Torresan, M.E., Hampton, M.A., Gowen, M.H., Barber, Jr., J.H., Zink, L.L., Chase, T.E., Wong, F.L., Gann, J.T., and Dartnell, P., 1995, Final report: acoustic mapping of dredged material disposal sites and deposits in Mamala Bay, Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 95-17. |
Introduction 1,
2 K1-93 Survey Results Figures
Apx 1: Statistics 1
|
APPENDIX 2: SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT METHODS
AND SUMMARY Geophysical and Navigation Systems (1) EG&G SMS 990 59-kHz Digital Sidescan Sonar and SMS
960 Modem: The sidescan sonar system was deployed on 052/0411 and retrieved on 055/1412, following the survey. The system performed well, with only two periods of down time owing to one failed circuit board and one corroded connector. Following the survey, the uncorrected sonar data were processed and digitally mosaicked using the USGS Mini Image Processing System (MIPS), to remove geometric distortions and noise inherent to the collection of sonar data. Post-cruise processing began with removal of the water column, followed by radiometric (shading, destriping and debanding, speckle removal, and nadir tonal improvements) and geometric (slanttoground range projection, aspect ratio, and delta velocity) corrections. Details of the processing routines employed in producing the digital mosaic are described by Chavez and Soderblom (1974), Chavez (1986), and Gardner and Chavez, (1987). Interpretation of the Sidescan Sonar Mosaic: The mosaic is presented as a black and white image, with various shades of gray used to define the variety of seafloor features. These shades of gray represent the varying energy levels of acoustic backscatter, and, for the mosaic presented in this report, the lighter shades represent higher acoustic backscatter. Typically, hard substrate, steep slopes, and rough bottoms produce higher backscatter (lighter features), but, many complex variables combine to determine how sound is backscattered and reflected from the seafloor. One assumption made by researchers is that the sidescan sonar is only imaging the seafloor. This is likely true for the system employed in this study, however, some sound energy may penetrate below the seafloor up to a few tens of centimeters. The amount of subsurface penetration is linked to the frequency of the sonar (the higher the frequency, the shallower the penetration), and nature of the seafloor substrate. Consequently, mosaic interpretation is not as straightforward as aerial photo interpretation, and, other data sets (i.e., high-resolution seismic reflection profiles, bottom photographs, and seafloor samples) are required to supplement the imagery so that accurate interpretations can be made. The mosaic presented in this report (plate 1) is presented in Mercator projection at about 1:40000 scale, has a resolution of 1.3 m per pixel, and shows two principal types of highbackscatter features: dredged spoil deposits and submerged reefs. The dredged spoils form two major high backscatter deposits in the central portion of the mosaic (figure 6 and plate 1), that comprise circular to subcircular mounds or footprints that coalesce to form the larger deposits. The second set of highbackscatter features represent submerged (drowned) reefs. These reefs are primarily coralline debris and limestone. A large reef is visible as a broad area of high backscatter on the western side of the mosaic (figure 6). Native seafloor sediment has a typical low backscatter and is visible as the darker background on which the higher backscatter dredged material is resting. Continue |
URL: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1995/of95-017/141apx2.html Maintained by: Michael Diggles Author: Florence L. Wong Last modified: May 27, 2005 (mfd)
|