D. Dennis, III. 2004. Age & reproduction in three Serranid 

fishes of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf: Pronotogrammus martinicensis, 

Hemanthias vivanus & Serranus phoebe (with Preliminary Observations on the Pomacentrid Fish, Chromis 

enchrysurus). USGS Scientific Investigation Report SIR-2004-5162. 67 pp. 

Times-Picayune. 1942. Seaman rescued for fourth time: Orleans engineer aboad [sic] ship sinking in Gulf. The 

Times-Picayune. June 14, 1944. 10 pp. 

Tracey, D. M. and P. L. Horn. 1999. Background and review of ageing orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus, 

Trachichthyidae) from New Zealand and elsewhere. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater 

Research 33:67-86. 

Treece, G. 1979. Living marine mollusks from the south Texas continental shelf. Texas J. Science 31:271-283. 

Turner, R. E. and N. N. Rabalais. 1994. Coastal eutrophication near the Mississippi River delta. Nature 368:619-

621. 

USDI MMS. 1978. Visual 3. Bottom Sediments, Vegetation, and Endangered Wildlife. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service. Gulf of Mexico, OCS Regional Office. Metairie, Louisiana. 

USDI MMS. 2002. The Alcoa Puritan. Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter 35(1):24-25. 

USDI MMS. 2004. Deepwater program: The archaeological and biological analysis of World War II shipwrecks in 

the Gulf Of Mexico: A pilot study of the artificial reef effect in deepwater (Nsl-Gm-03-07) Section C. 

Description/Specifications/Work Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico, OCS Region, Metairie, LA. 

USS PC-566. 1942. Report of Action with Enemy Submarine Which Torpedoed SS Robert E. Lee, Rescue of 

Survivors. Statements by H. C. Claudius and K. Howard. National Archives and Records Administration, 

Washington DC. 
234 

War Diary. 1942. Oberkommando Kriegsmarine Kriegstagebuch, Akten betreffend U-166, from March 24 through 

August 3, 1942. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington DC. 

Warren, D. J. 2002. Site Specific Archaeological Investigation, Viosca Knoll Area. Prepared by C & C 

Technologies, Inc. for BP Exploration and Production. July. 

Warren, D. J., R. A Church, R. Cullimore, L. Johnston. 2004. ROV Investigations of The DKM U-166 Shipwreck 

Site to Document the Archaeological and Biological Aspects of the Wreck Site: Final Performance Report. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean 

Exploration. Silver Spring, Maryland. 

White, D. B., D. M. Wyanski and G. R. Sedberry. 1998. Age, growth, and reproductive biology of the blackbelly 

rosefish from the Carolinas, U.S.A. Journal of Fish Biology 53:12 

Whittington, J. 2002. Personal communication by email with Daniel J. Warren. July 22. 

Wiggins, M. 1995. Torpedoes in the Gulf: Galveston and the U-boats, 1942-1943. Texas A&M Press, College 

Station. 

Williams, A. B. 1984. Shrimps, lobsters, and crabs of the Atlantic coast of the eastern United States, Maine to 

Florida. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. 550 pp. 

Winnier, J. 2003. Interview by F. Beierl and O. Halmburger at the National D-Day Museum, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, September 2003. Shown In: History Uncovered Legend of U-166. History Channel. 

December 19, 2004. 

Winnier, J. 2004. Interview by R. A. Church and D. Aig at Mr. J. Winnier’s home, New Orleans, Louisiana, 

October 16, 2004. 

Wűrdemann, E. 1942. War-Diary. Oberkommando Kriegsmarine Kriegstagebuch, Akten betreffend U-506, from 

March 26, 1942 through June 16, 1942. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. 
235 

APPENDIX A 

Temperature Profile 

Salinity Profile 

Density Profile 

Dissolved Oxygen Profile 

Sound Velocity Profile 
236 

Virginia

July 30, 2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth (m)

Temp (oC) Salinity (PSU) Density (Sigma-T g/cm3) Oxy (mg/l)
237 

Virginia

July 30, 2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1525 1527 1529 1531 1533 1535 1537 1539 1541 1543 1545

Depth (m)

Sound Velocity (m/sec)
238 

Halo

Aug 1, 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth

Temp (oC) Salinity (PSU) Density (Sigma-T g/cm3) Oxy (mg/l)
239 

Halo

Aug 1, 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1510 1515 1520 1525 1530 1535 1540 1545 1550

Depth

Sound Velocity (m/sec)
240 

Halo II

Aug 13, 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth(m)

Temp (oC) Salinity (PSU) Density (Sigma-T g/cm3) Oxy (mg/l)
241 

Halo II

Aug 13, 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1500 1505 1510 1515 1520 1525 1530 1535 1540 1545 1550

Depth(m)

Sound Velocity (m/sec)
242 

GulfPenn

Aug 3 2004

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth (m)

Temp (oC) Salinity (PSU) Density (Sigma-T g/cm3) Oxy (mg/l)
243 

GulfPenn

Aug 3 2004

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550

Depth (m)

Sound Velocity (m/sec)
244 

Gulf Penn II

Aug 13, 2004

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth (m)

Temp (oC) Salinity (PSU) Density (Sigma-T g/cm3) Oxy (mg/l)
245 

Gulf Penn II

Aug 13, 2004

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550

Depth (m)

Sound Velocity (m/sec)
246 

U-166

Aug 6, 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth (m)

Temp (oC) Salinity (PSU) Density (Sigma-T g/cm3) Oxy (mg/l)
247 

U-166

Aug 6, 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550

Depth (m)

Sound Velocity (m/sec)
248 

Robert E Lee

Aug 7, 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth (m)

Temp (oC) Salinity (PSU) Density (Sigma-T g/cm3) Oxy (mg/l)
249 

Robert E Lee

Aug 7, 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550

Depth (m)

Sound Velocity (m/sec)
250 

Robert E Lee II

Aug 12, 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth (m)

Temp (oC) Salinity (PSU) Density (Sigma-T g/cm3) Oxy (mg/l)
251 

Robert E Lee II

Aug 12, 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550

Depth (m)

Sound Velocity (m/sec)
252 

Alcoa Puritan

Aug 9, 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth (m)

Temp (oC) Salinity (PSU) Density (Sigma-T g/cm3) Oxy (mg/l)
253 

Alcoa Puritan

Aug 9, 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550

Depth (m)

Sound Velocity (m/sec)
254 
255 

APPENDIX B 

Science Logs
Site Virginia

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

7/30/2004 21:33 VI 1 Sea Fan. Laser Distance is 4". Bio 1-1 2 Test fix here for collection 7/30/2004 - Sea Fan. Laser Distance is 4". Test fix here for collection Bio 1-2 7/30/2004 21:42 Sea Fan. Laser Distance is 4". Test fix here for collection Bio 1-3 7/30/2004 21:47 Vi 2 [n/a] Ship Telegraph [fix Vi 2 was taken at stern at 23:37] arch 1-4 7/30/2004 21:49 Ship Telegraph arch 1-5 7/30/2004 - Ship Telegraph arch 1-6 7/30/2004 [23:37] [Vi 2] [Stern] 7/30/2004 7/30/2004 23:57 Test Pic for Floc. Matter (Flash Test) - 1-7 7/30/2004 23:59 Test Pic for Floc. Matter (Flash Test) - 1-8 7/31/2004 0:15 Vi 3 Remains of net Trash 1-9 7/31/2004 - Remains of net Trash 1-10 7/31/2004 0:19 Sea Fan (rusticles to right) Bio 1-11 7/31/2004 0:23 Vi 4 Possible rivet holes [No rivets observed] arch 1-12 7/31/2004 0:30 Vi 5 coral (look to right second type) Bio 1-13 7/31/2004 0:34 Vi 6 Hatch arch 1-14 7/31/2004 0:36 batfish (?) Bio 1-15 7/31/2004 0:40 Vi 7 Coral Bio 1-16 7/31/2004 0:57 Vi 8 Brittle/Basket Star Bio 1-15 7/31/2004 1:13 Vi 9 Sea Anemone Bio 1-16 7/31/2004 1:24 Vi 10 [Bow Port] Corner (alleged) arch 1-17 7/31/2004 1:31 VI 11 Coral Bio 1-18 7/31/2004 1:58 Vi 12 Possible Rust/Steel Sample @ mag hit, aft of stern Bio 

256 

7/31/2004 2:00 Vi 13 Possible Rivet Hole [Not a rivet hole - biological origin] Arch 

7/31/2004 2:06 Vi 14 Vent Hole, No Pic Arch 7/31/2004 2:14 Vi 15 Possible Bollard Arch 7/31/2004 2:18 Vi 16 [Bow] Definite (lots sea whips) Arch 
Site Virginia

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

7/31/2004 

7/31/2004 7/31/2004 7/31/2004 7/31/2004 7/31/2004 7/31/2004 7:15 basket at bottom 7/31/2004 7:40 at basket 7/31/2004 8:01 1st fish trap from basket, going to 1000 ft out. Bio 7/31/2004 8:11 [Vi 17] large basket at 1000 ft, fix taken Bio 7/31/2004 8:22 Pulling trap away from basket Bio 7/31/2004 8:32 Vi 17 [n/a] End Time for Basket at 1000ft. Moving to Steel basket Bio 7/31/2004 8:39 at Basket small fish trap back to 1000 ft. Bio 7/31/2004 8:48 Vi 18 Small Fish trap Dropped Bio 7/31/2004 8:56 at basket for core sample plunger "d" Bio 7/31/2004 9:13 Vi 19 Core sampled "D", 1000 ft. LOST CORE Bio 7/31/2004 9:17 coming up to drop weights 7/31/2004 9:30 basket returned to surface 7/31/2004 10:22 ROV in the H2O 7/31/2004 10:41 ROV at basket 7/31/2004 [10:52] [Vi 20] Fix on basket 7/31/2004 11:19 Disconnected cable from basket 7/31/2004 11:38 set large trap close to wreck Bio 7/31/2004 11:58 Vi 20 large trap Bio  [Vi 21] 

257 

7/31/2004 12:52 Vi 21 crab/shrimp trap set Bio 

 [Vi 22] 7/31/2004 12:58 ROV returns to Basket 7/31/2004 13:06 Small fish trap retrieved from basket Bio 
Site Virginia

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

7/31/2004 13:13 Vi 22 small fish trap set Bio 

 [Vi 23] 7/31/2004 13:20 ROV returns to Basket 7/31/2004 13:24 Core "A" taken from Basket Bio 7/31/2004 13:30 ROV arrives at port side of wreck 7/31/2004 13:39 Vi "A" Core sample "A" collected Bio  [Vi 27] 7/31/2004 13:41 ROV leaves wreck 7/31/2004 13:51 Core tube "A" replaced in basket Bio E7/31/2004 14:02 Core tube "B" retrieved from basket Bio 7/31/2004 14:07 Vi "B" Core sample "B" collected 100 ft. from wreck Bio  [Vi 28] 7/31/2004 14:08 ROV leaves sampling site 7/31/2004 14:14 ROV returns to Basket 7/31/2004 14:17 core tube "b" returned to basket Bio 7/31/2004 14:19 core tube "c" taken from basket Bio 7/31/2004 14:33 Vi "C" core sample "C" collected 500 ft from wreck Bio  [Vi 29] 7/31/2004 14:34 ROV leaves sampling site 7/31/2004 14:41 ROV returns to Basket 7/31/2004 14:43 Core tube "c" returned to basket Bio 7/31/2004 14:50 Core tube "d" taken from basket Bio 7/31/2004 15:13 Vi "D" Core "D" collected 1000ft from wreck Bio  [Vi 30] 7/31/2004 15:14 ROV leaves sampling site 

258 

7/31/2004 15:31 ROV returns to Basket 

7/31/2004 15:36 Core tube "D" returned to basket Bio 7/31/2004 15:37 ROV leaves basket to collect bio samples Bio 7/31/2004 16:01 arrive at Vi1 fix; attempt to sample sea fan Bio 
Site Virginia

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

7/31/2004 16:05 soap fish observed at Vi 1 Bio 

7/31/2004 16:19 attempt to collect invert (nudi branch) at Vi1 Bio 7/31/2004 16:26 Invert collected (sea cucumber) seen in basket: suction Bio 7/31/2004 16:29 Sea Whip suction - sampled Bio 7/31/2004 16:42 Removed gregornian? From ship with claw Bio 7/31/2004 16:43 attempt to suck gregornian into back; sea whip went Bio  past screen; gregornian not seen in basket 7/31/2004 16:52 Picked up another gregornian Bio 7/31/2004 16:54 Sucked Gregornian into basket Bio 7/31/2004 16:59 Vi [24] invert cluster; took fix, survey said this was Vi 26 Bio  but Sonsub and bio/arch log shows this as Vi 23 7/31/2004 17:39 Sucked up possible invert Bio 7/31/2004 17:46 Branching coral (depth of 240 ft) is vaccumed into Bio  collection box; core was at Vi 23 7/31/2004 18:16 Arrive back at Vi 1 to attempt to sample sea fan Bio 7/31/2004 18:18 removed portion of sea fan Bio 7/31/2004 18:20 sea fan sucked into hose Bio 7/31/2004 18:34 toadfish in view at Vi 9 Bio 7/31/2004 18:37 Leaving Vi 9; tried to locate anemone but no luck Bio 7/31/2004 18:59 broke off and sucked up a sea whip at random spot Bio  near bow 7/31/2004 19:09 new soft coral observed Bio E7/31/2004 19:14 small coral colony Bio 7/31/2004 19:19 suction-sample small branching hard coral colony Bio 7/31/2004 19:22 sampled branching coral; possibly black coral Bio 

259 

7/31/2004 19:24 small fish observed Bio 

7/31/2004 7/31/2004 20:06-20:14 rusticle gathering at Vi 12; small sample from overhang Bio  hull/decking? 
Site Virginia

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

7/31/2004 20:15 going to steel basket 

7/31/2004 20:28 rusticle in bucket. Collect large and small traps Bio  at 1000 ft 7/31/2004 21:01 small fish trap recovered Bio 7/31/2004 21:17 large trap recovered Bio 7/31/2004 [21:45] [Vi 25] [Quick Fix] 7/31/2004 23:37 ROV put back in water to retrieve remaining traps Bio 7/31/2004 23:50 large fish trap retrieved Bio 7/31/2004 23:55 test photo of fish in trap (no flash) Bio 1-19 8/1/2004 0:01 Large fish trap placed in basket Bio  [0:08] [Vi 26] [Basket Location] 8/1/2004 0:34 small fish trap recovered Bio 8/1/2004 0:43 small fish trap placed in basket Bio 8/1/2004 0:58 crab trap recovered will bring up with ROV. Recovering ROV Bio 8/1/2004 8/1/2004 

Site Investigative Survey South of Virginia (Possible Debris)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

8/1/2004 1:55 ROV down. Depth 284 18/1/2004 2:01:31 SOL 347 8/1/2004 2:29 Holo-square 22.9' across 

260 

8/1/2004 2:42 Holo-Square 22' across 

8/1/2004 2:45 Scatter Test 8/1/2004 2:58 Cont Survey 38/1/2004 3:21 Hole- ~ 20' around magnetic anomaly a 8/1/2004 3:37 No more mag hits, pull up and change sites a 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 8:45 Dominator on site 98/1/2004 9:24 ROV wet 8/1/2004 9:34 ROV sonar contact 8/1/2004 9:42 ROV video contact 8/1/2004 9:58 HA-1 coral next to stairs (port) bio HA 1-1 8/1/2004 10:25 Lori's experiment photo I bio HA1-2 8/1/2004 10:27 HA-2 Lori's experiment in place bio 8/1/2004 10:30 Lori's experiment Photo II / coral bio HA2-1 (1-3) 8/1/2004 10:32 Lori's experiment Photo II / coral bio HA 2-2 (1-4) 8/1/2004 10:43 Stern-net trash 8/1/2004 10:47 HA-3 stern fix arch 108/1/2004 10:54 HA-4 coral on port stern rail bio 8/1/2004 11:11 HA-5 coral clump/ port side bio HA 1-5 8/1/2004 11:24 HA-6 red coral mark for urchin collection bio HA 1-6 8/1/2004 11:36 HA-7 davit port side midship superstructure arch 8/1/2004 11:44 HA-8 forward davit port side midship superstructure arch 8/1/2004 11:47 HA-9 forward end port side arch 118/1/2004 12:00 HA-10 anomoly (life boat?) corals arch/bio 8/1/2004 12:12 HA-11 railway? Beside port superstructure in mud arch 8/1/2004 12:19 HA-12 Bow of ship, pictures are out of sync arch HA 1-9  missing log photos 8/1/2004 (1-7) and (1-8) arch 

261 

8/1/2004 12:25 Bow of ship Arch 

8/1/2004 12:30 hermit crab bio HA 1-10 8/1/2004 12:34 going down starboard side of vessel (wreck) arch 8/1/2004 12:35 cucumber? bio 8/1/2004 12:37 hermit crab bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 12:38 hermit crab bio 8/1/2004 12:40 corals and crab bio 8/1/2004 12:41 urchin, corals bio HA 1-11 8/1/2004 12:42 fish (amber jack) bio 8/1/2004 12:43 HA-13 coral (fix sponge, sea anemone) bio HA 1-12 8/1/2004 12:45 hermit crab (near bow) bio 8/1/2004 12:47 turned back to railing (changed  direction same as before) 8/1/2004 12:49 resume where left off 8/1/2004 12:50 hermit crab bio 8/1/2004 12:51 fish, coral bio 8/1/2004 12:52 fish, coral, hermit crab bio 128/1/2004 12:53 HA-14 basket star bio HA 1-13 8/1/2004 12:55 coral bio 8/1/2004 12:57 more coral bio 8/1/2004 12:58 coral, fish bio 8/1/2004 13:01 same fish as before, closer picture bio 8/1/2004 13:02 jacks bio 8/1/2004 13:04 school of small fish bio 8/1/2004 13:05 jacks bio 8/1/2004 13:06 grouper? (small fish too) bio 8/1/2004 13:07 coral, small fish bio 8/1/2004 13:14 fish bio 

262 

8/1/2004 13:15 coral (backside of superstructure), fish bio 

8/1/2004 13:16 ring of coral bio 8/1/2004 13:18 school of fish bio 8/1/2004 13:22 coral bio 8/1/2004 13:22 bollard arch 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 13:24 mounting frames arch 8/1/2004 13:26 coral bio 8/1/2004 13:26 valve/ shutoff arch 8/1/2004 13:28 coral on mast structure arch/bio 8/1/2004 13:29 valve arch 8/1/2004 13:31 HA-15 School of fish/coral bio HA 1-14 8/1/2004 13:33 coral on midship structure arch/bio HA1-15 8/1/2004 13:34 coral on midship structure bio HA 1-16 8/1/2004 13:34 school at fish around broken pipe arch/bio HA 1-17 8/1/2004 13:42 valve arch 8/1/2004 13:45 damaged structure/hole arch 8/1/2004 13:48 separated hull plates (picture) aft at hole arch 8/1/2004 13:48 HA-16 stairs arch HA 1-18 8/1/2004 13:53 stock-small forward at main funnel arch 8/1/2004 13:56 remains of smoke stack/ funnel arch 8/1/2004 13:57 HA-17 funnel-fold in onself -> bow arch HA 1-19 8/1/2004 14:02 grouper bio HA 1-20 138/1/2004 14:03 rusticle arch 8/1/2004 14:10 nets on stern trash 8/1/2004 14:11 davit on stern arch 8/1/2004 14:23 floats from shrimp nets trash 8/1/2004 14:27 bollard arch 

263 

8/1/2004 14:28 winch/windless arch 

8/1/2004 14:37 gun shaped structure/ fire fighting? arch 8/1/2004 14:45 *sub recovery from profile*  158/1/2004 15:33 scatter test ends 8/1/2004 15:52 SOL #120 @ 1kt/ bearing 212 degrees 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 16:20 HA-18 anemones bio 168/1/2004 16:25 batfish observed bio 8/1/2004 16:29 batfish observed bio 8/1/2004 16:33 HA-19 unknown invert? bio 8/1/2004 16:40 unknown invert? Callapa? bio 8/1/2004 16:42 invert bio 8/1/2004 16:45 invert bio 8/1/2004 16:51 invert bio HA 1-21 8/1/2004 16:53 fish bio 8/1/2004 16:55 shell bio 8/1/2004 16:56 scorpion fish bio 8/1/2004 16:57 HA-20 pipeline a HA 1-22 8/1/2004 17:00 crab p. 2 bio HA 1-23 8/1/2004 17:01 HA-21 pipeline a HA1-24 8/1/2004 17:03 crab pic bio HA1-25 8/1/2004 17:04 invert bio 8/1/2004 17:05 batfish pic bio HA1-26 8/1/2004 17:06 HA-22 pipeline a HA1-27 8/1/2004 17:17 flatfish pic bio HA1-28 178/1/2004 17:19 burrow with unknown white invert bio HA1-29 8/1/2004 17:20 EOL #120 8/1/2004 17:23 SOL#121 8/1/2004 17:24 seabass? Pic bio HA1-30 

264 

8/1/2004 17:28 fish bio 

8/1/2004 17:30 crabs (purse crab) bio 8/1/2004 17:34 invert bio 8/1/2004 17:34 HA-23 pipeline a 8/1/2004 17:35 small fishes bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 17:37 HA-24 pipeline a 8/1/2004 17:38 batfish bio 8/1/2004 17:39 fish bio 8/1/2004 17:40 invert bio 8/1/2004 17:40 invert bio 8/1/2004 17:43 fish bio 8/1/2004 17:45 fish bio 8/1/2004 17:47 shrimp? Shells bio 8/1/2004 17:48 fish bio 8/1/2004 17:49 batfish bio 8/1/2004 17:50 shell bio 8/1/2004 17:51 fish bio 8/1/2004 17:52 invert bio 8/1/2004 17:55 fish, crab bio 8/1/2004 17:56 fish bio 8/1/2004 17:57 invert bio 8/1/2004 17:58 ? bio 8/1/2004 17:59 invert bio 8/1/2004 18:00 fish, shell bio 8/1/2004 18:01 crab bio 8/1/2004 18:02 invert bio 8/1/2004 18:03 invert bio 8/1/2004 18:04 invert bio 

265 

8/1/2004 18:05 shell (2) bio 

8/1/2004 18:05 fish bio 8/1/2004 18:06 invert bio 8/1/2004 18:07 fish bio 8/1/2004 18:08 invert bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 18:09 invert bio 8/1/2004 18:09 crab? Shrimp? bio 8/1/2004 18:11 shell (2) bio 8/1/2004 18:12 crab? bio 8/1/2004 18:14 hermit crab bio 8/1/2004 18:15 HA-25 sea star bio 8/1/2004 18:17 flatfish bio 8/1/2004 18:18 batfish bio End of T8/1/2004 18:19 shell bio 8/1/2004 18:21 invert bio 8/1/2004 18:22 shell bio 8/1/2004 18:25 shell bio 8/1/2004 18:28 cucumber? Fireworm? bio 8/1/2004 18:29 fish and crab bio HA1-31 8/1/2004 18:32 fish bio HA1-32 8/1/2004 18:34 windless arch 8/1/2004 18:38 fish bio 188/1/2004 18:40 shrimp, fish and coral bio 8/1/2004 18:41 shell bio 8/1/2004 18:42 fish bio 8/1/2004 18:43 fish bio 8/1/2004 18:43 fish bio 8/1/2004 18:44 fish bio 

266 

8/1/2004 18:46 fish bio 

8/1/2004 18:47 fish (2:00 min), fish bio 8/1/2004 18:48 branching coral bio 8/1/2004 18:50 invert bio 8/1/2004 18:51 fish bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 18:53 fish bio 8/1/2004 18:54 fish bio 8/1/2004 18:55 shell bio 8/1/2004 18:56 sea star, shell bio HA1-33 8/1/2004 18:57 sea star bio HA1-34 8/1/2004 18:57 bat fish bio 8/1/2004 18:58 invert bio 8/1/2004 19:05 fish bio 8/1/2004 19:06 hermit crabs bio 8/1/2004 19:09 invertebrate-tubular bio 8/1/2004 19:11 shell, empty? bio 8/1/2004 19:11 invert bio 8/1/2004 19:17 fish in hole bio 8/1/2004 19:22 invert bio 8/1/2004 19:24 fish, small on bottom bio 8/1/2004 19:27 batfish bio 8/1/2004 19:28 invert bio 8/1/2004 19:30 invert, shell bio 8/1/2004 19:35 anemones bio 8/1/2004 19:36 anemones bio 8/1/2004 19:37 shell (2) bio 8/1/2004 19:38 shell bio 8/1/2004 19:39 hermit crab bio 

267 

8/1/2004 19:41 hermit crab bio 19

8/1/2004 19:42 shell bio 8/1/2004 19:42 fish bio 8/1/2004 19:43 shell bio 8/1/2004 19:45 invert bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 19:46 binver bio 8/1/2004 19:52 tile fish bio 8/1/2004 19:54 fish, small bio 8/1/2004 19:55 fish, small bio 8/1/2004 19:57 shell bio 8/1/2004 19:58 crab- dead? Upside down? bio 8/1/2004 20:02 shell bio 8/1/2004 20:04 shell (2) bio 8/1/2004 20:05 fish bio 8/1/2004 20:09 sponge? Probably echinoderm bio 8/1/2004 20:11 shrimp in holes bio 8/1/2004 20:16 echinoderm bio 8/1/2004 20:18 shrimp? bio 8/1/2004 20:21 shell bio 8/1/2004 20:21 echinoderm bio 8/1/2004 20:23 echinoderm bio 8/1/2004 20:24 tube worms bio 8/1/2004 20:30 sea heart bio 8/1/2004 20:33 crab bio 8/1/2004 20:36 squid bio 8/1/2004 20:43 fish bio 8/1/2004 20:49 scorpion fish bio 208/1/2004 20:51 SOL #119 

268 

8/1/2004 20:54 sea heart bio 

8/1/2004 20:56 lobsters bio 8/1/2004 21:00 fish, sea robin? bio 8/1/2004 21:03 invert bio 8/1/2004 21:05 zoom on fish bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 21:08 spider crab bio 8/1/2004 21:09 small fish bio 8/1/2004 21:10 eel zoom bio 8/1/2004 21:12 invert bio 8/1/2004 21:12 crab bio 8/1/2004 21:14 lobster bio 8/1/2004 21:15 invert bio 8/1/2004 21:19 batfish bio 8/1/2004 21:19 crab bio 8/1/2004 21:20 HA-26 invert, soft coral? bio 8/1/2004 21:24 invert bio 8/1/2004 21:25 inverts bio 8/1/2004 21:26 bryozoan, zoom? bio 8/1/2004 21:28 invert bio 8/1/2004 21:29 bryazoan? bio 8/1/2004 21:34 invert bio 8/1/2004 21:34 lobsters bio 8/1/2004 21:35 scorpion fish bio HA 1-35 8/1/2004 21:37 invert bio 8/1/2004 21:45 invert zoom bio 8/1/2004 21:46 crab, wormtube, zoom bio 8/1/2004 21:46 batfish bio 

269 

8/1/2004 21:48 fish bio 

8/1/2004 21:49 fish pic bio HA 1-36 8/1/2004 21:50 super zoom fish bio 218/1/2004 21:52 crab and scorpion fish bio HA 1-37 8/1/2004 21:52 crab and scorpion fish bio HA 1-38 8/1/2004 21:53 zoom on scorpion fish bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 21:54 amberjacks visit bio 8/1/2004 22:00 after about 21:00 starting to mark fishon  sonar also turbidity up 8/1/2004 22:02 batfish bio 8/1/2004 22:04 fish bio 8/1/2004 22:06 seabass bio 8/1/2004 22:06 eel zoom bio 8/1/2004 22:09 fish bio 8/1/2004 22:12 fish bio 8/1/2004 22:14 starfish bio 8/1/2004 22:15 suction eel seastar bio 8/1/2004 22:22 coke can trash 8/1/2004 22:28 hermit crab bio 8/1/2004 22:29 debris arch 8/1/2004 22:30 coral bio 8/1/2004 22:31 large burrow bio 8/1/2004 22:32 debris arch 8/1/2004 22:37 fish sample collected bio 8/1/2004 22:45 shiny metal object trash 8/1/2004 22:46 HA-27 anemones bio 8/1/2004 22:54 fish sample collected bio 8/1/2004 23:07 burrowing invert bio 228/1/2004 23:17 grouper bio HA 1-39 

270 

8/1/2004 23:17 grouper bio HA 1-40 

8/1/2004 23:23 grouper bio HA 1-41 8/1/2004 23:28 batfish bio 8/1/2004 23:35 redfish bio 8/1/2004 23:36 grouper bio HA 1-42 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/1/2004 23:39 anemone? bio 8/1/2004 23:52 hermit crab bio 8/1/2004 23:55 pipeline  - - shift change 238/2/2004 0:16 eol #119 8/2/2004 0:18 SOL #118 (1000 ft long) 8/2/2004 0:23 pipeline 8/2/2004 0:24 pipeline 8/2/2004 0:41 flounder bio 8/2/2004 0:59 batfish bio 8/2/2004 1:00 sea cucumber bio 8/2/2004 1:09 crab bio 18/2/2004 2:02 eol #118 8/2/2004 2:04 SOL #116 8/2/2004 2:18 starfish bio 28/2/2004 2:40 HA -28 survey hit 8/2/2004 2:59 EOL #116 8/2/2004 3:01 SOL #115 8/2/2004 3:14 HA-29 slurp gun, unknown object bio 38/2/2004 3:48 batfish bio 8/2/2004 3:49 EOL #115 8/2/2004 3:50 SOL #114 8/2/2004 3:56 batfish bio 

271 

8/2/2004 3:58 shrimp bio 

8/2/2004 4:02 batfish bio 8/2/2004 4:05 EOL #114 8/2/2004 4:08 heading over to line 122 8/2/2004 4:19 sitting on seafloor lights off 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/2/2004 4:39 lights back on- moving 8/2/2004 4:13 started line #122 48/2/2004 4:46 stopped the ROV, moving TMS 8/2/2004 4:49 ROV started again (line 122) 8/2/2004 4:56 EOL #122 8/2/2004 4:57 started line #123 8/2/2004 5:00 batfish bio 8/2/2004 5:03 shrimp bio 8/2/2004 5:15 EOL #123 8/2/2004 5:16 SOL #124 8/2/2004 5:33 EOL #124 58/2/2004 5:33 SOL #125 8/2/2004 5:44 randalia (crab from leucosiidae) bio 8/2/2004 5:52 EOL #125 8/2/2004 5:52 SOL 126 8/2/2004 6:11 EOL #126 8/2/2004 6:31 cables, bow stern arch HA 1-43 68/2/2004 6:32 writing? Before blowings arch 8/2/2004 6:36 hand railing, starboard arch 8/2/2004 6:39 winch, both stbd and port, portside arch  buried in mud (3/4) buried 8/2/2004 6:43 rail and stack, beam of ship~63ft arch 

272 

8/2/2004 6:44 bollards arch 

8/2/2004 6:45 drop down x 2 arch 8/2/2004 6:49 mast flattened arch 8/2/2004 6:51 broken mast, end 52 ft from bow stern to arch 8/2/2004 6:54 mast end portside hand rail arch 8/2/2004 6:55 port winch below deck drops down shaft arch 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

 to mast (80 ft) 8/2/2004 7:06 mast top (40 ft) arch 8/2/2004 7:10 rope/wire from mast arch 8/2/2004 7:13 top of mast moving down (forward to bow) arch 8/2/2004 7:21 start mosaic top of bow winch 24 ft from bow arch  stem to winch. 8/2/2004 First line is 3 degree heading and altitude  is ~6ft 8/2/2004 7:30 raise altitude to 10 ft arch 78/2/2004 7:30-7:50 stop line 1 portside bow arch 8/2/2004 7:32 suck up rare crab bio 8/2/2004 7:36 portside line 2, bow mosaic; headline 4 arch  degrees, elevation at 8/2/2004 start 10ft->4ft arch 8/2/2004 7:43 EOL #2, back to bow arch 8/2/2004 8:07 SOL #3, portside bow, 4 degrees, arch  altitude 6 ft 8/2/2004 8:14 winch and cathead, EOL #3, back to bow arch 8/2/2004 8:18 SOL #4, heading 4-6 degrees, 6ft arch 8/2/2004 8:20 just passing cathead on port side arch 8/2/2004 8:23 square box with stack on top of it, just arch  beside mast-> 8/2/2004 going further slightly past mast. Done line 4 arch End of T

273 

8/2/2004 8:30 SOL #5, same elevation arch 

8/2/2004 8:32 rails and vent arch 8/2/2004 8:34 end of drive shaft arch 8/2/2004 8:35 rollar with pipe running perpendicular arch 8/2/2004 8:35 EOL #5 arch 8
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/2/2004 8:40 SOL #6 arch 8/2/2004 8:47 EOL #6, starboard moving arch 8/2/2004 8:52 SOL # 7 starboard closest to center then arch  move outward 8/2/2004 8:55 winch 1 arch 8/2/2004 8:58 starboard baby bollards just in front of winch arch 8/2/2004 8:59 EOL #7 arch 8/2/2004 9:07 bow mosaic. Start of line 8, 2nd line of arch  starboard bow 8/2/2004 9:09 winch arch 8/2/2004 9:13 small bollard with piplines arch 8/2/2004 9:14 EOL 8 (2nd line stbd) arch 8/2/2004 9:19 SOL #9 (3rd line stbd) arch 8/2/2004 9:20 chain to winch arch 8/2/2004 9:21 vent holes in deck, wooden? arch 8/2/2004 9:22 handrail, stairs (ladders) possible walkway arch  suspended 8/2/2004 9:24 box with holes arch 8/2/2004 9:25 EOL #9 (3rd line stbd) arch 8/2/2004 9:29 starboard side at deck outside viewing arch  45 degrees to stern 8/2/2004 9:31 moving down stbd side of hull arch 8/2/2004 9:33 possible handrail posts arch 9

274 

8/2/2004 9:34 raise of camphered edge arch 

8/2/2004 9:34 another camphered arch 8/2/2004 9:35 edge, hole at 22 ft off bottom, back up arch  to edge 8/2/2004 9:36 continuing on by edge arch 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/2/2004 9:37 davit up a deck arch 8/2/2004 9:38 corner of pilot house moving aft to stern arch 8/2/2004 9:39 HA-30 stbd side davit just after of pilot wheel house arch 8/2/2004 9:42 aft corner of wheel house arch 8/2/2004 9:43 drop down to decking arch 8/2/2004 9:44 to camphered edge below is hole to confirm arch 8/2/2004 9:52 HA-31 bow fix -> bow #2 arch 8/2/2004 9:56 long lines possible? arch 8/2/2004 10:06 moving boat/rov to port side of stern arch 8/2/2004 10:17 at portside stern arch 8/2/2004 10:17 camphered edge port side, moving aft arch 8/2/2004 10:19 1st porthole moving aft to stern arch 8/2/2004 10:20 handrail sticking out? Can't count arch 8/2/2004 10:21 move to stern portholes arch 8/2/2004 10:28 HA-32 stern get fish as 2nd stern # 2nd bow/stern 8/2/2004 11:00 start 1st bioline 108/2/2004 11:30 buried red and white fish, escaped, chased bio  away by conger eels 8/2/2004 11:25 start 2nd biol line 8/2/2004 12:15 end 2nd bioline 118/2/2004 12:18 start 3 bioline 8/2/2004 12:36 collection, flatfish bio 128/2/2004 12:38 collection bio 

275 

8/2/2004 12:40 batfish collected bio 

8/2/2004 12:47 collected fish bio 8/2/2004 12:49 collected invert bio 8/2/2004 12:50 invert bio 8/2/2004 12:51 collected invert bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/2/2004 12:53 check for invert bio 8/2/2004 12:54 collected invert bio 8/2/2004 12:55 invert bio 8/2/2004 12:56 collected invert bio 8/2/2004 12:58 fish collected bio 8/2/2004 13:00 fish collected bio 8/2/2004 13:01 jack bio 8/2/2004 13:04 end of bioline 3 8/2/2004 13:13 ROV brought back up to surface bio End of T8/2/2004 15:35 Basket in water bio 8/2/2004 16:43 ROV placed back in water bio 8/2/2004 16:52 ROV reaches basket bio 168/2/2004 16:53 basket hits bottom bio 8/2/2004 16:55 ROV picks up large fish trap bio 8/2/2004 17:00 HA-33 large fish trap set 1000 ft from wreck bio 8/2/2004 17:02 ROV arrives at basket bio 8/2/2004 17:03 ROV picks up small fish trap bio 8/2/2004 17:08 HA-34 small fish trap set ~30 south of large fish trap bio 8/2/2004 17:09 ROV reaches basket bio 8/2/2004 17:10 shrimp traps bio 8/2/2004 17:14 HA-35 shrimp traps placed ~30 ft north of large bio  fish trap 8/2/2004 17:16 ROV reaches basket bio 

276 

8/2/2004 17:17 Core tube "D" retrieved bio 

8/2/2004 17:22 HA-D Core sample "D" taken 1000 ft from wreck bio 8/2/2004 17:29 Core tube "D" returned to basket bio 8/2/2004 17:30 basket raised, begin moving to location bio  closer to wreck 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/2/2004 18:06 basket placed in new location (200 ft east bio 17 of wreck) 8/2/2004 18:22 Large fish trap picked up bio 8/2/2004 18:34 test picture taken- now using photo software bio test 8/2/2004 18:35 HA-36 large fish trap placed bio 8/2/2004 18:43 shark bio 8/2/2004 18:44 flipped trap (large fish trap) to correct bio  orientation 8/2/2004 (weights on bottom) 8/2/2004 18:46 ROV reaches basket bio 8/2/2004 18:51 ROV picks up small fish trap bio 188/2/2004 18:54 ROV reaches basket bio 8/2/2004 18:55 ROV picks up crab trap bio 8/2/2004 19:00 HA-37 crab trap placed bio 8/2/2004 19:04 HA-38 small fish trap placed bio 8/2/2004 19:08 Core "A" taken from basket bio 8/2/2004 19:12 HA-A sample "A"collected on core tube; sample bio  taken next to wreck 8/2/2004 19:18 core tube "A" placed in basket bio 8/2/2004 19:19 Core "B" taken from basket bio 8/2/2004 19:21 HA-B Core "B" sample collected 100 ft from wreck bio 8/2/2004 19:24 Core "B" placed back in basket bio 8/2/2004 19:28 Core "C" taken from basket bio 

277 

8/2/2004 19:34 HA-C Core "C" accidentally dropped before bio 

 reaching 500 ft mark 8/2/2004 from the wreck; enough sediment has bio  been collected to keep 8/2/2004 despite the accided. bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/2/2004 19:40 too much sediment has fallen out of core bio  tube "C"; core tube "E" 8/2/2004 will be used to take an alternate sample bio 8/2/2004 19:43 Core tube "C" returned to basket bio 8/2/2004 19:44 Core "E" taken from basket bio 8/2/2004 19:51 HA-E Core sample "E" collected 500 ft from wreck bio 8/2/2004 20:02 core tube "E" placed in basket bio End of T8/2/2004 20:11 coral pic bio HA 1-44 8/2/2004 20:11 coral pic bio HA 1-45 8/2/2004 20:16 coral suction sample bio 8/2/2004 20:17 coral sample bio HA 1-46 208/2/2004 20:18 occulina sample bio 8/2/2004 20:24 urchin sample bio 8/2/2004 20:36 coral and fish sample bio 8/2/2004 20:40 light sampling bio 8/2/2004 20:44 fish/coral sampling bio 8/2/2004 20:49 attempt fish sample bio 8/2/2004 21:01 fish sample bio 8/2/2004 21:05 fish sample bio 8/2/2004 21:45 fish/coral sampling bio 218/2/2004 21:51 reef picture bio HA 1-47 8/2/2004 21:55 grouper picture bio HA 1-48 8/2/2004 21:56 grouper picture bio HA 1-49 

278 

8/2/2004 21:57 grouper picture bio HA 1-50 

8/2/2004 21:58 grouper picture bio HA 1-51 8/2/2004 21:59 grouper picture bio HA 1-52 8/2/2004 22:00 grouper picture bio HA 1-53 8/2/2004 22:02 rusticle collection bio 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/2/2004 22:13 grouper picture bio HA 1-54 8/2/2004 22:27 sample collected bio 228/2/2004 22:33 fish sample bio 8/2/2004 22:43 grouper picture bio HA 1-55 8/2/2004 22:45 coral collected bio 8/2/2004 22:47 yellow coral collected and crab bio 8/2/2004 22:47 HA-39 rusticle bio 8/2/2004 22:55 grouper picture bio HA 1-56 8/2/2004 22:55 grouper picture bio HA 1-57 8/2/2004 23:10 basket star collected bio 8/2/2004 23:10 heading towards basket bio 8/2/2004 23:26 basket star placed in yellow basket unknown bio  letter below k and heads back 8/3/2004 0:00 fish; ROV returns to wreck bio HA 1-58 238/3/2004 0:30 Dory bio 8/3/2004 0:38 roughtongue seabass? bio 8/3/2004 0:52 scaphella sp bio 08/3/2004 0:54 crab bio 8/3/2004 1:03 crab bio 8/3/2004 1:10 crab bio 8/3/2004 1:19 fishes bio 8/3/2004 2:02 coral bio 18/3/2004 2:35 heading down portside hunting for bio 

279 

 rusticles... locked and loaded 

8/3/2004 3:04 possible rivet-based rusticle trying to bio HA 1-59 2 retrieve stein. Ok 8/3/2004 3:17 nodule bio HA 1-60 8/3/2004 3:22 rusticles (2) maybe on railing covered in bio HA 1-61 
Site Halo

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

 algae/coral 8/3/2004 3:28 another rusticle on railing bio HA 1-62 8/3/2004 3:54 rusticle on hull bio HA 1-63 End of T8/3/2004 3:55 another rusticle on hull- did stein get it? bio HA 1-64 38/3/2004 Knocked concretion off hull revealing original bio HA 1-65  steel 8/3/2004 4:26 recover small fish trap near hull bio 8/3/2004 4:33 recover small crab trap near hull bio 8/3/2004 4:34 one shrimp trap fell off crab trap bio 8/3/2004 4:39 crab trap in basket (from hull) bio 8/3/2004 4:42 fish trap in basket (from hull) bio 8/3/2004 4:46 recover loose crab trap bio 8/3/2004 4:50 recover large fish trap bio 8/3/2004 4:55 large fish trap in basket bio 8/3/2004 4:56 loose crab trap in basket bio 8/3/2004 5:07 recover experiment from wreck (lori) bio 48/3/2004 5:11 experiment in basket bio 8/3/2004 5:26 attached hook to basket bio 8/3/2004 5:31 move ROV/ Basket 1000 ft bio 8/3/2004 6:00 recovered small fish trap (white) bio 8/3/2004 6:07 recovered large fish trap bio 68/3/2004 6:16 recovered minnow traps bio 8/3/2004 6:15 Basket off bottom bio 

280 

8/3/2004 6:20 Basket on Deck bio 

8/3/2004 6:27 ROV on Deck bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/3/2004 23:30 ROV hit bottom 8/4/2004 0:15 arrive on site ship (upright), bow 28/4/2004 0:17 GP-1 bollard, handrails port side coral (large colony all Arch/Bio 8/4/2004 along handrail, large number of colonies 8/4/2004 0:20 bow-tip port side anchor, large hole on port side a 8/4/2004 0:24 GP-2 below anchor. Stem tip: large anemone, corals Arch/Bio 

 all along handrails 

8/4/2004 0:25 4 large bollards a 8/4/2004 0:27 start portside recon. (bow ~50ft off bottom) a 8/4/2004 0:28 camphor? down, hand rails with anemones Arch/Bio 8/4/2004 0:30 2 bollards, portside, between rails a 8/4/2004 0:33 part of davits, passing a 8/4/2004 0:34 GP-3 pilot house, part of mast, flat top and wires fallen a 

 over just beside pilot house 

8/4/2004 0:36 hold- aft of pilot house, catwalk behind hold large a 8/4/2004 buckle on portside; aft of pilot house 8/4/2004 0:39 pulley head? a 8/4/2004 0:41 GP-4 large coral thickets bio 8/4/2004 0:42 rivets and hull plating; chain and rails arch 8/4/2004 0:43 straighten out, definite buckle a 8/4/2004 0:42 box, ladder to engine room, portholes arch 8/4/2004 0:46 GP-5 large corals growing on davits bio 8/4/2004 0:48 drop down, continue onto portside, portholes arch 

281 

8/4/2004 0:49 hole in decking, deck, house fallen in? a 

8/4/2004 0:50 stern end, blown out, twisted debris, arch 

 moving around stern, keel clearly visible 

8/4/2004 0:52 winch visible, small corals and anemone arch/bio 8/4/2004 0:54 rusticles on stern, eel, rivet line, hanging rusticle, arch/bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

 fish, chain and twisted metal 

8/4/2004 hull, fish, rusticle rivet 8/4/2004 1:02 GP-6 galathaid crab, hanging rusticle bio 8/4/2004 1:04 begin mud line survey, portside, fish picture bio 8/4/2004 1:07 bow, does not appear to be scour around hull, arch 

 fish around base of keel 

8/4/2004 1:08 hawse hole? arch 8/4/2004 1:09 sea slug, sea roach bio 8/4/2004 1:10 fish, cucumber bio 8/4/2004 1:11 large anemones bio 8/4/2004 1:12 black tip shark bio 8/4/2004 1:13 GP-7 scallops, attached to port hull bio 8/4/2004 1:14 crab, large buckly (start) bio 8/4/2004 1:15 GP-8 fish, hanging rusticle, nodules bio 8/4/2004 1:17 more rust hanging bio 8/4/2004 1:17 fish from side moving down to mid line bio 8/4/2004 1:18 fish, venemous, dropped off from stern to bio 

 bow ~10 ft 

8/4/2004 1:19 GP-9 rusticles from hulll from both complete and broken bio 

 scouring 

8/4/2004 1:20 wireline coming down, elevation move up 2 ft. arch 

 rivet line 

8/4/2004 1:22 GP-10 artifact 1- leather or rubber gasket arch 8/4/2004 1:23 chain with coral, anemone and fish, cucumber, bio 

282 

 scallops and coral debris 

8/4/2004 1:25 coral debris with new growth and anemone bio 8/4/2004 1:27 GP-11 pipe up against hull arch 8/4/2004 1:29 crab and rusticle, hanging, scallops and fish bio 8/4/2004 1:31 GP-12 hanging rusticle, very good samples with rust rivers bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 1:35 hull, exagerated arch 8/4/2004 1:37 GP-13 buckle, mud line shows crinkle buckles, fish, arch 

 anemones, artifact 2 

8/4/2004 1:38 tip stern, coral along mud line bio 8/4/2004 1:40 anchor, port arch 8/4/2004 1:42 possible gulf penn name on portside arch 8/4/2004 1:48 tip of stern arch 8/4/2004 1:51 stbd coral on side. Large coral thicket, all on bio 

 handrails 

8/4/2004 1:56 ladder on deck, right at camphor down, ropes arch 

 and wires 

8/4/2004 1:57 hol in deck, linsting to stbd arch 8/4/2004 1:59 GP-14 wall of coral, estimate~15 ft tall, 40-55ft off mud bio 

 line, ROV 

8/4/2004 2:02 davit with coral arch/bio 8/4/2004 2:03 mast fallen across deck hand rails laying in arch 8/4/2004 2:04 GP-15 large amound of fish around mast bio 8/4/2004 2:05 wench, next to stand mast, wire from mast to arch 

 pilot house 

8/4/2004 2:07 large amount of coral up mast; more growth on N, bio 

 mast 60' from floor 

8/4/2004 2:09 continue on survey 8/4/2004 2:10 tear in plating? Or door (loading) arch 8/4/2004 2:12 tear in deck-seam; biological unknown arch/bio 

283 

8/4/2004 2:13 GP-16 hull buckle with cables; 15-18' from sea floor to arch 

 deck 

8/4/2004 2:16 GP-17 stairs, box, just in front of engine room; arch 

 experiment placement from 

8/4/2004 stbd (Platform F) 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 2:21-2:23 Placement of small experiment bio 8/4/2004 2:28 GP-18 2nd wall of coral on engine room, fish 10' of coral bio 

 wall, fish vacuumed up 

8/4/2004 2:33 GP-19 back to recon ; move up aft along engine room arch 

 structure. Port hole with glass 

8/4/2004 2:35 anenome on wire with coral, hole in decking, bio 

 fish at coral 

8/4/2004 2:36 At end of engine room arch 8/4/2004 2:36 GP-20 Davit with coral can see decking below arch/bio 8/4/2004 2:37 twisted stern, hull plating twisted back; arch/bio 

 lots of fish located at stern 

8/4/2004 around break 8/4/2004 2:39 Moving forward on stbd to look for funnels arch 8/4/2004 2:42 Decking gone, hole visible into ship structure arch 8/4/2004 2:42 Vent visible, hatch arch 8/4/2004 2:42 Funnel hole clearly visible arch 8/4/2004 2:43 Large school of fish by coral (Fix GP-19 &18) bio 8/4/2004 2:45 Mud line; stern rip on steel plates water tight arch 8/4/2004 seam? Moving forward from stern to tip 8/4/2004 2:47 GP-21 Artifact 3- on floor; fish; corals arch/bio 8/4/2004 2:48 buckle visible on mud line arch 8/4/2004 2:52 GP-22 rusticles down hull plating, more plate like on hull; bio 8/4/2004 not necessary running down 8/4/2004 2:54 ~194 ft on stbd side; 486 ft to stern 

284 

8/4/2004 2:55 Slime cloud; rusticle growth large on hull plates; arch/bio 

 slime cloud large: 2-3 ft off floor up to bow tip 

8/4/2004 covered throughout base with slime cloud 8/4/2004 2:59 GP-23 Large rusticles (pectorals) possible, layering visible bio 8/4/2004 3:00 shrimp vacuum up bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 3:04 Caved in around base (40' from bow), large arch 8/4/2004 3:06 Rusticles hanging just in front of the caved in bio 

 section 

8/4/2004 3:07 Bow stem arch 8/4/2004 3:15 Recon over center of bow to stern arch 8/4/2004 3:40 GP-24 fix on rusticles and wheel (steeing wheel) helm arch/bio 8/4/2004 3:44 fish in water column bio 8/4/2004 3:44 stern/starboard side davit? arch 8/4/2004 3:46 hole in stern arch 8/4/2004 3:46 scorpion fish bio 8/4/2004 3:47 fish at stern bio 8/4/2004 3:49 skylights on stern arch 8/4/2004 3:49 wheel possibly on a valve, took a picture, arch 

 same as wheel from Fix GP24 

8/4/2004 3:51 End Recon; start survey- Bio and Arch 

 moving to lines 

8/4/2004 3:55 GP 25 Debris; artifact arch 8/4/2004 3:55 fish next to artifact Ophididae (2) bio 8/4/2004 3:58 sea cucumber (2) on bottom bio 8/4/2004 3:59 fish in water column bio 8/4/2004 3:59 jellyfish; cucumber bio 8/4/2004 4:01 pipeline? 8/4/2004 4:03 fish; attempted to catch bio 8/4/2004 4:04 cucumber bio 

285 

8/4/2004 4:04 depression in sand arch/bio 

8/4/2004 4:07 Start of line 226 (1500 ft) ml541 8/4/2004 4:08 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 4:11 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 4:11 part of crab bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 4:14 indention in sand-right of screen arch 8/4/2004 4:16 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 4:16 anenome bio 8/4/2004 4:18 [GP 26] anenome; [unidentified debris] arch 8/4/2004 4:20 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 4:22 At stern bio 8/4/2004 4:25 corals bio 8/4/2004 4:27 fish bio 8/4/2004 4:28 fish bio 8/4/2004 4:32 many possible slimeheads around mast (GP15) bio 8/4/2004 4:39 shrimp in water column bio 8/4/2004 4:47 crab collection bio 8/4/2004 4:48 scorpion fish bio 8/4/2004 4:49 Lots of coral bio 8/4/2004 4:50 fish bio 8/4/2004 4:56 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 4:56 Fish along bottom bio 8/4/2004 4:57 anenome bio 8/4/2004 4:57 Jellyfish; bio 8/4/2004 4:57 Anenome bio 8/4/2004 4:58 Jellyfish bio 8/4/2004 4:59 Shrimp bio 8/4/2004 5:01 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 5:01 Anenome bio 

286 

8/4/2004 5:02 GP27 Artifact 4 arch 

8/4/2004 5:04 cucumber (2) bio 8/4/2004 5:05 Cucumber bio 8/4/2004 5:07 Cucumber, anenome bio 8/4/2004 5:08 anenome bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 5:10 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 5:12 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 5:13 fish; rattail? bio 8/4/2004 5:14 fish collection bio 8/4/2004 5:14 anenomes (2) bio 8/4/2004 5:16 fish; cucumber (2) bio 8/4/2004 5:19 fish on bottom bio 8/4/2004 5:19 End of Line 226 bio 8/4/2004 5:20 fish on bottom (3) bio 8/4/2004 5:21 Start of line 227 (Bio) bio 8/4/2004 5:22 Crab? bio 8/4/2004 5:24 Fish swimming left to right; fish on bottom Bio 8/4/2004 5:25 octopus on bottom bio 8/4/2004 5:25 Cucumber bio 8/4/2004 5:26 Anenome bio 8/4/2004 5:26 Cucumber collection bio 8/4/2004 5:28 Fish bio 8/4/2004 5:28 Cucumber (5) bio 8/4/2004 5:30 Cucumber (2); fish; anenome bio 8/4/2004 5:31 jellyfish bio 8/4/2004 5:36 GP28 Plastic crate arch 8/4/2004 5:49 Cable in soil on stbd side arch 8/4/2004 5:50 On Stbd side of hull 8/4/2004 5:51 fish in water column bio 

287 

8/4/2004 5:52 scorpion fish bio 

8/4/2004 5:53 fish in water column bio 8/4/2004 5:54 Slimehead bio 8/4/2004 5:56 Floating ring- falling bio 8/4/2004 5:57 Slimeheads bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 6:00 Lots of slimeheads close to stern bio 8/4/2004 6:03 Starfish; fish (ribbonfish)?; cucumber bio 8/4/2004 6:04 jellyfish (2); cucumber bio 8/4/2004 6:08 End of Line 227, but continued along for 

 possible pipeline 

8/4/2004 6:10 Depression off of stern ~300-320 feet out Arch 8/4/2004 6:20 Cucumber (2); crab bio 8/4/2004 6:24 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 6:25 jellyfish bio 8/4/2004 6:28 Start line 225 for Bio 8/4/2004 6:29 Anenome bio 8/4/2004 6:29 GP29 Circular object; barrels; Artifact 6; vents (circular) arch 8/4/2004 6:29 2 scorpion fish inside vents; anenomes bio 8/4/2004 6:31 Ophididae bio 8/4/2004 6:32 GP30 Pan; artifact; Anenomes; crabs, arch/bio 8/4/2004 6:33 Ophididae bio 8/4/2004 6:34 GP31 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 6:36 Anenomes (6) bio 8/4/2004 6:37 Cucumbers (2); anenomes (8) bio 8/4/2004 6:39 crab; scorpion fish bio 8/4/2004 6:40 scorpion fish bio 8/4/2004 6:41 corals bio 8/4/2004 6:43 anenomes (3) on artifact bio 8/4/2004 6:43 GP32 Artifact; handrail? arch 

288 

8/4/2004 6:44 Anenomes; fish bio 

8/4/2004 6:45 GP33 Artifact; pipe? Handrail? arch 8/4/2004 6:46 Sea roach; isopod bio 8/4/2004 6:46 GP34 Plate,cup?; artifact arch 8/4/2004 6:48 lobster under artifact bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 6:49 Ophididae bio 8/4/2004 6:49 GP35 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 6:50 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 6:54 GP36 crab; fish; artifact arch/bio 8/4/2004 6:55 GP37 artifact; box? arch 8/4/2004 6:57 GP38 artifact; porthole?; miller light can arch 8/4/2004 6:58 GP39 Artifact; scorpion fish in artifact (4) arch/bio 8/4/2004 6:59 scorpion fish next to artifact bio 8/4/2004 7:01 GP40 Circular air vent; artifact (500 ft) arch 8/4/2004 7:09 Fish bio 8/4/2004 7:10 Rattail collection bio 8/4/2004 7:11 Jellyfish bio 8/4/2004 7:13 End of Line 225 8/4/2004 7:14 Crab collection- let go because it was to large bio 8/4/2004 7:16 Lights out for ~ 10 minutes 8/4/2004 7:20 Lights on- no sign of life; 224 8/4/2004 7:35 GP41 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 7:38 GP42 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 7:40 GP43 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 7:44 GP44 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 7:44 GP45 Artifact (possible stern) arch 8/4/2004 8:03 GP46 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 8:05 GP47 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 8:09 GP48 Artifact (Air vent) arch 

289 

8/4/2004 8:12 GP49 Artifact arch 

8/4/2004 8:15 GP50 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 8:17 GP51 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 8:18 GP52 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 8:19 GP53 Artifact (port hole) arch 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 8:20 GP54 Artifact arch 8/4/2004 8:22 GP55 Artifact (box inside maybe) Same as GP43 arch 8/4/2004 8:27 Artifact GP41 arch 8/4/2004 8:29 460ft from bow arch 8/4/2004 8:36 Start Line 222 arch 8/4/2004 8:45 GP56 Artifact; vent artifact 32 arch 8/4/2004 8:48 GP57 Artifact 33 arch 8/4/2004 8:50 GP58 Artifact 34; possible telegraph arch 8/4/2004 8:52 GP59 Artifact 35; back to barrel arch 8/4/2004 8:58 GP60 Artifact 36; 2 pics arch 8/4/2004 8:59 GP61 Artifact 37 arch 8/4/2004 9:01 GP62 Artifact 38; 2 pics arch 8/4/2004 9:05 GP63 Artifact 39; 2 pics; drums crushed arch 8/4/2004 9:10 GP64 Artifact life boat b,c,d; inside view and arch/bio 

 profile of lifeboat, small photo 

8/4/2004 mosaic of lifeboat interior, galatheid crab collection 8/4/2004 9:43 GP65 Artifact 41 arch 8/4/2004 9:46 End line 222; start line 221 arch 8/4/2004 9:50 GP66 Artifact 42; tubular tank blown out arch 8/4/2004 9:55 GP67 Artifact 43; twisted metal arch 8/4/2004 9:56 GP68 Artifact 44; metal rods parallel ~20' apart, with coral arch/bio 8/4/2004 9:58 GP69 Rod with frame; Artifact 45 arch 8/4/2004 10:04 GP70 Artifact 46; biological arch/bio 8/4/2004 10:05 GP71 Artifact 47; lots of anenomes bio 

290 

8/4/2004 10:09 GP72 Artifact 48; metal collar arch 

8/4/2004 10:11 GP73 Artifact 49; vent and porthole arch 8/4/2004 10:13 GP74 Artifact 50; steel pot/bowl arch 8/4/2004 10:15 GP75 Artifact 51; wood arch 8/4/2004 10:17 GP76 Artifact 52;[unidentified ferrous material] arch 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 10:21 GP77 Artifact 53; squished metal led??? arch 18/4/2004 10:24 GP78 Artifact 54; squished barrel arch 8/4/2004 10:25 GP79 Artifact 55; split air vent arch 8/4/2004 10:31 fish collection bio 8/4/2004 10:39 End Line 221; start 220 8/4/2004 10:44 GP80 Artifact 56; collared wire? arch 8/4/2004 10:53 GP81 Artifact 57; barrel arch 8/4/2004 10:54 Artifact small arch 8/4/2004 10:55 Artifact small (2) arch 8/4/2004 10:57 Artifact decking small arch 8/4/2004 10:58 Artifact; twisted metal; large amount of small artifact arch 8/4/2004 10:59 Artifact; porthole arch 8/4/2004 11:00 GP82 Artifact 58; bowl shape like helmet arch 8/4/2004 11:10 end Line 220 8/4/2004 11:16 Start Line 218; no hits 8/4/2004 11:37 Artifact; bucket arch 18/4/2004 11:38 Bent up tray/drawers arch 8/4/2004 11:39 GP83 Artifact 59; [Box Shaped] arch 8/4/2004 11:47 End Line 218 8/4/2004 11:48 move to Stbd side 8/4/2004 12:09 Surveying line 228 arch 8/4/2004 12:33 ROV sit on sea floor for 20 minutes with lights out 18/4/2004 12:54 End of lights out survey; scorpion fish; fish bio 

 sitting in front of camera 

291 

8/4/2004 12:57 Resume survey on line 228 

8/4/2004 13:06 Photo taken of lifeboat arch 8/4/2004 13:06 GP84 Flattened smokestack (Artifact 60) arch 8/4/2004 13:17 GP85 Artifact 61; sack arch 8/4/2004 13:27 End of survey line 228 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 13:30 Sea cucumber collected bio 8/4/2004 13:32 fish collected bio 8/4/2004 13:35 Begin survey of line 229 8/4/2004 13:48 GP86 Flattened smokestack with whistle and ladder arch 18/4/2004 13:48 Fish and anemone sighted bio 8/4/2004 13:57 GP87 Artifact 62; possible letter G arch 8/4/2004 14:02 Can and crab trash/bio 8/4/2004 14:06 crab and shrimp bio 8/4/2004 14:16 artifact arch 8/4/2004 14:17 eel bio End of 8/4/2004 14:43 anenome bio 18/4/2004 14:45 anenome bio 8/4/2004 14:48 lobster? Collected bio 8/4/2004 14:49 eel collected bio 8/4/2004 14:53 fish collected bio 8/4/2004 14:58 fish, cucumber bio 8/4/2004 15:03 fish collected bio 8/4/2004 15:07 cucumber collected bio 8/4/2004 15:09 anenome bio 8/4/2004 15:10 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 15:12 rattail bio 8/4/2004 15:13 eel collected; lobster (not) bio 8/4/2004 15:17 jellyfish bio 8/4/2004 15:20 flatfish collected bio 

292 

8/4/2004 15:21 anenome bio 

8/4/2004 15:22 anenome bio 8/4/2004 15:23 Crab capture bio 8/4/2004 15:24 invert bio 8/4/2004 15:25 shrimp bio 
Site Gulf Penn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 15:26 inverts bio 8/4/2004 15:27 crab capture bio 8/4/2004 15:29 Attempted crab capture bio 8/4/2004 15:32 small fish capture bio 8/4/2004 15:35 small fish capture bio 8/4/2004 15:41 searobin capture bio 8/4/2004 15:43 searobin capture bio 8/4/2004 15:45 End of Line 230 8/4/2004 15:49 Start of Line 231 8/4/2004 15:51 Snail, tube capture bio 18/4/2004 15:54 small fish capture bio 8/4/2004 16:01 plant detritus bio 8/4/2004 16:03 Crab capture bio 8/4/2004 16:11 lobster capture bio 8/4/2004 16:18 invert capture bio 8/4/2004 16:19 fish capture; escape bio 8/4/2004 16:32 Aluminum can trash 8/4/2004 16:34 octopus bio 8/4/2004 16:35 octopus capture bio 8/4/2004 16:35 End of line 231 8/4/2004 16:38 Start of line 232 8/4/2004 16:49 Crab capture bio 8/4/2004 16:57 hermit crab capture bio End of 8/4/2004 17:00 

293 

8/4/2004 17:08 GP88 Debris arch 1

8/4/2004 17:20 fish bio 8/4/2004 17:23 shark-collected bio 8/4/2004 17:28 searobin fish bio 8/4/2004 17:31 Start of line 233 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 17:41 flatfish bio 

8/4/2004 17:45 crab bio 8/4/2004 17:47 scorpion fish bio 8/4/2004 17:48 eel fish? bio 8/4/2004 17:49 fish collected bio 8/4/2004 17:51 fish; cucumber bio 8/4/2004 17:52 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 17:53 shrimp collected bio 8/4/2004 17:58 fish bio 8/4/2004 18:00 cucumber bio 8/4/2004 18:01 fish bio 8/4/2004 18:02 invert bio 8/4/2004 18:03 invert collected bio 8/4/2004 18:05 cucumber and fish bio 8/4/2004 18:06 fish collected bio 8/4/2004 18:06 fish bio 8/4/2004 18:07 cucumber bio End of 8/4/2004 18:09 fish collected bio 8/4/2004 18:13 end of line 233 8/4/2004 18:16 pipeline 8/4/2004 18:17 starfish collected bio 18/4/2004 18:18 Start of line 234 8/4/2004 18:28 burrow bio 8/4/2004 18:31 fish collected bio 

294 

8/4/2004 18:36 invert collected bio 

8/4/2004 18:56 shark egg (mermaid's purse) bio 8/4/2004 18:59 shark egg picked up w/ ROV arm bio 8/4/2004 19:00 shark egg collected bio 8/4/2004 19:09 crab collected bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/4/2004 19:12 end of line 234 End of 8/4/2004 19:19 Moving to wreck for coral sample bio 8/4/2004 19:40 coral collected from stbd side of wreck bio 8/4/2004 19:45 coral taken from base of wreck's hull bio 8/4/2004 19:50 coral collection ends bio 8/4/2004 19:51 ROV recovery begins 8/4/2004 20:15 ROV on Deck bio 8/4/2004 21:40 Dive # 10 Start Camera Problems 8/4/2004 21:50 Dive # 10 End 2

2

8/5/2004 0:34 Start of mosaic bow to stern; Start of center line arch 8/5/2004 0:34 Mosaic- start at bow tip center beam arch 

 ~67'. Portside first 

8/5/2004 0:38 bollards; steel box arch 8/5/2004 0:40 broken decking; heading 169; 24ft centerline arch 8/5/2004 0:42 large coral clumps on catwalk; possible fallen arch 

 mast ~16ft from deck; 

8/5/2004 visual reference o hatch (centerline) 8/5/2004 0:46 hatch, mast arch 8/5/2004 0:48 Air vent; center of ship arch 8/5/2004 0:49 center hatches; vent stack and engine room; arch 

 base and stern finished 

8/5/2004 0:50 first line; centerline end arch 8/5/2004 0:52 jellyfish bio 

295 

8/5/2004 1:02 IP-> port side (B to S) survey line # I+ 11 arch 

8/5/2004 1:14 End of 1 P (Bow to Stern) arch 8/5/2004 1:28 Start 2P (B to S) survey line # I +22 arch 8/5/2004 1:39 End of 2P arch 8/5/2004 1:49 Start 3P (B to S); survey line # I + 33 arch 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/5/2004 2:01 End of 3P arch 8/5/2004 2:13 Start 4P (B to S); survey line # I + 44 arch 8/5/2004 2:24 End of 4P arch 8/5/2004 2:46 Survey line #: I-11 arch 8/5/2004 2:59 End of 1S (tbd) arch 8/5/2004 3:18 Start of 2S (B to S) Survey line # I -22 arch 8/5/2004 3:22 End of line 2S (stbd); Start of line 3S; Line # I-33 arch 8/5/2004 3:55 Port profile line 1 (PP1). At mudline; stern to bow; 8/5/2004 4:17 End of line PP1 8/5/2004 4:26 Start of line PP2, stern to bow 8/5/2004 4:42 End of line PP2 8/5/2004 Start of line PP3, stern to bow 8/5/2004 End of line PP3 8/5/2004 5:28 Start of line PP4 (port superstructure) 8/5/2004 End of line PP4 8/5/2004 5:40 Start of line 8/5/2004 5:51 End of line 8/5/2004 5:51 End of profile view 8/5/2004 6:30 Basket wet at surface bio 8/5/2004 6:46 Pipeline out from wreck 600 ft arch 8/5/2004 6:51 Hovering above bottom at 1000 ft bio 8/5/2004 6:52 Moving large trap to location (1000 ft)-black bio 8/5/2004 6:55 Moving minnow trap to 1000ft location bio 8/5/2004 7:03 Moving small trap to 1000ft location-white bio 

296 

8/5/2004 7:14 GP89 Small trap set @ 1000 ft bio 

8/5/2004 7:18 GP90 Large trap set @ 1000 ft bio 8/5/2004 7:20 GP91 Minnow trap set @ 1000 ft bio 8/5/2004 7:22 Moving basket next to wreck bio 8/5/2004 7:42 Basket on bottom near wreck bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/5/2004 7:44 Removed hook from basket bio 8/5/2004 7:54 Moving large trap to location- white bio 8/5/2004 8:06 Moving small trap to location-black bio 8/5/2004 8:08 Moving crab trap to location bio 8/5/2004 8:00 GP92 Set large trap near wreck bio 8/5/2004 8:14 GP93 Set crab trap near wreck bio 8/5/2004 8:15 GP94 Set small trap near wreck bio 8/5/2004 8:23 Rusticle collection devise bio 8/5/2004 8:33 Small minnow trap on basket bio 8/5/2004 8:43 Rusticle collection starboard bio 8/5/2004 8:58 Port side GP-12; 3 rusticles bio 8/5/2004 10:02 GP-8 portside rusticles bio 8/5/2004 10:35 ROV came up in water bio 8/5/2004 10:40 ROV back in water bio 8/5/2004 10:58 ROV at bottom bio 18/5/2004 11:02 Bio collection bio 8/5/2004 11:10 Move bio collection to after core samples bio 8/5/2004 11:35 Core tube D picked up to move to 1000 ft bio 8/5/2004 11:46 GP D Taking Core D sample bio 8/5/2004 12:00 Sample D back in basket bio 8/5/2004 12:03 Core tube C taken from basket bio 18/5/2004 12:07 GP C Core sample C taken 500 ft from wreck bio 8/5/2004 12:13 Core tube C returned to basket bio 8/5/2004 12:16 Core tube B taken from basket; it appears to have bio 

297 

8/5/2004 sediment in it, so it will be replaced with tube E 

8/5/2004 12:21 Core tube B returned to basket bio 8/5/2004 12:23 Core tube E taken from basket bio 8/5/2004 12:28 GP E Core sample E taken 100 ft from wreck bio 8/5/2004 12:35 Core tube E placed in basket bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/5/2004 12:37 Core tube A taken from basket; tube had sediment bio 

 in the bottom but quickly 

8/5/2004 fell out. Tube A will still be used 8/5/2004 12:42 GP A Core sample A taken next to wreck bio 8/5/2004 12:49 Core tube A placed in basket bio 8/5/2004 13:00 Coral sampling bio 8/5/2004 13:15 Coral sampling bio 18/5/2004 13:43 Crab capture bio 8/5/2004 13:57 Slimehead capture bio 8/5/2004 14:05 Eel? bio 8/5/2004 14:27 Pick up basket hook bio 18/5/2004 14:30 Hooked basket bio 8/5/2004 14:31 Basket returned to surface bio 8/5/2004 14:32 ROV returns to sampling bio 8/5/2004 14:40 Attempt scallop capture bio 8/5/2004 14:48 Shrimp sample bio 8/5/2004 14:50 Colonial invert bio 8/5/2004 15:12 ROV at depth 1803 ft; 20 ft altitude bio 8/5/2004 15:13 ROV at depth 1793 ft; 30 ft altitude; multiple bio 

 colonies of coral End of 

8/5/2004 15:16 ROV at 1796.5 ft; coral is at its widest and bio 

 growing on corner of stbd. 

8/5/2004 side of aft house 8/5/2004 15:19 invert collected bio 

298 

8/5/2004 15:25 crab and shrimp sample bio 

8/5/2004 15:26 crab sample bio 8/5/2004 15:27 crab sample attempt bio 8/5/2004 15:30 crab sample bio 8/5/2004 15:36 1797', 28 ft off bottom. Wall of to 1786'; bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

 41 ft off bottom. Widest at 1792' 

8/5/2004 15:44 crab sampled bio 8/5/2004 15:49 coral 1787',14' feet altitude to 1768', 55' alt bio 

 1785' widest 

8/5/2004 15:56 Slimehead capture bio 8/5/2004 16:23 Crab capture bio 8/5/2004 16:27 Shrimp sample bio 8/5/2004 16:30 scallops sampled bio 8/5/2004 16:33 Crab capture bio 8/5/2004 16:39 Crab capture bio 8/5/2004 16:41 Handle feel off slurpe gun coming to surface 18/5/2004 17:05 ROV on Deck 8/5/2004 17:30 ROV back in water 8/5/2004 17:47 at 1790' bio 8/5/2004 18:08 Sea spider capture bio 8/5/2004 18:29 coral collection bio 18/5/2004 18:41 shark between ship and basket bio 8/5/2004 19:10 small fish capture bio 8/5/2004 19:12 Shrimp sample bio 8/5/2004 19:13 flatfish bio 8/5/2004 19:18 scorpion fish attempt bio 8/5/2004 19:19 crab sample bio 8/5/2004 19:21 scorpion fish attempt bio 8/5/2004 19:25 Crab capture bio 

299 

8/5/2004 19:26 hermit crab sample bio 

8/5/2004 19:26 invert collected bio 8/5/2004 19:27 Shrimp sample bio 18/5/2004 19:27 Tongue sole bio 8/5/2004 19:28 Fish? bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/5/2004 19:29 hagfish? bio 8/5/2004 19:33 Shrimp and crab sample bio 8/5/2004 19:57 scallops sampled bio 8/5/2004 20:12 Crab capture bio 8/5/2004 20:23 invert collected bio 8/5/2004 20:28 scorpion fish attempt bio 8/5/2004 20:31 shrimp bio 28/5/2004 20:34 Fish bio 8/5/2004 20:38 shell bio 8/5/2004 20:40 Crab capture bio 8/5/2004 20:42 Bathynomus bio 8/5/2004 20:46 scorpion fish bio 8/5/2004 20:50 scorpion fish bio 8/5/2004 20:55 coral collection bio 8/5/2004 21:18 panning over center of vessel; bow to stern arch 8/5/2004 21:26 GP 100 ship's telegraph arch 28/5/2004 21:50 Lori's small test platform recovered bio 8/5/2004 21:55 Small fish trap recovered- next to wreck bio 8/5/2004 22:02 Small fish trap put in basket bio 8/5/2004 22:03 Small test platform put in basket bio 8/5/2004 22:13 Crab trap retrieved bio 8/5/2004 22:16 Large trap retrieved bio 8/5/2004 22:29 Large trap placed in basket bio 8/5/2004 22:31 Crab trap placed in basket bio 

300 

8/5/2004 22:41 Basket lifted; taken to traps 1000 ft from wreck bio 

 2

8/5/2004 23:40 Minnow trap retrieved from 1000 ft bio 8/5/2004 23:43 Small fish trap retrieved bio 8/5/2004 23:45 Large fish trap tretieved bio 
Site Gulfpenn

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/5/2004 23:48 Large trap placed in basket bio 8/5/2004 23:48 Small trap and crab trap placed in basket bio 8/5/2004 23:50 Basket being brought to surface bio 8/6/2004 0:01 Basket on Deck bio 8/6/2004 0:15 ROV on Deck bio 

301 
Site U-166

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

8/6/2004 5:50 ROV wet 8/6/2004 6:10 Return ROV to surface 8/6/2004 6:30 ROV wet again 8/6/2004 7:21 Sonar contact U 166 range 100' 8/6/2004 7:23 Portside recon arch 8/6/2004 7:28 Experiment view bio 8/6/2004 7:30 Aft torpedo loading hatch arch 8/6/2004 7:33 Stern vent (port); Zoom handle on stern also 2 crabs arch/bio 8/6/2004 7:40 Move from stern to bow stbd side arch 8/6/2004 7:41 Stern light arch 8/6/2004 7:45 Stern deck gun arch 8/6/2004 7:46 Experiments--> detailed bio 8/6/2004 7:57 White rusticle at 15" beside platform, coupon X 3 Cu & 5-7. All appear bio 8/6/2004 to have some white rusticles (nodule like 8-10 & 13-15 rusticulate 8/6/2004 over surface)and appear to have small hanging rusticles behind the 8/6/2004 first 3 or 4 coupons 8/6/2004 8:03 Portside conning tower arch/bio 8/6/2004 8:08 Pan along port side conning tower arch 8/6/2004 8:09 Bow side of conning tower; 2 rattails arch/bio 8/6/2004 8:10 front of conning tower gun arch 8/6/2004 8:11 deck gun plugged; sediment covering; hagfish arch 8/6/2004 8:13 sediment debris? arch 8/6/2004 8:15 defined depression arch 8/6/2004 8:17 debris arch 

302 

8/6/2004 8:20 run scatter plot, set over gun; forward of conning arch 

8/6/2004 8:25 U1 Fix anotation "U" arch 8/6/2004 8:37 Bio-tree- 1st survey line from main hull to bow arch 8/6/2004 8:53 End of line arch 8/6/2004 8:54 Bow reconnaisance arch 
Site U-166

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

8/6/2004 9:26 End Bow recon arch E8/6/2004 9:27 Headed to south survey lines arch 8/6/2004 9:50 Start survey line 441 (West to east) 8/6/2004 9:52 U2 Bottle arch 8/6/2004 10:10 U3 Textile trash/arch 8/6/2004 10:12 U4 Artifact, round pot/helmet arch 8/6/2004 10:13 U5 Boot/artifact arch 8/6/2004 10:14 U6 Artifact; substructure arch 8/6/2004 10:17 U7 leather artifact arch 8/6/2004 10:20 U8 bud light/artifact trash/arch 8/6/2004 10:30 End of line 441 8/6/2004 10:34 Start of line 442 8/6/2004 10:50 U9 Artifact- metal plating arch 8/6/2004 10:53 U10 Artifact- plating arch 8/6/2004 11:03 End of line 442 8/6/2004 11:05 Start of line 443 8/6/2004 11:12 U11 Artifact arch 8/6/2004 11:16 U12 Artifact (textile?) soda can trash/arch 8/6/2004 11:18 U13 Artifact; burnt wood arch 8/6/2004 11:19 U14 artifact; jacket arch 8/6/2004 11:36 U15 metal artifact arch 8/6/2004 11:48 End of line 443 8/6/2004 11:50 Start of line 444 8/6/2004 11:51 U16 bottle a 8/6/2004 12:01 U17 metal decking a 

303 

8/6/2004 12:17 End of line 444 a 

8/6/2004 12:19 Start of line 445 8/6/2004 12:24 red shrimp bio 8/6/2004 12:42 invert and sea star collected bio 8/6/2004 12:43 U18 bottle a 
Site U-166

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

8/6/2004 12:50 sea star collected bio 8/6/2004 12:52 End of line 445 8/6/2004 12:54 red shrimp collected bio 8/6/2004 12:54 Start of line 446 8/6/2004 12:55 small animal collected bio 8/6/2004 12:59 shrimp collected bio 8/6/2004 13:01 U19 bottle a 8/6/2004 13:04 U20 possible artifact a 8/6/2004 13:20 U21 artifact-textile a 8/6/2004 13:36 End of line 446 8/6/2004 13:37 Start of line 447 8/6/2004 14:10 End of line 447 8/6/2004 14:13 Start of line 448 8/6/2004 14:28 glass sponge collected bio 8/6/2004 14:43 End of line 448 8/6/2004 15:13 Mosaic-bow section, stbd side a 8/6/2004 15:19 Mosaic- bow secion, center a 8/6/2004 15:22 Mosaic-bow section, port side a 8/6/2004 15:52 Mosaic- stern secion, center a 8/6/2004 16:00 Mosaic-stern section, stbd side a 8/6/2004 16:05 Mosaic-stern section, port side a 8/6/2004 16:45 Basket in Water bio 8/6/2004 17:02 Basket on Bottom bio 8/6/2004 17:03 ROV reaches basket; large fish trap missing bio 8/6/2004 17:13 Minnow trap picked up at 1000 ft bio 

304 

8/6/2004 17:15 Small fish trap picked up bio 

8/6/2004 17:18 U22 Small fish trap set at 1000 ft bio 8/6/2004 17:21 U23 Minnow trap set at 1000 ft bio 8/6/2004 17:23 U24 Large fish trap set at 1000 ft bio 8/6/2004 17:30 U25 Core D 1000' bio 
Site U-166

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

8/6/2004 17:37 Moving basket to wreck bio 8/6/2004 18:03 basket is set near wreck bio 8/6/2004 18:09 crab trap removed from basket bio 8/6/2004 18:12 large trap removed from basket bio 8/6/2004 18:15 U26 large trap set near wreck bio 8/6/2004 18:19 U27 crab trap set near wreck bio 8/6/2004 18:23 small fish trap removed from basket bio 8/6/2004 18:33 U28 small fish trap set near wreck bio 8/6/2004 18:40 Core tube C taken from basket bio 8/6/2004 18:47 U29 Core sample C taken from 500' mark bio 8/6/2004 18:53 Core tube C placed into basket bio 8/6/2004 18:54 Core tube B taken from basket bio 8/6/2004 18:59 U30 Core sample B taken from 100 ft from wreck bio 8/6/2004 19:04 Core tube B put in basket bio 8/6/2004 19:05 Core tube A taken from basket bio 8/6/2004 19:09 U31 Core sample A taken collected at stern section bio  of the wreck 8/6/2004 19:14 Core tube A put in basket bio 8/6/2004 19:20 crab sample bio 8/6/2004 19:25 plant detritus bio 8/6/2004 19:35 starfish bio E8/6/2004 19:40 crab sample bio 8/6/2004 19:52 Unknown invert sample bio 8/6/2004 20:03 crab sample bio 8/6/2004 20:11 invert capture bio 

305 

8/6/2004 20:17 shrimp capture bio 

8/6/2004 20:18 shrimp capture bio 8/6/2004 20:22 invert capture bio 8/6/2004 20:28 shrimp bio 8/6/2004 20:31 invert collected bio 
Site U-166

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

8/6/2004 20:36 invert collected bio 8/6/2004 20:44 shrimp bio 8/6/2004 20:47 2 shrimp bio 8/6/2004 20:48 sea star (brittle?); collected at 20:50 bio 8/6/2004 20:52 eel bio 8/6/2004 20:56 fish bio 8/6/2004 21:32 U32 artifact a 8/6/2004 21:39 crab collected bio Crab in trap 8/6/2004 21:42 eel bio 8/6/2004 21:44 sediment collected bio 8/6/2004 21:45 eel collected; fish bio 8/6/2004 21:55 shrimp collected bio 8/6/2004 21:57 fish bio 8/6/2004 21:58 collected unknown bio 8/6/2004 22:01 tripod fish bio 8/6/2004 22:03 U33 artifact (steel plate) a Artifact U33 8/6/2004 22:07 sea star bio 8/6/2004 22:14 shrimp collected bio 8/6/2004 22:15 brittle star collected bio 8/6/2004 22:16 shrimp collected bio 8/6/2004 22:19 tripod fish bio 8/6/2004 22:20 eel bio 8/6/2004 22:23 Unknown bio 8/6/2004 22:27 shrimp bio 8/6/2004 22:28 sea star collection bio 

306 

8/6/2004 22:32 unknown collected bio 

8/6/2004 22:38 sea star collected bio 8/6/2004 22:49 crabs; 2 Geryon embracing bio crabs 8/6/2004 23:06 Located large/close fish trap (black) bio 8/6/2004 23:17 Small fish trap (white) and crab trap returned bio 
Site U-166

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. S

8/6/2004 23:17 ROV moves away from basket bio 8/6/2004 23:18 ROV reaches large fish trap bio 8/6/2004 23:24 Large fish trap in basket bio 8/6/2004 23:25 Basket is raised bio 8/6/2004 23:55 ROV back to basket bio 8/6/2004 23:57 Basket is down bio 8/7/2004 0:03 Minnow trap picked up at 1000 ft bio 8/7/2004 0:05 Shark bio 6 pictures 8/7/2004 0:15 minnow trap put in basket bio 8/7/2004 0:16 ROV goes to collect more traps bio 8/7/2004 0:21 Large trap picked up bio 8/7/2004 0:24 Large trap in basket (white) bio 8/7/2004 0:35 Small trap to the basket (black) bio 8/7/2004 0:37 Small trap in basket bio 8/7/2004 0:39 Basket off bottom bio 8/7/2004 1:00 Basket on Deck bio 8/7/2004 1:45 ROV on Deck bio 

307 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 2:25 ROV Wet 8/7/2004 3:25 Sonar Contact 38/7/2004 3:29 Visual Contact 4890' 8/7/2004 3:31 bow RO-1 8/7/2004 3:32 Bow Port side RO-2 8/7/2004 3:34 ships bell (davit) RO-3 8/7/2004 3:36 RO-1 Loading docks RO-4 8/7/2004 3:49 RO-5 davit with cables 8/7/2004 3:51 RO-6 davit with cables 8/7/2004 3:52 RO-7 grating winch, wires, gallery doors, davit 8/7/2004 3:59 moving forward, funnel hatches in background  deck gone, handrails mast broken, laying  over to stbd, funnel smashed 8/7/2004 4:03 portholes; (loading) latch open, left hand door 8/7/2004 4:12 stern, port deck gun 8/7/2004 4:30 close up of deck gun 48/7/2004 4:33 RO-8 stern flag pole holder 8/7/2004 4:38 gun barrel 8/7/2004 4:41 fly over top from stern to bow 8/7/2004 4:52 winch down center, pipes 8/7/2004 4:55 hold through 3 decks, dorm, ladder 8/7/2004 4:56 main mast 8/7/2004 4:58 looking at back of hatches 8/7/2004 5:00 vents and hatch 

308 

8/7/2004 5:04 beam measurement 54" 

8/7/2004 5:05 Toilet 8/7/2004 5:06 smoke stack 8/7/2004 5:10 portholes open vent, mast with ladder, vent,  pilothouse 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 5:13 hatch to lower decks 8/7/2004 5:13 bell (ships) 8/7/2004 5:14 bow, with anchor chains 8/7/2004 5:17 bow tip 8/7/2004 5:26 move around portside place experiments 8/7/2004 5:38 RO-9 Experiment 58/7/2004 5:41 portside anchor 8/7/2004 5:42 bow tip 8/7/2004 5:43 stbd anchor 8/7/2004 5:40 bow, experiment (bio-battery) Stbd 8/7/2004 5:57 RO-12 obstruction 8/7/2004 5:59 RO-13 obstruction 8/7/2004 6:01 RO-14 Obstruction, davit 8/7/2004 6:03 RO15-18 multiple davits on stbd side End of 8/7/2004 6:30 end of stbd midline recon 8/7/2004 6:34 start toward survey line 420 off stbd side 68/7/2004 6:53 SOL survey line 420 8/7/2004 7:08 RO-19 artifact 1 (exhaust tube opening?) Arch 8/7/2004 7:11 invert picture taken Bio 8/7/2004 7:12 port of bow wreck reached 8/7/2004 7:23 RO-20 stern with gun Arch 8/7/2004 7:39 EOL 420 8/7/2004 7:42 SOL 421 8/7/2004 7:54 RO-21 Artifact 2 (textile) Arch 8/7/2004 8:01 RO-22 Artifact 3 (railing) Arch 

309 

8/7/2004 8:04 RO-23 Refrigerator Arch 

8/7/2004 8:06 RO-24 Artifact 4 Arch 8/7/2004 8:07 Artifact 5 Arch 8/7/2004 8:09 Artifact 6 Arch 8/7/2004 8:11 RO-25 Hull Piece Arch 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 8:13 RO-26 Artifact 7 Arch 8/7/2004 8:17 RO-27 Artifact 8 (wire?) Arch 8/7/2004 8:19 RO-28 metal pipe Arch 8/7/2004 8:22 RO-29 metal pipes Arch 8/7/2004 8:24 RO-30 hull piece #2 Arch 8/7/2004 8:29 RO-31 exhaust tube Arch 8/7/2004 8:30 Artifact 9 (picture only) Arch 8/7/2004 8:31 RO-32 doorway Arch 8/7/2004 8:43 RO-33 metal drum Arch 88/7/2004 8:44 RO-34 sink Arch 8/7/2004 8:46 RO-35 artifact 10 Arch 8/7/2004 8:47 artifact 11 (395 ft to stern- artifact may be part Arch  of a flagpole) 8/7/2004 8:51 RO-36 top of exhaust vent Arch 8/7/2004 8:53 artifact 12 (piece of steel with rivets) Arch 8/7/2004 8:55 artifact 13 Arch 8/7/2004 9:12 EOL 421 8/7/2004 9:13 to line 419 (port side of hull) 8/7/2004 9:15 SOL 419 8/7/2004 9:29 RO-37 artifact 14, girder metal object 8/7/2004 9:31 RO-38 outerwall gerdens artifact 15 8/7/2004 9:32 ventcover? Metal round, artifact 16 8/7/2004 9:35 cable, insulating device metal scrape 8/7/2004 9:36 metal cables, porthole 8/7/2004 9:37 RO-39 metal beams, pipes, hull decking, steam 

310 

 whistle, artifact 18 

8/7/2004 9:38 trash-cup trash 8/7/2004 9:48 telegraph artifact 19 arch 98/7/2004 9:42 possible bulkhead, cylinders deck railing arch 8/7/2004 9:44 conduit, light, plate, decking arch 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 9:45 davit arch 8/7/2004 9:47 RO-40 twisted metal on stbd side of ship, windows, doors, arch 8/7/2004 artifact 20, condensor fridge door 8/7/2004 9:50 bag of chips trash 8/7/2004 9:51 davit, anemone, crab bio 8/7/2004 9:53 RO-41 china plates, artifact 22 Arch 8/7/2004 9:56 textiles, metal Arch 8/7/2004 10:00 decking/wicker Arch 8/7/2004 10:05 buckle up on stbd side, steal plate sheared off Arch 8/7/2004 10:08 handrailing, stern deck promenade Arch 8/7/2004 10:10 firehose attachment, lots of anemones arch/bio 8/7/2004 10:11 large rusticles hanging, extensive fire damage 8/7/2004 10:13 crab, anemones bio 8/7/2004 10:16 end of stern, stbd 8/7/2004 10:23 past stern 8/7/2004 10:34 artifact textile arch 8/7/2004 10:38 EOL 419 8/7/2004 10:42 SOL 418 8/7/2004 10:48 ray/skate bio 8/7/2004 11:00 vent cover art 25 arch 8/7/2004 11:03 vent art 26 arch 108/7/2004 11:04 vent art 27 arch 8/7/2004 11:05 light/railing art 28 arch 8/7/2004 11:06 RO-42 box metal art 29 arch 8/7/2004 11:08 "junkyard pile" arch 

311 

8/7/2004 11:10 bedpan/porcelin, fire damage?? Art 30 arch 

8/7/2004 11:11 RO-43 bathroom stalls art 31 arch 8/7/2004 11:13 light fixture arch 8/7/2004 11:14 gangway art 32 arch 8/7/2004 11:28 EOL 418 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 11:29 SOL 417 8/7/2004 11:34 textile arch 8/7/2004 11:35 pipe (steel) arch 8/7/2004 11:36 cable arch 8/7/2004 11:37 pipe (steel) arch 8/7/2004 11:41 vent bent over art 33 arch 8/7/2004 11:42 debris field arch 8/7/2004 11:43 broken sink artifact 34 arch 8/7/2004 11:44 refrigerator unit arch 8/7/2004 11:45 sink-> porcelin arch 8/7/2004 11:46 rectangular box art 35 arch 8/7/2004 11:47 metal stairs arch 8/7/2004 11:59 EOL 417 End of 8/7/2004 12:00 SOL 416 8/7/2004 12:07 artifact, shotgun? 36 arch 128/7/2004 12:08 fish, crabs bio 8/7/2004 12:08 artifact 37 arch 8/7/2004 12:11 RO-44 artifact 38, shoes arch 8/7/2004 12:14 crab, invert bio 8/7/2004 12:16 sink again arch 8/7/2004 12:17 artifact 39 arch 8/7/2004 12:18 artifact 40 arch 8/7/2004 12:21 vent arch 8/7/2004 12:23 art 41 arch 8/7/2004 12:24 box, artifact 42 arch 

312 

8/7/2004 12:25 crab bio 

8/7/2004 12:37 EOL 416 8/7/2004 12:39 SOL 415 8/7/2004 12:50 artifact 43 (wood?) arch 8/7/2004 12:52 vent arch 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 12:54 hull piece arch 8/7/2004 12:56 art 44 arch 8/7/2004 12:57 vent arch 8/7/2004 12:58 art 45 arch 8/7/2004 12:59 art 46 arch 8/7/2004 13:00 art 47 arch 8/7/2004 13:02 art 48 arch 8/7/2004 13:04 art 49 arch 8/7/2004 13:08 art 50 (metal frame) arch 138/7/2004 13:12 art 51 (textile) arch 8/7/2004 13:23 sunkist can trash 8/7/2004 13:23 EOL 415 8/7/2004 13:23 sea star bio 8/7/2004 13:26 SOL 414 8/7/2004 13:29 fish bio 8/7/2004 13:33 indentation in sediment 8/7/2004 13:38 clam opening and closing bio 8/7/2004 13:39 clam bio 8/7/2004 13:40 crab bio 8/7/2004 13:40 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 13:41 large crab bio 8/7/2004 13:45 art 52 arch 8/7/2004 13:48 fish bio 8/7/2004 13:49 RO-45 art 53 arch 8/7/2004 13:52 art 54 (brace?) arch 

313 

8/7/2004 13:56 sea star bio 

8/7/2004 13:59 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 14:01 fish bio 8/7/2004 14:04 EOL 414 8/7/2004 14:04 crabs bio 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 14:10 SOL 413 8/7/2004 14:12 old can trash 8/7/2004 14:20 debris arch 148/7/2004 14:23 RO 46 stop to come up and fix camera 8/7/2004 14:27 ROV coming up 8/7/2004 15:24 ROV at surface 8/7/2004 15:26 ON deck  178/7/2004 18:34 moving ROV 8/7/2004 18:35 artifact 55 8/7/2004 18:36 wire arch 8/7/2004 18:37 fish bio 8/7/2004 18:38 urchin bio 8/7/2004 18:39 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 18:39 invert bio 8/7/2004 18:40 fish, shrimp bio 8/7/2004 18:43 invert bio 8/7/2004 18:44 invert? bio 8/7/2004 18:46 invert bio 8/7/2004 18:48 brittle star - invert bio 8/7/2004 18:49 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 18:50 shrimp, fish, sea star bio 8/7/2004 18:51 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 18:53 sea star, crab bio 8/7/2004 18:54 sea star bio 

314 

8/7/2004 18:55 shrimp bio 

8/7/2004 18:56 EOL 413 End of 8/7/2004 18:57 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 18:57 SOL 412 8/7/2004 18:58 shrimp bio 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 18:59 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 18:59 sea star bio 8/7/2004 19:00 shrimp, sea star (3) bio 8/7/2004 19:02 fish bio 8/7/2004 19:10 art 56 arch art 56 8/7/2004 19:10 crab bio 8/7/2004 19:12 sea star (brittle) bio 8/7/2004 19:15 art 57 arch art 57 8/7/2004 19:17 shrimp, cuc bio 8/7/2004 19:17 art 58 arch art 58 8/7/2004 19:18 invert bio 8/7/2004 19:19 shrimp (red) bio 8/7/2004 19:21 shrimp (red) bio 198/7/2004 19:22 sea star bio 8/7/2004 19:23 shrimp (red) bio 8/7/2004 19:24 shrimp (red) bio 8/7/2004 19:25 shrimp (red) bio 8/7/2004 19:26 sea star bio 8/7/2004 19:29 sea star, white invert bio 8/7/2004 19:30 EOL 412 8/7/2004 19:32 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 19:33 SOL 411 (missed very beginning) 8/7/2004 19:37 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 19:39 sea star bio 8/7/2004 19:41 shrimp, shrimp, bio 

315 

8/7/2004 19:42 crab bio 

8/7/2004 19:43 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 19:47 crab (2) bio 8/7/2004 19:49 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 19:50 sea grass bio 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 19:51 RO-47 art 59 (fire alarm) arch art 59, art 59-2 8/7/2004 19:54 switch cameras to one chip on 19:56 8/7/2004 19:57 art 60 arch 8/7/2004 19:58 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:00 shrimp (red) bio 8/7/2004 20:01 fish, rattail? bio 8/7/2004 20:02 crab bio 8/7/2004 20:05 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:09 fish bio 8/7/2004 20:10 shrimp (5) bio 8/7/2004 20:11 tripod fish bio 8/7/2004 20:12 sea star (2), shrimp (2) bio 8/7/2004 20:13 EOL 411 8/7/2004 20:14 SOL 410 8/7/2004 20:15 fish, shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:16 fish (2) bio 8/7/2004 20:18 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:19 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:21 fish bio 8/7/2004 20:22 sea star bio 8/7/2004 20:22 fish, sea star bio End of 8/7/2004 20:24 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:24 invert, shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:25 fish, shrimp, cucumber bio 8/7/2004 20:28 stick, shrimp bio 

316 

8/7/2004 20:29 shrimp bio 

8/7/2004 20:30 invert bio 8/7/2004 20:31 shrimp (2) bio 8/7/2004 20:32 shrimp (3) bio 8/7/2004 20:33 shrimp bio 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 20:34 art 60 arch art 60 8/7/2004 20:35 shrimp 2 bio 208/7/2004 20:36 fish bio 8/7/2004 20:37 crab, shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:38 sea star bio 8/7/2004 20:39 fish, sea star bio 8/7/2004 20:40 shrimp 2 bio 8/7/2004 20:41 sea star, shrimp, sea star bio 8/7/2004 20:43 sea star, shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:44 shrimp 2 bio 8/7/2004 20:45 artifact 61 arch art 61 8/7/2004 20:45 crab bio 8/7/2004 20:46 fish, sea star bio 8/7/2004 20:47 shrimp 2 bio 8/7/2004 20:48 sea star bio 8/7/2004 20:48 EOL 410 8/7/2004 20:50 SOL 409 8/7/2004 20:51 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:52 fish, shrimp bio fish 8/7/2004 20:54 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:57 crab, shrimp bio 8/7/2004 20:58 sea star, shrimp 2 bio 8/7/2004 21:01 shrimp 2, fish bio 8/7/2004 21:03 hagfish, shrimp 2 bio 8/7/2004 21:04 shrimp, white shrimp bio 

317 

8/7/2004 21:05 art 62 arch art 62 

8/7/2004 21:07 crab bio 8/7/2004 21:19 glass sponge bio 8/7/2004 21:23 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 21:23 EOL 409 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 21:24 fish (eel?) bio 8/7/2004 21:26 SOL 408 8/7/2004 21:26 fish bio 8/7/2004 21:27 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 21:27 fish bio 8/7/2004 21:28 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 21:30 invert bio End of 8/7/2004 21:31 brittle star bio 8/7/2004 21:32 hermit crab bio 8/7/2004 21:40 artifact 63 (beam?) arch 218/7/2004 21:42 crab and invert bio 8/7/2004 21:44 crab bio 8/7/2004 21:45 sea star bio 8/7/2004 21:46 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 21:49 invert bio 8/7/2004 21:52 fish bio 8/7/2004 21:54 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 21:54 sea star bio 8/7/2004 21:56 brittle star bio 8/7/2004 21:58 EOL 408 8/7/2004 22:02 SOL 407 8/7/2004 22:04 hermit crab bio 8/7/2004 22:06 sea star bio 8/7/2004 22:09 sea star bio 8/7/2004 22:13 crab bio 

318 

8/7/2004 22:14 shrimp bio 

8/7/2004 22:14 fish bio 8/7/2004 22:18 fish bio 8/7/2004 22:19 sea star bio 8/7/2004 22:20 shrimp bio 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 22:22 shrimp; brittle star bio 8/7/2004 22:23 shrimp; fish bio 8/7/2004 22:24 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 22:25 anemone bio 8/7/2004 22:26 brittle star; shrimp (2) bio 8/7/2004 22:28 crabs, male carrying female bio 8/7/2004 22:29 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 22:30 shrimp (2) bio 8/7/2004 22:32 seastar, invert bio 8/7/2004 22:33 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 22:34 EOL 407 8/7/2004 22:36 sea star (2), brittle star bio 8/7/2004 22:37 SOL 406 8/7/2004 22:37 scatter plot begins 8/7/2004 22:38 lights out End of 8/7/2004 22:53 lights on 228/7/2004 22:53 fish bio 8/7/2004 22:56 brittle star bio 8/7/2004 22:58 brittle star bio 8/7/2004 22:59 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 23:01 brittle star bio 8/7/2004 23:02 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 23:04 fish bio 8/7/2004 23:06 fish bio 8/7/2004 23:07 brittle star, shrimp bio 

319 

8/7/2004 23:08 shrimp bio 

8/7/2004 23:09 crab bio 8/7/2004 23:14 sea star; shrimp bio 8/7/2004 23:15 shrimp; anemone bio 8/7/2004 23:16 crab bio 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/7/2004 23:20 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 23:21 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 23:22 seastar?, shrimp 2 bio 8/7/2004 23:23 shrimp bio shrimp1 8/7/2004 23:28 shrimp (2) bio 8/7/2004 23:29 shrimp bio 8/7/2004 23:34 EOL 406; move loactions 8/8/2004 0:19 SOL 438, biosurvey and arch (debris) 238/8/2004 0:19 starfish; fish bio 8/8/2004 0:20 fish bio 8/8/2004 0:21 fish- halosaur? 8/8/2004 0:22 tether is trapped on slurpgun 8/8/2004 0:27 tether out; starting again 8/8/2004 0:28 fish bio 8/8/2004 0:30 water hyacinth; starfish bio 8/8/2004 0:32 crab; shrimp (geryon) bio 8/8/2004 0:33 fish; shrimp bio 8/8/2004 0:42 fish bio 8/8/2004 0:47 fish bio 8/8/2004 0:49 fish bio 8/8/2004 0:50 water hyacinth bio shrimp 08/8/2004 0:51 shrimp bio 8/8/2004 0:54 shrimp; fish bio halosaur 8/8/2004 0:56 shrimp bio 8/8/2004 1:00 fish bio 

320 

8/8/2004 1:02 shrimp; water hyacinth bio 

8/8/2004 1:04 fish bio 8/8/2004 1:07 EOL 438 8/8/2004 1:07 shrimp bio 8/8/2004 1:10 lights out for ten minutes 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/8/2004 1:20 lights on 8/8/2004 1:20 SOL 439 8/8/2004 1:22 shrimp (2) bio 8/8/2004 1:23 halosaur bio 8/8/2004 1:24 water hyacinth; starfish bio 8/8/2004 1:26 RO-48 artifact arch art 64 8/8/2004 1:28 shrimp; cutthroat eel bio 8/8/2004 1:30 brittle star bio brittlestar 8/8/2004 1:31 halosaur bio 8/8/2004 1:31 fish bio eel 8/8/2004 1:33 starfish bio 8/8/2004 1:34 shrimp, fish bio 8/8/2004 1:35 sardine can bio 8/8/2004 1:35 shrimp bio 8/8/2004 1:36 halosaurs (2) bio 8/8/2004 1:37 water hyacinth bio 8/8/2004 1:38 EOL 439 (600 ft) bio 8/8/2004 1:39 halosaurs (2) bio 8/8/2004 1:45 SOL 440 bio 8/8/2004 1:41 trash bio 8/8/2004 1:42 rattail bio 8/8/2004 1:45 fish (2) bio 8/8/2004 1:49 fish, rattail bio 8/8/2004 1:50 starfish bio 8/8/2004 1:53 shrimp bio 1

321 

8/8/2004 1:54 halosaurs, shrimp bio 

8/8/2004 1:55 shrimp, starfish, shrimp (glyphocranson) bio 8/8/2004 1:57 3 shrimp, halosaurs- maybe four of them, bio  brittle star swimming 8/8/2004 1:58 halosaur; shrimp; cutthroat eel; halosaur; bio 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

 shrom on bottom (orange eyes) 8/8/2004 1:59 cutthroat eel; shrimp bio 8/8/2004 2:00 line 440 ended 8/8/2004 2:03 moving to line 434 8/8/2004 2:18 tms- problems 8/8/2004 2:30 SOL 434 8/8/2004 2:31 unidentified artifact arch 8/8/2004 2:40 Bathynomous isopod swimming bio 8/8/2004 2:44 fish (rattail?) bio 8/8/2004 2:50 fish bio 8/8/2004 2:51 fish bio 8/8/2004 2:52 RO-49 rope, at 2:52, metal object 2:53, artifact 64, arch  F#49 8/8/2004 2:56 fish (rattail) 2 bio 8/8/2004 3:09 artifact #65, metal object arch 2:57 8/8/2004 3:14 RO-50 artifact #66, RO50 assoc. features arch 8/8/2004 3:18 EOL 434 8/8/2004 3:19 travel to line 422 8/8/2004 3:19 fish bio 8/8/2004 3:47 shrimp bio 8/8/2004 3:50 first artifact of line 422, artifact 67 arch 8/8/2004 3:52 2 objects arch 8/8/2004 3:54 airvents arch 8/8/2004 3:57 airvents 8/8/2004 4:00 metal piece 

322 

8/8/2004 4:05 finish line 422 4

8/8/2004 4:21 SOL 423, close up shop due to weather  68/8/2004 7:06 start of mosaic of stern-center-line, first top to  bottom then sides (stbd then port) 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/8/2004 7:18 end of stern mosaic 8/8/2004 7:19 recon of stern for bio will s. 8/8/2004 7:37 plan view mosaic stern to bow 78/8/2004 7:51 start of centerline (s->b) 8/8/2004 8:09 EOL 8/8/2004 8:23 start of stbd line 1 8/8/2004 8:50 start of stbd line 2 88/8/2004 9:05 EOL 8/8/2004 9:32 start of 1 line port side (s->b) 8/8/2004 9:49 EOL 98/8/2004 9:57 start of line 2 portside (s->b) 8/8/2004 10:15 EOL 2 8/8/2004 10:26 End of Mosaic (plan view) footage, basket at  bottom  108/8/2004 12:05 RO-51 large trap set 1000 ft from wreck 118/8/2004 12:07 shrimp trap taken from basket 8/8/2004 12:08 small trap taken from basket 8/8/2004 12:11 small trap set (no fix taken) 8/8/2004 12:13 RO-52 shrimp trap set 8/8/2004 12:29 core tube "D" taken from basket 8/8/2004 12:30 RO-53 core sample "D" collected; sample taken only  800 ft from wreck 8/8/2004 12:33 core tube "D" returned to basket 8/8/2004 12:35 basket lifted from floor; will be taken to 150 ft 

323 

 SE of the stern of the wreck 

8/8/2004 13:06 basket set on bottom 128/8/2004 13:17 small trap taken from basket 8/8/2004 13:23 RO-54 small trap set near wreck 8/8/2004 13:28 crab trap taken from basket; trap appears 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

 crushed and cannot be set 8/8/2004 13:30 large trap taken from basket 8/8/2004 13:36 RO-55 large trap set near wreck; ROV will now be  brought to surface due to sonar malfunction;  remaining core samples to be taken after  repairs  138/8/2004 16:25 ROV back @ basket 8/8/2004 16:29 core tube "B" taken from basket 8/8/2004 16:32 crab bio 8/8/2004 16:33 shrimp bio 8/8/2004 16:34 RO-56 core sample "B" taken 500 ft from wreck 8/8/2004 16:39 Core "B" placed in basket 168/8/2004 16:40 core "C" taken from basket 8/8/2004 16:44 RO-57 core "C" taken 100ft from wreck 8/8/2004 16:48 core tube "C" returned to basket 8/8/2004 16:49 core "A" taken from basket 8/8/2004 16:54 RO-58 sample "A" collected ~50 ft fore of stern (port  side) 8/8/2004 16:57 RO-59 fix taken on stern arch 8/8/2004 17:01 core tube "A" put in basket 8/8/2004 17:02 core tube "E" taken from basket, core sample  RO-60 "E" taken near bridge 8/8/2004 17:14 area of port side of wreck 8/8/2004 17:25 core "E" returned to basket 

324 

8/8/2004 17:26 biological sampling begins 

8/8/2004 17:29 shrimp 8/8/2004 17:31 crab 8/8/2004 17:39 white crab; sucked up #1 8/8/2004 17:42 another white crab- sucked up #2 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/8/2004 17:44 still shot at two crabs - two_crabs.tiff two_crabs 178/8/2004 17:56 possible hydrozoan - sucked up 8/8/2004 17:56 white crab; sucked up #3 white_crab 8/8/2004 17:58 hydrozoan/ bryozoan- sucked up 8/8/2004 17:59 white crab #4- sucked up white_crab2 8/8/2004 17:50 hydrozoan, sucke up (greenish) 8/8/2004 17:51 purple hydrozoan, sucked up purple_hydrozoan 8/8/2004 17:53 bryozoan/ hydrozoan; sucked up 8/8/2004 17:55 sea anemone; brown sea_anemone 8/8/2004 17:56 white crab #5 white_crab3 8/8/2004 17:59 white crab #6 white_crab4 8/8/2004 17:59 white crab #7 white_crab5 8/8/2004 18:00 bryozoan/ hydrozoan 8/8/2004 18:04 crab on sea floor next to wreck sucked up bio 8/8/2004 18:07 white crab on floor bio 8/8/2004 18:09 munidopsis x 3 sucked up bio 8/8/2004 18:10 white crab #8 bio 8/8/2004 18:13 green crab - sucked up. bio green_crab.tiff 8/8/2004 18:15 fish - fish.tiff bio fish.tiff 8/8/2004 18:17 another feesh... sucked up bio fish2.tiff 8/8/2004 18:22 crab- green crab.tif bio green_crab.tiff 8/8/2004 18:46 fish- sucked up bio fish3.tif End of 8/8/2004 18:57 invert bio 188/8/2004 18:59 shrimp, large bio 8/8/2004 19:03 crab with missing leggs bio cripple_crab.tiff 

325 

8/8/2004 19:04 white crab? Sucked up bio 

8/8/2004 19:05 green_crab. Sucked up bio green_crab3.tif 8/8/2004 19:21 RO-61 fix on telegraph arch 8/8/2004 19:53 head back to TMS. Electric comms need to  be resealed. 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/8/2004 19:55 Recovering ROV 198/8/2004 22:23 ROV back on botttom 228/8/2004 22:32 fish collected B 8/8/2004 22:45 rusticle collection box taken from basket 8/8/2004 22:51 rusticle container ("gucci") taken from basket 8/8/2004 23:00 rusticle collected from stern 8/8/2004 23:02 rusticle collected from stern 8/8/2004 23:08 rusticle collected from stern 8/8/2004 23:11 rusticles dumped in"gucci" container 8/8/2004 23:26 rusticle taken from aft promenade 8/8/2004 23:32 rusticle, port stern. Rusticle_collected_from 8/8/2004 _stern4.jpg 8/8/2004 23:42 rusticle, port stern. Rusticle_collected_from 8/8/2004 _stern5.jpg 8/8/2004 23:51 rusticle, port stern. Rusticle_collected_from 238/8/2004 _stern6.jpg 8/8/2004 23:52 rusticle, port stern. Rusticle_collected_from 8/8/2004 _stern7.jpg 8/8/2004 23:54 Rusticle collected from stern 8.jpg 8/9/2004 0:02 rusticle collected from stern 9.jpg 8/9/2004 0:09 Rusticle collected from stern 10.jpg 8/9/2004 0:15 rusticle collected from stern 10.jpg (the next two) 8/9/2004 0:18 Rusticle collected from stern 11.jpg 8/9/2004 0:19 rusticle collected from stern 12.jpg 8/9/2004 0:27 telegraph, lying down, telelgraph clean. Jpg arch 

326 

8/9/2004 0:34 cleaning second telegraph arch possible_rudder_control. 

8/9/2004 0:39 possible rudder control (2nd telegraph) arch Possible 08/9/2004 Rudder control 2.jpg 8/9/2004 0:41 possible rudder control (2nd telegraph) arch possible_rudder_control3. 8/9/2004 0:42 possible rudder control (2nd telegraph) 
 Site Robert E. Lee 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Ta

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start 

8/9/2004 18/9/2004 28/9/2004 3:28 large-white at 1000 ft, small white at 1000 ft, 8/9/2004 minnow trap at 1000 ft all back in basket 8/9/2004 3:39 basket off bottom 

327 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

9-Aug-04 7:27 ROV hits water 9-Aug-04 8:47 At depth 6370 ft 9-Aug-04 8:54 AP1 Depth experiment arch 9-Aug-04 8:56 Arrive at ship, stbd side ~1/2, railings, mast down; arch  going around bow 9-Aug-04 9:00 Stbd anchor, impact arch 9-Aug-04 9:01 AP2 Site at bow; stbd anchor below arch 9-Aug-04 9:04 Large rusticles; spent rusticles, windlass, anchor chains a/b  9-Aug-04 9:07 Vent wall, bollards arch 9-Aug-04 9:08 Large buckle stbd side arch 

 9-Aug-04 9:29 Port side rusticles bio 

9-Aug-04 9:32 Rusticulated mast? a/b 9-Aug-04 9:33 AP3 Wire obstruction arch End 9-Aug-04 9:34 Anenomes and crabs (2) bio 9-Aug-04 9:36 AP4 Wire obstruction arch 9-Aug-04 9:38 Hole from gun; mast bent over arch 9-Aug-04 9:39 Cleat hause hole; hole from gun 37 mm & 105 mm hole arch 9-Aug-04 9:41 Large hole, midship, mast?, wall of rusticles; a/b  move up mast 9-Aug-04 9:48 AP5 Davit; mid ship bridge arch 9-Aug-04 9:49 Roof falling in quarters arch 9-Aug-04 9:48 AP6 stack; davit arch 9-Aug-04 9:54 torpedo hole arch 

328 

9-Aug-04 9:57 hole above torpedo arch 

9-Aug-04 9:58 fish-rattail, spent rusticles below torpedo hole, rusticle a/b  river flowing 9-Aug-04 10:00 Exit wound? from torpedo, hand rails bent and twisted; arch  moving aft 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

9-Aug-04 10:02 white plastic with duct tape arch 9-Aug-04 10:04 Deck split from hull; large anenome a/b 9-Aug-04 10:05 On hand rail, lots of little white crabs a/b 9-Aug-04 10:06 large buckle by stern mast, aft of winch, bollards, vents arch 9-Aug-04 10:08 Porthole with glass and rusticle arch 9-Aug-04 10:08 Name of stern ALCOA NEW; fish a/b 9-Aug-04 10:08 plastic? canvas; stern at mud line arch 9-Aug-04 10:12 Damage and plate split arch 9-Aug-04 10:14 scan of name on stern, bollards with rusticles hanging off arch 9-Aug-04 10:16 AP7 Stern; length from bow fix to stern: 423 ft arch 9-Aug-04 10:20 AP8 wire and rail obstructions arch 9-Aug-04 10:21 netting in mud; 6-8 ft off of sediment arch 9-Aug-04 10:29 hole arch 9-Aug-04 10:30 door, porthole, entry arch 9-Aug-04 10:33 hole bullet arch 9-Aug-04 10:34 ladder and bollards arch 9-Aug-04 10:37 davit, mast arch 9-Aug-04 10:38 davit, bridge door open, twisted hand rails; fallen in deck arch  roofing 9-Aug-04 10:42 telegraph in wheel house, flying port to stbd arch End 9-Aug-04 10:44 entry way arch 9-Aug-04 10:45 AP9 bullet hole below entry way; platform placement arch 9-Aug-04 10:58 stbd side; forward of promenade deck beside winch arch 9-Aug-04 11:01 mast falling down arch 9-Aug-04 11:03 dent arch 

329 

9-Aug-04 11:04 flattened mast arch 

9-Aug-04 11:09 AP10 Bow; fly over from bow to stern arch 9-Aug-04 11:19 forwardmost hold arch 9-Aug-04 11:23 second hold arch 9-Aug-04 11:24 pilot house rusticles arch 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

9-Aug-04 11:33 wood object on pilot house roof arch 9-Aug-04 11:34 telegraph arch 9-Aug-04 11:37 funnel arch 9-Aug-04 11:46 Stern arch 9-Aug-04 12:25 Start survey line 520 arch 9-Aug-04 12:30 sea star bio Sea star 9-Aug-04 12:33 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 12:37 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 12:39 AP11 artifact 1; bracing for walkway arch 9-Aug-04 12:46 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 12:49 artifact 2; metal railing arch 9-Aug-04 12:50 shrimp and crab bio 9-Aug-04 12:51 burlap sack arch 9-Aug-04 12:52 wire arch 9-Aug-04 12:58 AP12 smoke stack arch 9-Aug-04 13:09 sea cucumber bio 9-Aug-04 13:10 wire arch 9-Aug-04 13:16 cucumber bio 9-Aug-04 13:19 invert bio 9-Aug-04 13:23 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 13:26 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 13:30 cucumber collected bio 9-Aug-04 13:30 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 13:31 fish bio 9-Aug-04 13:32 sea star bio 

330 

9-Aug-04 13:37 fish bio 

9-Aug-04 13:38 fish collected bio 9-Aug-04 13:42 fish bio 9-Aug-04 13:45 fish bio 9-Aug-04 13:46 shrimp collected bio 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

9-Aug-04 13:54 End of line 520 9-Aug-04 13:55 Start of line 521 9-Aug-04 13:59 hermit crab bio End 9-Aug-04 14:15 cucumber sampled bio 9-Aug-04 14:30 metal railing arch 9-Aug-04 14:31 Door- artifact 3 arch 9-Aug-04 14:32 netting arch 9-Aug-04 14:35 artifact 4 arch 9-Aug-04 14:38 invert collected bio 9-Aug-04 14:53 End of line 521 9-Aug-04 14:56 Start of line 519 9-Aug-04 14:59 brittle star collected bio 9-Aug-04 15:01 fish; anenome bio 9-Aug-04 15:03 urchin? bio 9-Aug-04 15:05 artifact 5 arch 9-Aug-04 15:06 anenome (2) bio 9-Aug-04 15:07 brittle star bio 9-Aug-04 15:09 shrimp bio 9-Aug-04 15:11 onion sack trash End 9-Aug-04 15:12 invert bio 9-Aug-04 15:12 rag trash 9-Aug-04 15:15 invert bio 9-Aug-04 15:16 crab bio 9-Aug-04 15:18 crab (2) bio 9-Aug-04 15:19 crab (2) bio 

331 

9-Aug-04 15:21 fish (2) bio 

9-Aug-04 15:56 milk box trash 9-Aug-04 16:10 shrimp; sea star bio 9-Aug-04 16:17 End of line 519 9-Aug-04 16:21 lights out 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

9-Aug-04 16:59 shrimp, lights on bio 9-Aug-04 17:05 ROV heads to basket 9-Aug-04 17:08 ROV reaches basket 9-Aug-04 17:11 Basket brought to surface bio 9-Aug-04 18:05 Start of line 218 9-Aug-04 18:11 invert bio 9-Aug-04 18:13 invert collected bio 9-Aug-04 18:19 fish bio 9-Aug-04 18:23 invert; fish bio 9-Aug-04 18:25 crab bio 9-Aug-04 18:27 fish bio 9-Aug-04 18:27 Chaecon sp. bio 9-Aug-04 18:28 AP13 artifact 6 arch art 6 9-Aug-04 18:51 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 18:32 invert bio 9-Aug-04 18:34 shrimp bio 9-Aug-04 18:36 sea cucumber collected bio 9-Aug-04 18:37 AP14 artifact 7 arch 9-Aug-04 18:42 bag? t 9-Aug-04 18:43 shrimp, fish, sea star bio 9-Aug-04 18:44 shrimp bio 9-Aug-04 18:46 fish; invert bio 9-Aug-04 18:48 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 18:53 End of line 218 9-Aug-04 19:00 Start of line 217 

332 

9-Aug-04 19:06 invert bio 

9-Aug-04 19:07 brittle star bio 9-Aug-04 19:11 invert collected bio 9-Aug-04 19:14 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 19:15 skate bio 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

9-Aug-04 19:23 artifact 8 a 9-Aug-04 19:26 shrimp bio 9-Aug-04 19:30 cucumber collected bio 9-Aug-04 19:31 artifact 9 a 9-Aug-04 19:32 shrimp bio 9-Aug-04 19:33 fish bio 9-Aug-04 19:34 fish? bio 9-Aug-04 19:45 sea star bio End 9-Aug-04 19:50 End of line 517 9-Aug-04 19:52 Start of line 516 9-Aug-04 19:52 fish bio 9-Aug-04 19:56 excreting cucumber bio 9-Aug-04 20:03 invert bio 9-Aug-04 20:01 orange fabric ar/t orange-fabric 9-Aug-04 20:14 invert; white-skeleton sea urchin bio invert2 9-Aug-04 20:23 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 20:29 fish bio fish7 9-Aug-04 20:41 artifact; white crab a/b artifact10 9-Aug-04 20:44 fish bio 9-Aug-04 20:45 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 20:45 fish in sediment (sucked up?) bio fish8 9-Aug-04 20:51 garbage bag? trash garbage 9-Aug-04 20:52 plate- prob. modern arch modern_plate 9-Aug-04 20:53 white long thing- worm/eel? bio long_whitething 9-Aug-04 21:04 AP15 shell casing arch shell casing 

333 

9-Aug-04 21:06 AP15 same casing, diff. view arch shell casing2 

9-Aug-04 21:10 End of line 516 9-Aug-04 21:13 Start of line 514 9-Aug-04 21:22 chip packet trash chips 9-Aug-04 21:33 trash-unknown trash 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

9-Aug-04 21:35 artifact arch artifact11 9-Aug-04 21:37 AP16 artifact arch artifact12 9-Aug-04 21:41 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 21:40 sea cucumber; sucked up bio cucumber3 9-Aug-04 21:48 End of line 514 9-Aug-04 21:53 Heading to 1000 ft line 9-Aug-04 22:18 Start of line 500 9-Aug-04 22:19 shrimp bio 9-Aug-04 22:23 invert collected bio 9-Aug-04 22:26 shrimp bio 9-Aug-04 22:26 AP17 artifact 13 arch artifact13 9-Aug-04 22:33 invert (2) collected bio 9-Aug-04 22:35 artifact 14 arch artifact14 9-Aug-04 22:37 artifact 15 arch artifact15 9-Aug-04 22:39 debris arch 9-Aug-04 22:40 debris (artifact 16) arch artifact16 9-Aug-04 22:42 debris arch 9-Aug-04 22:44 debris; gangway arch artifact17 9-Aug-04 22:46 chair arch chair 9-Aug-04 22:46 trash trash 9-Aug-04 22:50 fish collected bio 9-Aug-04 22:52 debris arch 9-Aug-04 22:53 artifact18 arch artifact18 9-Aug-04 22:56 barrel arch barrel 9-Aug-04 22:57 AP18 Top of mast arch Top of Mast 

334 

9-Aug-04 22:59 End of line 500 

9-Aug-04 23:02 sea cucumber collected bio 9-Aug-04 23:02 Start of line 501 9-Aug-04 23:04 debris arch 9-Aug-04 23:07 shrimp bio 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

9-Aug-04 23:11 shrimp, brittle star bio 9-Aug-04 23:12 sea star bio 9-Aug-04 23:17 debris arch 9-Aug-04 23:16 debris arch wreckage 9-Aug-04 23:21 debris arch 9-Aug-04 23:27 fish bio 9-Aug-04 23:27 End of line 501 9-Aug-04 23:30 Start of line 502 9-Aug-04 23:31 fish collected bio 9-Aug-04 23:34 shrimp bio 9-Aug-04 23:38 debris arch 9-Aug-04 23:38 shrimp NOT collected bio 9-Aug-04 23:41 invert collected bio 9-Aug-04 23:43 cargo netting, debris arch 9-Aug-04 23:56 metal artifact arch 9-Aug-04 23:59 fish? collection bio 10-Aug-04 0:07 starfish collection; eel bio 10-Aug-04 0:10 Basket in water bio 10-Aug-04 0:36 shrimp collection bio 10-Aug-04 0:39 Tripod fish bio 10-Aug-04 0:40 attempted fish collection bio 10-Aug-04 0:41 attempted fish collection bio 10-Aug-04 0:42 fish collected bio 10-Aug-04 0:47 brittle star bio 10-Aug-04 0:53 attempted fish collection; caught fish bio 

335 

10-Aug-04 1:05 Basket at depth; moving to 1000 ft mark bio 

10-Aug-04 1:15 Basket on bottom bio 10-Aug-04 1:17 Removing large trap (white) from basket bio 10-Aug-04 1:19 AP19 Set large trap at 1000 ft bio 10-Aug-04 1:21 Moving small trap from basket (white) bio 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

10-Aug-04 1:25 AP20 Set small trap at 1000 ft bio 10-Aug-04 1:28 Moving minnow trap from basket bio 10-Aug-04 1:31 AP21 Set minnow trap at 1000 ft; core tube d taken from bio  basket 10-Aug-04 1:34 AP22 Core sample D taken from 1000 ft bio 10-Aug-04 1:34 Core sample D back in basket bio 10-Aug-04 1:38 Basket off bottom- moving to wreck bio 10-Aug-04 2:12 Basket on bottom bio 10-Aug-04 2:15 Hook removed from basket bio 10-Aug-04 2:19 Moving large fish trap (black) bio 10-Aug-04 2:23 Moving small trap from basket (black) bio 10-Aug-04 2:30 Moving crab trap bio 10-Aug-04 2:44 AP23 Crap trap set near wreck bio 10-Aug-04 2:49 AP24 Set large fish trap near wreck bio 10-Aug-04 2:51 AP25 Set small fish trap near wreck bio 10-Aug-04 3:02 Core tube A taken from basket; between stern and the bio  deckhouse 10-Aug-04 3:07 AP26 Core sample A taken bio 10-Aug-04 3:11 Core tube A back in basket bio 10-Aug-04 3:12 Core tube E taken from basket bio 10-Aug-04 3:15 AP27 Core sample E taken by hull bio 10-Aug-04 3:19 Core tube E back in the basket bio 10-Aug-04 3:20 Core tube B taken from basket bio 10-Aug-04 3:23 AP28 Core sample B taken from 100 ft from hull bio 10-Aug-04 3:27 Core tube B back in the basket bio 

336 

10-Aug-04 3:28 Core tube C taken from basket bio 

10-Aug-04 3:41 AP29 Core sample C taken from 500 ft from hull bio 10-Aug-04 3:48 Core tube C back in basket bio 10-Aug-04 4:00 Basket for rusticle collection device bio End 10-Aug-04 4:10 Large rusticle collected from portside midship bio 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

10-Aug-04 4:21 return to basket for small stern bio 10-Aug-04 4:41 portside rusticles premenade bio 10-Aug-04 5:08 rustilces near stern bio 10-Aug-04 5:59 pick up compression experiment bio 10-Aug-04 6:45 compression experiment, stein, and gucci in basket bio 10-Aug-04 6:53 hooked the basket bio 10-Aug-04 6:54 Basket off bottom bio 10-Aug-04 7:19 basket on deck bio 10-Aug-04 7:15 fish bio 10-Aug-04 7:15 Start of line 503 10-Aug-04 7:16 sea roach collection; fish bio 10-Aug-04 7:17 fish, cucumber collection bio 10-Aug-04 7:18 fish bio 10-Aug-04 7:19 fish bio 10-Aug-04 7:19 sea urchin collection bio 10-Aug-04 7:20 shrimp; fish bio 10-Aug-04 7:21 shrimp bio 10-Aug-04 7:22 2 shrimp bio 10-Aug-04 7:23 2 fish bio 10-Aug-04 7:24 fish collected bio 10-Aug-04 7:25 unknown invert collected bio 10-Aug-04 7:25 shrimp bio 10-Aug-04 7:27 shrimp bio 10-Aug-04 7:28 fish collected bio 10-Aug-04 7:28 fish collected bio 

337 

10-Aug-04 7:29 cucumber bio blue cucumber 

10-Aug-04 7:30 shrimp bio 10-Aug-04 7:31 shrimp bio 10-Aug-04 7:32 sea urchin collection bio 10-Aug-04 7:34 water hyacinth collection bio 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

10-Aug-04 7:34 possible fish collection bio 10-Aug-04 7:36 fish bio 10-Aug-04 7:37 shrimp; 2 fish bio 10-Aug-04 7:38 fish bio 10-Aug-04 7:42 plastic trash 10-Aug-04 7:43 fish; shrimp bio 10-Aug-04 7:44 pepsi can trash 10-Aug-04 7:44 sea urchin bio End 10-Aug-04 7:45 unknown invert collected bio 10-Aug-04 7:48 brittle star bio 10-Aug-04 7:53 basket in water bio 10-Aug-04 7:51 shrimp collection bio 10-Aug-04 7:52 sea urchin collection bio 10-Aug-04 7:54 artifact arch pic 10-Aug-04 7:55 crab bio 10-Aug-04 7:59 brotula bio 10-Aug-04 8:00 sea roach collection bio 10-Aug-04 8:00 brittle star bio 10-Aug-04 8:03 artifact; white crab a/b 10-Aug-04 8:05 fish bio 10-Aug-04 8:07 artifact; white crab a/b 10-Aug-04 8:09 2 cucumbers bio 10-Aug-04 8:11 2 cucumbers bio 10-Aug-04 8:11 artifact arch 23 10-Aug-04 8:13 artifact arch 

338 

10-Aug-04 8:14 artifact arch 

10-Aug-04 8:15 artifact 24 arch pic 10-Aug-04 8:17 artifact;fish a/b 10-Aug-04 8:18 2 anenomes bio 10-Aug-04 8:19 artifact 25 arch pic 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

10-Aug-04 8:20 beach ball trash pic 10-Aug-04 8:20 white crabs bio 10-Aug-04 8:22 2 crabs bio 10-Aug-04 8:23 2 crabs collected bio 10-Aug-04 8:24 fish bio 10-Aug-04 8:25 artifact- chair 2 arch pic 10-Aug-04 8:25 2 fish bio 10-Aug-04 8:26 artifact arch pic 10-Aug-04 8:28 starfish bio 10-Aug-04 8:30 End of line 503 10-Aug-04 8:23 Basket at depth 10-Aug-04 8:41 Start of line 504 10-Aug-04 8:42 fish bio 10-Aug-04 8:44 artifact arch 10-Aug-04 8:45 artifact arch 10-Aug-04 8:48 starfish bio 10-Aug-04 8:53 fish bio 10-Aug-04 8:58 End of line 504 10-Aug-04 9:00 Start of line 505 10-Aug-04 9:01 artifact 26; crab a/b pic 10-Aug-04 9:05 artifact arch 10-Aug-04 9:09 fish collected bio 10-Aug-04 9:10 shrimp bio 10-Aug-04 9:14 shell-argonaut collected bio 10-Aug-04 9:15 fish bio 

339 

10-Aug-04 9:20 End of line 505 

10-Aug-04 9:20 Start of line 506 10-Aug-04 9:23 artifact arch 10-Aug-04 9:24 artifact (same as earlier) arch 10-Aug-04 9:28 shrimp bio 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

10-Aug-04 9:35 End of line 506; go to wreck 10-Aug-04 10:08 Start mosaic- center line arch 10-Aug-04 10:30 finished center line arch 10-Aug-04 10:38 Artifact pick up arch 10-Aug-04 11:05 basket at bottom, pick up artifact arch 10-Aug-04 11:13 pick up artifact 27 arch 10-Aug-04 11:20 artifact in basket; set basket at 250 ft arch 10-Aug-04 11:57 Start of line "shell casing" arch 10-Aug-04 12:34 possible artifact detected arch 10-Aug-04 12:42 fish; 2 sea stars bio 10-Aug-04 12:52 heading back to basket; will run a line 1000 ft west of arch  shell casing  line back to basket End 10-Aug-04 13:18 possible artifact detected arch 10-Aug-04 13:38 debris found arch 10-Aug-04 13:52 large trap near wreck bio 10-Aug-04 13:57 large trap set in basket bio 10-Aug-04 14:01 "raccoon" fish bio 10-Aug-04 14:04 crab trap retrieved bio 10-Aug-04 14:05 small trap retrieved bio 10-Aug-04 14:12 traps placed in basket bio 10-Aug-04 14:38 basket set 1000 ft from wreck bio 10-Aug-04 14:42 large trap received bio 10-Aug-04 14:46 large trap put in basket bio 10-Aug-04 14:50 shrimp trap retrieved bio 

340 

10-Aug-04 14:53 shrimp trap put in basket bio 

10-Aug-04 15:01 small trap retrieved bio 10-Aug-04 15:04 smal trap set in basket bio 10-Aug-04 15:06 Basket brought to surface; running additional survey lines bio 10-Aug-04 15:20 hatch cover? arch 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

10-Aug-04 15:26 long flat debris arch 10-Aug-04 15:27 debris arch 10-Aug-04 15:28 Start of line 546 End 10-Aug-04 15:30 Debris arch 10-Aug-04 15:46 debris arch 10-Aug-04 15:48 debris (rail?) arch 10-Aug-04 15:49 debris arch 10-Aug-04 15:50 top of (AP18) arch 10-Aug-04 15:51 fish bio 10-Aug-04 15:57 debris (barrel?) arch 10-Aug-04 15:58 debris arch 10-Aug-04 15:59 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:01 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:02 AP31 telegraph arch 10-Aug-04 16:04 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:06 plate arch 10-Aug-04 16:09 end of line 546 10-Aug-04 16:10 start of line 545 10-Aug-04 16:14 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:15 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:17 debris in crater arch 10-Aug-04 16:18 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:21 railing and bucket arch 10-Aug-04 16:22 fish bio 10-Aug-04 16:24 debris arch 

341 

10-Aug-04 16:24 cucumber bio 

10-Aug-04 16:27 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:28 pipe with anenome a/b 10-Aug-04 16:28 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:29 End of line 545 
Site Alcoa Puritan 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. St

10-Aug-04 16:31 barrel arch 10-Aug-04 16:32 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:34 AP32 debris-hatch cover? arch 10-Aug-04 16:38 AP33 debris hatch cover arch 10-Aug-04 16:40 Start of line 552 10-Aug-04 16:43 debris arch 10-Aug-04 16:47 AP34 debris- hatch cover arch 10-Aug-04 16:55 End of line 552-heading back to telegraph (AP31) arch 10-Aug-04 17:02 telegraph (AP31) surveyed; face plate missing arch 10-Aug-04 17:05 ROV being brought to surface arch 10-Aug-04 17:09 ROV stopped arch 10-Aug-04 17:48 Run test platforms collected from wreck arch 10-Aug-04 17:49 ROV being brought to surface arch 

342 
Site Gas Vent 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

21:20 22:50 

8/10/2004 23:46 shrimp-sucked up bio 8/10/2004 23:47 basket in water bio 8/10/2004 23:48 GV2 tube worms- 2 shots bio worms1.jpg; 8/10/2004 bio worms2.jpg 8/10/2004 23:52 fishie bio fishie1.jpg 23:52 8/10/2004 23:57 dead clam bio 8/10/2004 23:58 crab collected bio 8/10/2004 23:58 crab collected bio 8/10/2004 23:59 hydrate- bio hydrate1.jpg 8/11/2004 0:04 carbonate bio carbonate1.jpg 8/11/2004 0:07 GV3 mussels bio mussels.jpg 8/11/2004 0:21 crab collected bio 8/11/2004 0:25 collected hunk of hydrate bio 8/11/2004 0:38 basket at bottom bio 8/11/2004 0:43 GV4 small black trap at fix GV 4 (near fix GV 2) bio 8/11/2004 0:51 GV5 small white trap at fix GV5 (near fix GV 3) bio 0:49 8/11/2004 0:55 several crabs collected bio 8/11/2004 1:24 mussels collected with stein (GV 3) bio 8/11/2004 1:33 mussels in basket bio 8/11/2004 1:43 collected tubeworms at GV 2 bio 8/11/2004 2:01 bacterial mat bio bac_mat; 1:52  bac_mat2; 

343 

8/11/2004 bio bac_mat3 

8/11/2004 2:06 fish collected bio fishie2.jpg 8/11/2004 2:19 core sample taken bio core1.jpg 8/11/2004 2:21 stein scraped across bac mat surface bio stein_scrape.jpg 8/11/2004 2:35 core sample placed in basket bio 
Site Gas Vent 

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/11/2004 2:43 crab collected bio 8/11/2004 2:44 crab collected bio 8/11/2004 2:49 attempted shrimp collection bio 8/11/2004 2:50 shrimp collection bio 8/11/2004 2:51 crabs white bio 8/11/2004 2:54 crabs collected bio 8/11/2004 2:55 crabs collected bio 8/11/2004 3:01 crab collected bio 2:56 8/11/2004 3:03 small black trap removed bio 8/11/2004 3:10 small white trap removed; both picked up bio  moving to basket 8/11/2004 3:20 basket off bottom bio 8/11/2004 3:25 basket on deck bio 8/11/2004 Going back to bottom to pick up d bio  ecompression exp. 8/11/2004 3:39 basket off bottom bio 8/11/2004 3:45 ROV recovery; watching decompression exp. bio 8/11/2004 4:50 ROVon deck 3:47 

344 
Site Gulfpenn (Visit II)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Time 

8/11/2004 19:59 on stern 18:45 8/11/2004 20:04 coral bio 20:00 8/11/2004 20:05 moving down starboard side (s->b) 8/11/2004 20:06 coral; slimehead bio 8/11/2004 20:07 fish bio 8/11/2004 20:11 coral bio 8/11/2004 20:14 fish bio 8/11/2004 20:16 bringing up ROV to fix suction 8/11/2004 20:38 ROV breaks surface 8/11/2004 21:15 ROV back in water 8/11/2004 21:31 on bottom 21:30 8/11/2004 21:37 fish bio 8/11/2004 21:38 shrimp; crab collected bio 8/11/2004 21:39 slimehead collected bio 8/11/2004 21:41 eel bio 8/11/2004 21:42 crab collected bio 8/11/2004 21:44 fish not collected bio 8/11/2004 21:49 fish bio 8/11/2004 21:50 crab bio 8/11/2004 21:52 slimehead collected bio 8/11/2004 21:54 slimehead bio 8/11/2004 21:55 slimehead bio 8/11/2004 21:59 pycnogonid collected bio 8/11/2004 22:08 slimehead bio 

345 

8/11/2004 22:15 crabs (2) collected bio 

8/11/2004 22:17 crab collected bio 8/11/2004 22:19 shrimp collected bio 8/11/2004 22:20 shrimp bio 8/11/2004 22:20 slimehead collected bio 
Site Gulfpenn (Visit II)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Time 

8/11/2004 22:24 scorpion fish collected bio 8/11/2004 22:30 crab collected bio 8/11/2004 22:33 fish bio 8/11/2004 22:36 crabs collected bio 8/11/2004 22:37 crabs collected bio 22:37 8/11/2004 22:47 invert collected bio 8/11/2004 22:58 crab collected bio 8/11/2004 23:03 eel bio 8/11/2004 23:05 slimehead bio 8/11/2004 23:12 invert collected bio 8/11/2004 23:17 fish bio 8/11/2004 23:26 slimehead bio 8/11/2004 23:28 scallop collected bio 8/11/2004 23:34 slimehead collected bio 8/11/2004 23:44 crab collected bio 23:40 8/11/2004 23:48 slimehead collected bio 8/12/2004 0:01 start bow to stern survey 0:33 8/12/2004 0:56 end survey 8/12/2004 1:06 scorpion fish bio 8/12/2004 1:08 scorpion; cucumber bio 8/12/2004 1:09 crabs (2) collected bio 8/12/2004 1:13 fish and scorp bio 8/12/2004 1:19 crab collected (2) bio 8/12/2004 1:22 fish attempt bio 

346 

8/12/2004 1:24 fish attempt bio 

8/12/2004 1:30 slimeheads bio 8/12/2004 1:33 slimehead bio 8/12/2004 1:38 scorp attempt bio 8/12/2004 1:45 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 1:50 slimeheads bio 
Site Gulfpenn (Visit II)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Time 

8/12/2004 1:58 bivalve bio 1:54 8/12/2004 2:00 bivalve collection (half of body) bio 8/12/2004 2:04 bivalve collection bio 8/12/2004 2:08 bivalve collection bio 8/12/2004 2:10 bivalve collection bio 8/12/2004 2:11 crabs bio 8/12/2004 2:22 unknown invert bio 8/12/2004 2:23 unknown invert collection bio 8/12/2004 2:25 scorp bio 8/12/2004 2:28 scorp attempt bio 8/12/2004 2:28 fish attempt bio 8/12/2004 2:31 slimeheads bio 8/12/2004 2:34 slimehead captured bio 8/12/2004 2:35 fishes bio 8/12/2004 2:35 slimehead captured bio 8/12/2004 2:36 fish bio 8/12/2004 2:39 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 2:40 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 2:40 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 2:42 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 2:43 sea roach collection bio 8/12/2004 2:43 sea roach; scorpion bio 8/12/2004 2:46 2 scorps bio 8/12/2004 2:47 bivalves bio 8/12/2004 2:48 attempted bivalve bio 

347 

8/12/2004 2:49 2 bivalves collected bio 

8/12/2004 2:52 2 scorp attempts bio 8/12/2004 3:02 scorp attempt bio 2:57 8/12/2004 3:04 scorp attempt bio 8/12/2004 3:05 shrimp collected bio 
Site Gulfpenn (Visit II)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Time 

8/12/2004 3:07 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 3:08 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 3:10 Rochinia attempt bio 8/12/2004 3:14 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 3:16 fish attempted bio 8/12/2004 3:17 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 3:19 polychaete collected bio 8/12/2004 3:20 cucumber (2) bio 8/12/2004 3:22 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 3:24 shrimp; cucumber bio 8/12/2004 3:25 plant collected bio 8/12/2004 3:25 snail bio 8/12/2004 3:31 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 3:41 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 3:42 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 3:43 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 3:48 fish bio 8/12/2004 3:54 snail collection bio 8/12/2004 3:58 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 3:58 crab collection bio 8/12/2004 3:59 fish collection bio 8/12/2004 4:01 fish collection (2) bio 4:01 8/12/2004 4:01 shrimp bio 8/12/2004 4:02 crab collection bio 8/12/2004 4:02 snail collection bio 

348 

8/12/2004 4:03 cucumber bio 

8/12/2004 4:04 hermit crab collection bio 8/12/2004 4:04 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 4:07 crab collection bio 8/12/2004 4:08 cucumber (2) bio 
Site Gulfpenn (Visit II)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Time 

8/12/2004 4:09 crab collected (2) bio 8/12/2004 4:10 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 4:11 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 4:12 shrimp bio 8/12/2004 4:12 snail collection bio 8/12/2004 4:15 sea roach bio 8/12/2004 4:17 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 4:17 hermit crab collection bio 8/12/2004 4:18 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 4:19 2 crabs collected bio 8/12/2004 4:20 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 4:21 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 4:22 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 4:23 cucumber fish bio 8/12/2004 4:27 shrimp collected; 2 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 4:29 crabs (5) collected bio 8/12/2004 4:31 snail collection bio 8/12/2004 4:34 scorp bio 8/12/2004 4:42 fish collected bio 8/12/2004 4:43 snail collection bio 8/12/2004 4:45 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 4:47 possible snail collection bio 8/12/2004 4:48 fish collected bio 8/12/2004 4:52 fish collected bio 8/12/2004 4:52 shrimp collected bio 

349 

8/12/2004 4:52 snail collected bio 

8/12/2004 4:54 lobster collected bio 8/12/2004 5:03 shrimp collected/ crab bio 8/12/2004 5:12 fish collected bio 5:05 8/12/2004 5:13 crab collected bio 
Site Gulfpenn (Visit II)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Time 

8/12/2004 5:14 crab collected bio 8/12/2004 5:15 crab collected/ slimeheads bio 8/12/2004 5:18 sea roach; scorpion bio 8/12/2004 5:24 scorp bio 8/12/2004 5:30 fish bio 8/12/2004 5:30 fish collected bio 8/12/2004 5:34 2 scorps bio 8/12/2004 5:38 scorp bio 8/12/2004 5:42 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 5:45 fish bio 8/12/2004 5:48 fish bio 8/12/2004 6:00 trap pick up? Check video 8/12/2004 6:09 trap in basket 8/12/2004 6:10 crab in basket 6:10 8/12/2004 6:21 basket off bottom 

350 
Site Robert E. Lee, (Visit II - South Debris Field)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/12/2004 12:44 ROV on sea floor 11:49 8/12/2004 12:46 SOL 422 8/12/2004 12:46 Isopod bio 8/12/2004 12:54 fish bio 8/12/2004 12:56 shrimp in water column bio 8/12/2004 13:11 artifact 70 arch 13:05 8/12/2004 13:15 artifact 71 arch 8/12/2004 13:15 artifact 72- side paneling? arch 8/12/2004 13:17 artifact 73 arch 8/12/2004 13:18 artifact 74- large vent arch 8/12/2004 13:19 artifact 75- large vent arch 8/12/2004 13:21 fish bio 8/12/2004 13:21 artifact 76- porthole? arch 8/12/2004 13:22 debris arch 8/12/2004 13:23 fish bio 8/12/2004 13:25 sea star bio 8/12/2004 13:25 artifact 77 arch 8/12/2004 13:27 sea star and fish bio 8/12/2004 13:29 sea star bio 8/12/2004 13:34 crab bio 8/12/2004 13:00 EOL 422 8/12/2004 13:45 SOL 423 8/12/2004 13:01 shrimp bio 8/12/2004 13:52 fish bio 

351 

8/12/2004 14:07 debris arch 

8/12/2004 14:08 artifact 78- pipe arch 14:08 8/12/2004 14:09 RO2-1 lifeboat #1 (2 life boats together arch 8/12/2004 14:11:00 lifeboat #2 arch 8/12/2004 14:13 pipes arch 
Site Robert E. Lee, (Visit II - South Debris Field)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/12/2004 14:15 artifact 79 arch 8/12/2004 14:15 artifact 80 arch 8/12/2004 14:16 artifact 81- vent arch 8/12/2004 14:18 artifact 82- rail arch 8/12/2004 14:20 artifact 83 arch 8/12/2004 14:21 artifact 84 arch 8/12/2004 14:22 debris arch 8/12/2004 14:25 artifact 85- porthole? arch 8/12/2004 14:29 fish bio 8/12/2004 14:28 debris in distance (ladder) arch 8/12/2004 14:41 EOL 423 8/12/2004 14:43 SOL 424 8/12/2004 14:54 crab bio 8/12/2004 14:57 debris arch 8/12/2004 14:59 artifact 86 arch 8/12/2004 15:01 fish bio 8/12/2004 15:03 artifact 87 arch 8/12/2004 15:03 vent arch 8/12/2004 15:06 debris arch 8/12/2004 15:07 debris arch 8/12/2004 15:08 debris arch 15:08 8/12/2004 15:09 debris arch 8/12/2004 15:10 rail arch 8/12/2004 15:13 debris and rail arch 8/12/2004 15:13 fish bio 

352 

8/12/2004 15:23 EOL 424 

8/12/2004 15:25 SOL 425 8/12/2004 15:31 metal wire arch 8/12/2004 15:32 shrimp bio 8/12/2004 15:36 fish bio 
Site Robert E. Lee, (Visit II - South Debris Field)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/12/2004 15:39 artifact 88 arch 8/12/2004 15:40 wiring arch 8/12/2004 15:41 debris arch 8/12/2004 15:46 artifact 89 (buried hull section arch 8/12/2004 15:47 artifact 90 arch 8/12/2004 15:50 RO2-2 telegraph on deck section arch 8/12/2004 15:53 crab bio 8/12/2004 15:55 fish bio 8/12/2004 15:56 shrimp bio 8/12/2004 16:05 EOL 425 8/12/2004 16:08 SOL 426 8/12/2004 16:15 debris arch 8/12/2004 16:18 debris arch 8/12/2004 16:20 pipe arch 16:19 8/12/2004 16:21 vent; railing and telegraph (RO2-2); section of deck arch 8/12/2004 16:23 RO2-3 2nd telegraph on deck section- called telegraph "b" arch 8/12/2004 16:36 artifact 91 arch 8/12/2004 16:37 artifact 92- piece of hull? arch 8/12/2004 16:39 vent; railing and telegraph (RO2-2); section of deck arch 8/12/2004 16:40 fish bio 8/12/2004 16:45 debris arch 8/12/2004 16:46 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 16:49 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 16:51 brittlestar collected bio 8/12/2004 16:51 sea star bio 

353 

8/12/2004 16:55 shrimp collected bio 

8/12/2004 16:07 EOL 426 8/12/2004 16:59 SOL 427 8/12/2004 17:00 brittlestar collected bio 8/12/2004 17:02 shrimp collected bio 
Site Robert E. Lee, (Visit II - South Debris Field)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/12/2004 17:03 sea star bio 8/12/2004 17:04 shrimp and brittlestar collected bio 8/12/2004 17:05 brittlestar collected bio 8/12/2004 17:07 2 shrimp bio 8/12/2004 17:08 shrimp bio 8/12/2004 17:10 2 brittlestars collected bio 8/12/2004 17:12 shrimp bio 8/12/2004 17:14 possible debris arch 8/12/2004 17:16 artifact 93 arch 8/12/2004 17:17 Metal beam arch 8/12/2004 17:19 debris arch 17:19 8/12/2004 17:21 pipes; metal debris arch 8/12/2004 17:22 fish collected bio 8/12/2004 17:23 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 17:25 wiring arch 8/12/2004 17:27 miller lite can trash 8/12/2004 17:28 artifact 94 arch 8/12/2004 17:30 fish bio 8/12/2004 17:32 fish bio 8/12/2004 17:37 fish bio 8/12/2004 17:39 artifact 95 and shrimp arch/bio 8/12/2004 17:41 shrimp and crab captured bio 8/12/2004 17:43 fish bio 8/12/2004 17:44 RO2-4 artifact- porthole hatch arch 8/12/2004 17:46 2 shrimp bio 

354 

8/12/2004 17:47 shrimp captured bio 

8/12/2004 17:51 crab bio 8/12/2004 17:52 fish collected bio 8/12/2004 17:52 scallops collected bio 8/12/2004 17:53 artifact 96 arch 
Site Robert E. Lee, (Visit II - South Debris Field)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/12/2004 17:54 artifact 97; crab and shrimp arch/bio 8/12/2004 17:55 RO2-5 shoe (white) arch shoe sole 8/12/2004 17:56 artifact 98 arch 8/12/2004 17:58 artifact 99- vent arch 8/12/2004 18:02 RO2-6 artifact 100- shoe and crab arch/bio shoe 2 8/12/2004 18:05 artifact 101- hose arch waterhose 8/12/2004 18:08 drag scar 8/12/2004 18:09 brittlestar bio 8/12/2004 18:15 hydroid/ bryozoan bio 8/12/2004 18:17 search for hit; none found 8/12/2004 18:20 fish bio 8/12/2004 18:20 EOL 428 8/12/2004 18:23 SOL 429 18:23 8/12/2004 18:24 crab; brittlestar bio 8/12/2004 18:26 brittlestar bio 8/12/2004 18:32 crushed vent arch 8/12/2004 18:33 brittlestar and worm collected bio 8/12/2004 18:34 artifact 102 arch 8/12/2004 18:35 artifact 102-B arch 8/12/2004 18:36 crab bio 8/12/2004 18:39 fish bio 8/12/2004 18:42 debris arch 8/12/2004 18:44 debris arch 8/12/2004 18:57 EOL 429 8/12/2004 18:59 SOL 430 

355 

8/12/2004 19:00 fish collected bio 

8/12/2004 19:06 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 19:09 debris and small white crab arch/bio 8/12/2004 19:13 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 19:16 fish collected bio 
Site Robert E. Lee, (Visit II - South Debris Field)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo T

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Star

8/12/2004 19:23 artifact 103 arch 8/12/2004 19:32 brittlestar collected bio 8/12/2004 19:36 debris- pipe arch 19:33 8/12/2004 19:37 cucumber bio 8/12/2004 19:38 EOL 430 8/12/2004 19:41 SOL 431 8/12/2004 19:45 artifact 104-section of hull? arch 8/12/2004 20:07 fish bio 8/12/2004 20:08 debris arch 8/12/2004 20:10 buried debris arch 8/12/2004 20:23 fish bio 8/12/2004 20:25 dish arch 8/12/2004 20:29 fish bio 8/12/2004 20:29 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 20:30 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 20:31 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 20:32 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 20:33 shrimp collected bio 8/12/2004 20:34 sea star bio  20:37 EOL 431  20:38 ROV being brought to surface 

356 
Site Gulfpenn (Visit III)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Time 

8/13/2004 6:13 Fish collected 5:58 8/13/2004 6:15 Crab collected 8/13/2004 6:17 Fish collected 8/13/2004 6:18 2 Fish attemps 8/13/2004 6:21 Scorp, Squat lobster 8/13/2004 6:22 Fish 8/13/2004 6:23 Slimhead 8/13/2004 6:27 Slimhead attempt 8/13/2004 6:29 2 scorps 8/13/2004 6:30 crab attempt 8/13/2004 6:31 Fish 8/13/2004 6:32 Slimheads 8/13/2004 6:37 Slimheads Collected 8/13/2004 6:40 Amphipod Hyperlid 8/13/2004 6:41 Slimheads 8/13/2004 6:42 Crab; Slimheads 8/13/2004 6:44 Crab collected 8/13/2004 6:47 Slimheads 8/13/2004 6:50 Scorp 8/13/2004 6:51 Fich 8/13/2004 6:55 Slimhead 

357 

8/13/2004 6:58 Siphonophore 

8/13/2004 6:59 Slimheads 8/13/2004 7:03 Caught Eumunida Picta 7:02 8/13/2004 7:06 Caught Slimhead 8/13/2004 7:13 Caught Slimhead 
Site Gulf Penn (Visit III)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Time 

8/13/2004 7:16 Caught Slimhead 8/13/2004 7:19 Caught Slimhead 8/13/2004 7:32 Caught Eumunida Picta 8/13/2004 7:33 Caught Anenume, maybe Slimhead 8/13/2004 7:37 Aenphoe 8/13/2004 7:38 2 Fish 8/13/2004 7:39 Fish 8/13/2004 7:40 Fish Collected 8/13/2004 7:41 Crab Collected 8/13/2004 7:43 Crab Collected 8/13/2004 7:45 Crab Collected 8/13/2004 7:48 Snail Collected 8/13/2004 7:50 Crab Collected 8/13/2004 8:02 Crab Collected/Hermit Crab also 8/13/2004 8:05 Crab Collected 8/13/2004 8:05 Shrimp Collected 8/13/2004 8:06 Shrimp Collected 8:06 8/13/2004 8:10 Rottail Collected 8/13/2004 8:11 Collected Flatfish 8/13/2004 8:14 Collected Fish 8/13/2004 8:14 Collected Shrimp 

358 

8/13/2004 8:15 Collected mud, maybe crabs 

8/13/2004 8:17 Collected Shrimp (2) 8/13/2004 8:20 Collected Fish, Poss. Bivalre 8/13/2004 8:25 Collected Shrimp 8/13/2004 8:28 Collected Shrimp 
Site Gulfpenn (Visit III)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Time 

8/13/2004 8:30 Collected Crabs and 2 shrimp 8/13/2004 8:32 Collected Snail (Gaza Superbo) 8/13/2004 8:32 Collected Flatfish 8/13/2004 8:35 Collected Crab (Poss. Bathynectes) 8/13/2004 8:36 Collected Crab 8/13/2004 8:37 Collected Fish (Goby?) 8/13/2004 8:38 Collected Shrimp and Shell 8/13/2004 8:40 Collected Brittlestar 8/13/2004 8:47 Collected Shrimp,snail,and fish 8/13/2004 8:49 Collected "Goby" 8/13/2004 8:56 Collected Snail (Gaza Superbo 2) 8/13/2004 9:08 Collected Crab (2) 8/13/2004 9:16 Snail Collected 8/13/2004 9:17 2 Crabs 8/13/2004 9:18 Hermit Crabs 9:18 8/13/2004 9:27 Slimheads 8/13/2004 9:32 Bivalve Collected 8/13/2004 9:34 Bivalve Collected 8/13/2004 9:39 Scorp 8/13/2004 9:41 Scorp, seaspider 8/13/2004 9:43 Seaspider collected 8/13/2004 9:50 Crab collected 

359 

8/13/2004 9:51 Seaspider 

8/13/2004 9:53 Seaspider collected 8/13/2004 9:54 Slimheads 8/13/2004 10:06 Slimhead collected 
Site Halo (Visit II)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Tim

8/13/2004 23:15 ROV in Water 23:20 8/13/2004 23:43 basket on bottom 8/13/2004 23:58 basket unhooked 8/14/2004 0:02 large trap picked up 8/14/2004 0:09 large trap at Halo, Stbd (stern) 8/14/2004 0:17 large trap at Wht, Stbd(bow) 8/14/2004 0:27 Bio platform set at Stbd bow behind Bollards 0:30 8/14/2004 1:29 ambarjack everywhere 8/14/2004 1:33 at most (basses) 8/14/2004 1:37 red barbier 1:34 8/14/2004 1:39 trying to vaccuum little fish in water column 8/14/2004 1:46 lights off 8/14/2004 1:54 light on 8/14/2004 1:56 shrimp collected 8/14/2004 1:59 unknown collection 8/14/2004 2:02 unknown collection 8/14/2004 2:07 lights out 8/14/2004 2:17 unknown collection 8/14/2004 2:20 unknown collection 8/14/2004 3:18 ambarjack 2:39 8/14/2004 4:14 coral sample taken 8/14/2004 4:20 seafan taken 3:58 8/14/2004 4:42 seafan in basket 8/14/2004 5:02 

360 

8/14/2004 6:42 fish B 6:33 

8/14/2004 6:47 fish collected B 8/14/2004 7:18 fish collected B 8/14/2004 7:34 hermit crab collected 8/14/2004 7:35 unknown invert 
Site Halo (Visit II)

Date Time Fix Description B/A/T Photo Tape 

No. [Note, Laser Distance is 5", not 4"] No. Start Tim

8/14/2004 7:38 unknown invert collection 7:37 8/14/2004 7:45 fish collection 8/14/2004 7:46 urchin collection 8/14/2004 7:52 fish collected 8/14/2004 7:57 unknown ? Collected 8/14/2004 8:13 large trap removed-black 8/14/2004 8:25 black large in basket 8/14/2004 8:32 large white trap removed 8/14/2004 8:35 large white trap in basket 8/14/2004 8:48 basket off bottom 8:42 

361 
362 
363

APPENDIX C 

Sediment Core 

Chemical Analysis Data
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.