LIST OF FIGURES (continued) 



Page 



Figure 3-15. Distribution of successional stage assemblages over the WLIS G 



mound, overlaid on July 1996 bathymetry and final detectable margin 



of the mound 36 



Figure 3-16. REMOTS® photographs at Stations CTR and 200E comparing the 



level of oxidation (RPD depth) and benthic recolonization within the 

 surface sediments o\'er the \^TIS G mound 37 



Figure 3-17. Bathymetric chan of the July 1996, 275 m x 440 m analysis area 



around the F mound, 0.25 m contour interval 38 



Figure 3-18. Bathymetric chart of the July 1992, 275 m x 440 m analysis area 



around the F mound, 0.25 m contour inten.'al 39 



Figure 3-19. Depth difference plot of the 275 m x 440 m analysis area, July 1996 



versus July 1992, 0.25 m contour interval 40 



Figure 3-20. Depth difference plot of the 275 m x 440 m analysis area, July 1996 



versus July 1990. 0.25 m contour interval 41 



Figure 3-21. Three REMOTS® photographs collected at Station 300S over the 



WLIS D moimd, depicting the favorable benthic conditions and the 



level of variability between replicates 44 



Figure 3-22. Three REMOTS® photographs collected at Station 200S over the 



WLIS D mound, depicting the poor benthic conditions and the level 



of variability between replicates 45 



Figure 3-23 . Bathymetric chart of the 700 m x 700 m analysis area overlaid by the 

 fmal detectable mound margin, WT.IS D and G mound REMOTS® 

 stations and benthic health indicators 46 



Figure 3-24. REMOTS® photographs collected at ST A 4 and ST A 1 over reference 

 area 2000W depicting dark, sulphidic sediments, poor benthic 

 conditions, and evidence of physical disturbance 48 



