Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-06-01

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

Benthic Habitat Mapping in the 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: 

Classification of side scan sonar data from survey 

HMPR-108-2002-01: Version I 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries January 2006 
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) 

administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Its mission is to identify, designate, protect and 

manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of 

nationally significant coastal and marine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ widely in their natural 

and historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size from less than one to over 

5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts, kelp forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine 

habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks. 

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine sanctuary has a tailored 

management plan. Conservation, education, research, monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. 

The integration of these programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a forum for publication 

and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Topics of 

published reports vary substantially and may include descriptions of educational programs, discussions on 

resource management issues, and results of scientific research and monitoring projects. The series facilitates 

integration of natural sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and policy development to 

accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection mandate. 
Benthic Habitat Mapping in the Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary: Classification of side scan sonar data from 

survey HMPR-108-2002-01: Version I 

Steven S. Intelmann1, and G.R. Cochrane2

1

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA 

2

Coastal and Marine Geology Program, USGS 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. (USN-ret.) 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Ocean Service 

John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator 

Silver Spring, Maryland Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

January 2006 Daniel J. Basta, Director 
DISCLAIMER 

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Program web site at www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov. Hard copies may be available from 

the following address: 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

 SSMC4, N/ORM62 

 1305 East-West Highway 

 Silver Spring, MD 20910 

COVER 

A clipped section of the western side scan sonar mosaic draped over multibeam 

bathymetry data. Dark grey pixels are soft substrate and lighter pixels are mixed 

substrate including cobbles, gravel, and mud. Topographic relief is evident from black 

acoustic shadows along the rock ridges. Contour lines are 50 meter intervals. 

SUGGESTED CITATION

Intelmann, S.S. and G.R. Cochrane. 2006. Benthic Habitat Mapping in the Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Classification of side scan sonar data from survey 

HMPR-108-2002-01: Version I. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-06-01. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 13pp. 

CONTACT 

Steven S. Intelmann 

Habitat Mapping Specialist 

NOAA/National Marine Sanctuaries Program 

N/ORM 6X26 

115 E. Railroad Avenue, Suite 301 

Port Angeles, WA 98362 

(360) 457-6622 X22 

steve.intelmann@noaa.gov
ABSTRACT 

In September 2002, side scan sonar was used to image a portion of the sea floor in the 

northern OCNMS and was mosaiced at 1-meter pixel resolution using 100 kHz data 

collected at 300-meter range scale. Video from a remotely-operated vehicle (ROV), 

bathymetry data, sedimentary samples, and sonar mapping have been integrated to 

describe geological and biological aspects of habitat and polygon features have been 

created and attributed with a hierarchical deep-water marine benthic classification 

scheme (Greene et al. 1999). The data can be used with geographic information system 

(GIS) software for display, query, and analysis. Textural analysis of the sonar images 

provided a relatively automated method for delineating substrate into three broad classes 

representing soft, mixed sediment, and hard bottom. Microhabitat and presence of 

certain biologic attributes were also populated into the polygon features, but strictly 

limited to areas where video groundtruthing occurred. Further groundtruthing work in 

specific areas would improve confidence in the classified habitat map. 

KEY WORDS 

Benthic, habitat mapping, sediment classification, side scan sonar, textural analysis, 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, essential fish habitat, groundtruthing 

i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Topic Page

Abstract and Key Words......................................................................................... i 

Table of Contents.................................................................................................... ii 

List of Figures and Tables....................................................................................... iii 

Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 

Survey Area ............................................................................................................ 2 

Sonar Acquisition.................................................................................................... 3 

Sonar data processing and image classification...................................................... 4 

Groundtruthing........................................................................................................ 5 

Survey results and interpretation ............................................................................ 6 

Discussion and conclusions .................................................................................... 9 

Acknowledgments................................................................................................... 10 

References............................................................................................................... 10 

Appendix................................................................................................................. 13 

ii 
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 

Figure/Table Number and Title Page

Figure 1. HMPR-108-2002-01 survey footprint shown with 100 m bathymetric 

contour and track line.............................................................................................. 2 

Figure 2. Photograph of F/V Mystery Bay, used as survey platform for 

HMPR-108-2002-01 ............................................................................................... 3 

Figure 3. Data acquisition schematic for the HMPR-108-2002-01 survey on 

the F/V Mystery Bay................................................................................................ 3 

Figure 4. Sonar groundtruthing coverage, including video footage from the 

AR-04-04 ROV deployments and sediment samples taken from the USSEABED 

project ..................................................................................................................... 5

Table 1. Distribution of bottom hardness classified from HMPR-108-2002-01 

side scan sonar survey data. Bottom induration codes are provided by area in 

square meters, and area as a percentage of total mapped area................................ 6 

Table 2. Distribution of habitat classified from HMPR-108-2002-01 side scan 

sonar survey data. Habitat codes are provided per Greene et al. (1999) and 

are presented by area in square meters, and area as a percentage of total 

mapped area ............................................................................................................ 6 

Figure 5. Classification of habitat for survey HMPR-108-2002-01. 

Microhabitat (in parenthesis) and biologic attributes (in brackets) are 

preceded by an asterisk in the habitat code............................................................. 8 

iii 

INTRODUCTION

An area of high productivity located offshore of Washington State, the Olympic Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) supports an extensive groundfish fishery, but 

recent declines in various groundfish stocks have created concern over establishing 

conservation efforts with increasing focus being placed on examining important habitat 

linkages (PFMC 2004). With amendment of the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1996, Fishery 

Management Councils (FMC) became responsible for evaluation and mitigation of the 

effects of habitat loss or degradation on their specific fishery, and essential fish habitat 

(EFH) became defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity“ (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et 

seq). The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, a product of the FMC, is 

responsible for the management of over 80 species and information describing available 

habitats for these species is often lacking, especially along the Washington coast. 

 

Without an understanding of the distribution and abundance of sea floor substrates, 

efforts to describe, delineate, manage for, or mitigate the loss of essential fish habitat 

becomes increasingly difficult. The use of geological characteristics is proving to be 

effective for describing marine habitat (Greene et al. 2000; Valentine et al. 2003) and 

technological innovations such as side scan sonar and multibeam sonar are advancing our 

abilities to remotely delineate ocean floor substrates (Mitchell and Hughes Clark 1994; 

Auster et al. 1999; Cochrane and Lafferty 2002; Huvenne et al. 2002; Dartnell and 

Gardner 2004). 

 

Classification of habitats and characterization of the seabed is critical for supporting 

management, research, monitoring, and education within the national marine sanctuaries 

(Barr 2003). Recognizing the importance for understanding the status of the benthic 

environment, coupled with the lack of existing data to do so, the OCNMS launched an 

active habitat mapping program in 2002 as an effort to begin characterizing sea floor 

substrates within its jurisdictional boundaries. 

 

In September 2002, side scan sonar was used to image a portion of the sea floor in the 

northern OCNMS and was mosaiced at 1-meter pixel resolution. Video from a remotelyoperated vehicle (ROV), bathymetry data, sedimentary samples, and sonar mapping have 

been integrated to describe geological and biological aspects of habitat and polygon 

features have been created and attributed with a hierarchical deep-water marine benthic 

classification scheme (Greene et al. 1999). The data can be used with geographic 

information system (GIS) software for display, query, and analysis. 

 

1 
SURVEY AREA 

Approximately 267 km2 of sea floor were imaged within the general vicinity of the Juan 

de Fuca Canyon, bounded by coordinates 48o

 20’06’’ N, 125o 09’00’’W, 48o 4’25’’ N, 

124o

53’23’’W (Figure 1). The survey work occurred from September 20 - September 

25, 2002. Depth of the project area ranged between 120 and 350 meters. 

Figure 1. HMPR-108-2002-01 survey footprint shown with 100 m 

bathymetric contour and track lines.

 

2 
SONAR ACQUISITION

Figure 2. Photograph of F/V Mystery Bay, used as survey 

platform for HMPR-108-2002-01. 

The fishing vessel Mystery Bay, measuring 51 meters in length, was used as the survey 

platform (Figure 2), with the aft hydraulic crane serving as tow point. A Trimble DSM 

212H differential GPS was used to acquire ship position and control line planning. A 

Trackpoint II ultra short baseline (USBL) was configured to track the position of the 

towfish, but significant layback resulting from extensive cable out produced poor 

navigation fixes, and as such the USBL data were not used for image mosaicing. Instead, 

towfish position was estimated through use of an Hydrographic Surveys digital cable 

counter to log line out. An SG Brown Meridian Standard survey gyrocompass, with 

static heading accuracy of 0.1 o , 

was used to control vessel heading. 

An Edgetech DF1000 dualfrequency side scan sonar was 

used to acquire the acoustic 

imagery. The sonar system has a 

horizontal beam width of 1.2 o at 

100kHz and 0.5 o at 500kHz with a 

vertical beam width measuring 50 o

and a depression angle of 20 o was 

set on the transducers. Vessel 

speed was maintained at 3-3.5 

knots throughout operations but 

was increased to 12 knots on 

several occasions to avoid 

contacting the towfish with the sea 

floor when surveying in an upslope 

direction. 

Positional information from the DGPS and gyrocompass were logged with Coastal 

Oceanographics Hypack (version 005b) software. Sonar data were logged, with 2048 

samples per channel, using Triton International Inc. (TII) Isis Sonar and recorded as 

eXtended Triton Format (XTF). Positional information acquired from both the 

Trackpoint II and the Trimble DGPS were patched into Isis through the shared memory 

option in Hypack (Figure 3). 

 

 

Figure 3. Data acquisition schematic for the 

 HMPR-108-2002-01 survey on the 

 F/V Mystery Bay.

3 
The survey plan began using a 150 meter range scale with 250 meter line spacing but was 

altered to 300 meter range scale with 500 meter line spacing after two days of data 

acquisition in an effort to maximize the amount of sea floor covered and also allow for 

the towfish to be flown at safer altitudes in the canyons. 

SONAR DATA PROCESSING AND IMAGE CLASSIFICATION

Image mosaics were created from the 100 kHz channels using Isis Sonar. Excessive 

noise in the Trackpoint II system precluded the use of USBL data for creating the image 

mosaics, therefore TII’s ModXTF utility was used to swap the USBL and the Trimble 

DGPS positioning in each XTF. Data from the Trimble DGPS was then used to calculate 

a layback position from logged line out data and towfish depth, which was acquired from 

a digital pressure sensor mounted in the tow body. The navigation data was smoothed in 

Isis Sonar using a 7-point moving average filter. Slant range correction and bottom 

tracking were accomplished in Isis Sonar, in addition to the application of time varied 

gain and beam angle compensation curves. To reduce the effects of far field attenuation, 

a ping duration was set to 282 meters during mosaic. 

 

Individual line mosaics were imported into TII’s DelphMap, merged into three separate 

mosaics to split the survey into an eastern, western and southern block, and then exported 

as geotiff images. Leica Geosystems’ Imagine software was used to export the images as 

raw binary format, with no header, and contained only grey-scale pixel intensities ranging 

from 0 to 255. 

 

Side scan sonar data are presented as grey-scale images representing the intensity of 

sound received by the sonar from the sea floor and can provide information about the 

characteristics of the surface sediments. But several studies (Skohr 1991; Blondel 1996) 

have found the use of grey-level alone for assigning classification codes to side scan 

sonar imagery as being inadequate, and other studies (Blondel 1996; Cochrane and 

Lafferty 2002; Huvenne et al. 2002) have successfully used various textural indices to 

more effectively classify side scan sonar data. Thus we chose to use second-order 

textural analysis (Cochrane and Lafferty 2002) on the raw binary images to differentiate 

bottom types from the imagery. Using a co-occurrence matrix approach provides an 

alternative for classifying acoustic imagery and has been found to more effectively assess 

the spatial relationship of pixel intensities from remote sensing data (Haralick 1973; 

Blondel 1996). 

 

Due to the substantial size of the images, the texture procedure was independently 

conducted for each of the three mosaics. Each of the images were classified into three 

categories representing soft, mixed, and hard bottom. Adobe Photoshop was used to 

manually edit misclassified or unclassified data, such as that occurring at nadir. The 

three mosaics were then merged with Leica Geosystems Imagine software and 

reclassified as a thematic raster image. Using ESRI’s ArcInfo software a neighborhood 

analysis majority filter was used to “smooth” the image to reduce the number of polygons 

from 1.8 million to under 100,000. The raster image was then converted to a polygon 

4 
feature for display in the GIS. The areas of large scale sand and mixed sediment waves, 

as well as several regions of high gradient slopes which existed in the southern portion of 

the survey area, did not emerge as distinct features from the textural analysis and as such 

were hand delineated. 

GROUNDTRUTHING

Figure 4. Sonar groundtruthing coverage, including video 

footage from the AR-04-04 ROV deployments 

and sediment samples taken from the 

USSEABED project. 

A Phantom DHD2+2 remotely operated vehicle (ROV) was used to acquire underwater 

videography during a 2004 pilot survey to explore for the presence of deep coral and 

sponge assemblages in the OCNMS (Hyland et al. 2005). Three separate ROV 

deployments occurred within the footprint of the HMPR-108-2002-01 sonar survey, and 

provided useful video for groundtruthing the sonar mosaics and verifying the 

classification signatures. The USSEABED project, a database providing information on 

sediment and rock distributions in the waters off the United States (Reid et al. 2001), was 

also queried and provided 58 samples to describe sedimentology within the survey area 

(Figure 4). 

5 
SURVEY RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

Over 573 km of track lines, covering an area of approximately 267 km2

 (77.9nm2), 

yielded more than 83 hours of logged sonar data during the five day survey effort. 

Megahabitat was described as canyon flank in areas deeper than the 200-meter 

bathymetric contour, and otherwise defined as continental shelf (Greene et al. 1999). 

Textural classification of the imagery suggests that over 51 percent of the seafloor in this 

area is covered by soft substrates such as mud or silt; 48 percent is comprised of mixed 

sediment including cobbles, pebbles, gravel and boulders mixed with soft substrate; 

under 1 percent is characterized as a hard complex rocky bottom (Table 1). We discerned 

several areas of exposed bedrock, a few cliff-like areas having substantial relief (Table 

2), and noted at least one rock pinnacle defined by a significant acoustic shadow, 

characteristic of such geologic features. Multiple areas were characterized as having 

large distinct sediment waves in the southern region of the survey area. 

 

Table 1. Distribution of bottom hardness classified from HMPR-108-2002-01 side scan sonar survey 

data. Bottom induration codes are provided by area in square meters, and area as a percentage 

of total mapped area. 

 

Bottom_ID Descriptor Square m Percentage

h hard 910,957 0.3 

m mixed 129,083,483 48.0 

s soft 137,557,681 51.6 

 

Table 2. Distribution of habitat classified from HMPR-108-2002-01 side scan sonar survey data. Habitat 

codes are provided per Greene et al. (1999) and are presented by area in square meters, and area 

as a percentage of total mapped area. 

Habitat Code Descriptor Square m Percentage

Fh Flank hard 534,834 0.200 

Fhe Flank hard exposed 131,923 0.049 

Fhp Flank hard pinnacle 123 <0.001 

Fhs Flank hard scarp/cliff 55,241 0.021 

6 
Table 2 continued. Distribution of habitat classified from HMPR-108-2002-01 side scan sonar survey 

data. Habitat codes are provided per Greene et al. (1999) and are presented by area in 

square meters, and area as a percentage of total mapped area. 

Habitat 

Code

Descriptor Square m Percentage

Fm Flank mixed 80,507,273 30.090 

Fm _h Flank mixed hummocky 26,019 0.010 

Fms Flank mixed scarp/cliff 466,734 0.174 

Fmw Flank mixed waves 3,153,358 1.179 

Fs Flank soft 1,186,978 0.444 

Fs _u Flank soft unconsolidated 122,918,895 45.942 

Fss Flank soft scarp/cliff 774 <0.001 

Fsw Flank soft waves 47,601 0.018 

Sh Shelf hard 181,048 0.068 

Shs Shelf hard scarp/cliff 7,787 0.003 

Sm Shelf mixed 40,986,717 15.319 

Sm _h Shelf mixed hummocky 1,506,279 0.563 

Sm _u Shelf mixed unconsolidated 649 <0.001 

Sms Shelf mixed scarp/cliff 25,631 0.010 

Smw Shelf mixed waves 2,410,821 0.901 

Ss Shelf soft 1,598,537 0.597 

Ss _u Shelf soft unconsolidated 11,786,931 4.405 

Ssw Shelf soft waves 17,965 0.006 

7 
Microhabitat and presence of certain biologic attributes were also populated into the 

polygon features, but strictly limited to areas where video groundtruthing occurred and 

where the sea floor was clearly visible in the footage. Figure 5 provides a graphical 

representation of this full habitat characterization including the codes for microhabitat 

and biologic attributes. 

Figure 5. Classification of habitat for survey HMPR-108-2002-01. Microhabitat (in 

parenthesis) and biologic attributes (in brackets) are preceded by an asterisk 

in the habitat code. 

8 
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Results from this survey were supported by two unpublished side scan surveys conducted 

in adjacent areas. In September 2002, an unpublished side scan survey conducted on the 

nearshore shelf directly shoreward of HMPR-108-2002-01 revealed a seafloor consisting 

entirely of modern age sand. This observation was consistent with the first survey line 

collected on the F/V Mystery Bay, which ultimately led to the decision to change line 

plans to locate more interesting bottom features. Presence of a rock outcropping feature 

revealed during a July 2000 cruise aboard a Navy YP class vessel (unpublished data) was 

also confirmed on this survey. 

The hard bottom features that we identified can provide complex habitat adequate for 

many of the groundfish species that inhabit this region of the coastline (NOAA 1990) as 

readily observed in the video imagery captured by the ROV. These hard substrates could 

additionally provide critical habitat for deep-sea coral and sponge assemblages, as 

evident from exploration by Hyland et al. (2005), where small patches Lophelia pertusa

were observed near a rocky ledge in the OCNMS. This survey delineated several areas of 

similar habitat, thereby providing target areas for additional video surveillance to 

potentially identify similar organisms. Slow growth rates, ease of disturbance, and long 

life spans make these communities extremely susceptible to destruction from 

anthropogenic disturbances such as bottom trawling, which has been shown to impact 

benthic communities by altering structure (Bergman et al. 1990; Auster et al. 1996) and 

removing benthic fauna (Brown et al. 2000). 

The sand and silt bottom occurring throughout much of the survey area are sediments 

from the quarternary period that are likely deposits from the Puget Sound and Columbia 

River (Nittrouer 1978; Sternberg 1986), and can provide useful habitat to such species as 

sole (Kramer et al. 1985), skate, pacific rattail (Stein and Pearcy 1982), pacific cod 

(Garrison and Miller 1982), and sablefish (Love 1996). 

The various regions of mixed sediment are possibly of glacial origin, originating in the 

Olympic Mountains (Venkatarathnam and McManus 1973). These areas of mixed coarse 

sediment provide key habitat for many species including bocaccio (Yaklovich et al. 2000) 

and flounder (NOAA 1990). 

Although somewhat limited by the lower native pixel resolution (created from using slow 

ping rates associated with a 300-meter range scale setting), textural analysis of the sonar 

mosaics was capable of providing a relatively automated method for delineating substrate 

type into three classes representing soft, mixed sediment, and hard bottom. Acquiring the 

imagery with a smaller range scale setting (i.e. 150-meter) would certainly enhance the 

textural properties of the imagery and ultimately lead to more definition in the classified 

polygon features; however, this would come at the cost of covering less terrain and 

increasing the likelihood of damaging or losing the sonar as the towfish would need to be 

flown at an altitude of approximately 25-30 meters as opposed to 50-60 meters, as used in 

this survey. The extreme relief of the Juan de Fuca canyon walls make for a challenging 

environment to safely acquire quality imagery at altitudes much less than 50 meters. 

9 
Even though sediment grab samples (Reid et al. 2001) and limited video imagery (Hyland 

et al. 2005) was available for validating the classification results, additional 

groundtruthing efforts would enhance the quality of the classification in this area as well 

as provide more detail into the microhabitat and associated biologic distribution. Further 

groundtruthing work around the high relief cliff-like areas and the various areas of soft 

and mixed sediment waves would especially improve confidence in the product. Future 

survey efforts and additional groundtruthing will be incorporated as updates in later 

versions. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the crew of the F/V Mystery Bay and Nicholas Perry, James Whitaker, 

and Danny Shaylor for assistance with acquiring the sonar imagery. Video imagery from 

the NOAA Ship McArthur II cruise AR-04-04 was made available by C.E. Bowlby, J. 

Hyland and M.S. Brancato. 

REFERENCES

 

Auster, P.J., R. J. Malatesta, R.W. Langton, L. Watling, P.C. Valentine, C.L. Donaldson, 

E.W. Langston, A.N. Shepard, and I.G. Babb. 1996. The impacts of mobile 

fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine (nothwest Atlantic): 

Implications for conservation of fish populations. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 

4(2): 185-202. 

Barr, B. 2003. US Geological Survey NOAA/National Marine Sanctuary Program’s 

seabed mapping initiative. 2002-2003 National Marine Sanctuary Annual Report. 

 

Bergman, M.J.N., M. Fonds, M. Hup, and A. Stam. 1990. Direct effects of beamtrawl 

fishing on benthic fauna in the North Sea. ICES CM 1990/MINI: 11. 

Copenhagen, Denmark. 19 p. 

 

Brown, E., M. Dommisse, S. Hills, and B. Finney. 2000. Immediate and long-term 

effects of commercial bottom trawling to benthic communities and substrates in a 

dynamic soft-bottom environment: Bristol Bay, Alaska. Diving for Science in the 

21st Century, American Academy of Underwater Sciences, 430 Nahant Rd Nahant 

MA 01908 U.S.A. 18 p. 

Blondel. P. 1996. Segmentation of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge south of the Azores, based on 

acoustic classification of TOBI data. In: MacLeod, C.J. Tyler, P.A. Walker, C.L. 

(Eds.), Tectonic, Magmatic, Hydrothermal and Biological Segmentation of MidOcean Ridges. Geological Society Special Publication No. 118. Boulder, CO. pp 

17-28. 

10 
Cochrane, G.R., and K.D. Lafferty. 2002. Use of acoustic classification of sidescan sonar 

data for mapping benthic habitat in the Northern Channel Islands, California. 

Continental Shelf Research 22: 683-690. 

 

Dartnell, P., and J.V. Gardner. 2004. Predicting seafloor facies from multibeam 

bathymetry and backscatter data. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote 

Sensing. 70(9): 1081-1091. 

 

Garrison, K.J., and B.S. Miller. 1982. Review of the early life history of Puget Sound 

fishes. University of Washington Fish. Res. Inst. of Seattle, Washington. UW 

8216: 729p. 

Greene, H.G., M.M. Yoklavich, R.M. Starr, V.M. O’Connell, W.W. Wakefield, D.E. 

Sullivan, J.E. McRea, Jr., G.M. Cailliet. 1999. A classification scheme for deep 

seafloor habitats. Oceanologica Acta. 22(6):663 

Haralick, R.M., K. Shanmugan, and R. Dinstein. 1973. Textural features for image 

classification. IEEE Transactions Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC3, 610-

621. 

 

Huvenne, V.A.I., Ph. Blondel, and J.P. Henriet. 2002. Textural analyses of sidescan sonar 

imagery from two mound provinces in the Porcupine Seabight. Marine Geology 

(189):323-341. 

 

Hyland, J., C. Cooksey, E. Bowlby, M.S. Brancato, and S. Intelmann. 2005. A pilot 

survey of deepwater coral/sponge assemblages and their susceptibility to 

fishing/harvest impacts at the Olympic Coast national marine sanctuary 

(OCNMS). Cruise report for NOAA Ship McArthurII Cruise AR-04-04: Leg 2. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 15. NOAA/NOS Center for 

Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research, Charleston, SC. 13p. 

Kramer, D.E., W.H. Barss, B.C. Paust, and B.E. Bracken. 1995. Guide to Northeast 

Pacific flatfishes. Alaska Sea Grant College Program. 104 p. 

 

Love, M.S. 1996. Probably more than you wanted to know about the fishes of the Pacific 

coast. Really Big Press, Santa Barbara, California. 215 p. 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

 

Mitchell, N.C., and J.E. Hughes Clark. 1994. Classification of seafloor geology using 

multibeam sonar data from the Scotian shelf. Marine Geology 121: 143-160. 

Nittrouer, C.A., 1978. The process of detrital sediment accumulation in a continental 

shelf environment: an examination of the Washington shelf: PhD Thesis, 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 243p. 

11 
NOAA. 1990. West coast of North America coastal and ocean zones strategic 

assessment: Data atlas. U.S. Dept. Commer. NOAA. OMA/NOS Ocean 

Assessments Division, Strategic Assessments Branch. Invertebrate and Fish 

Volume. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2004. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington groundfish 

fishery as amended through Amendment 17. Pacific Fishery Management 

Council. Portland, OR. 145 pp. 

Reid, J. A., Jenkins, C., Field, M. E., Gardner, J. V. and Box, C. E. 2001. USSEABED: 

defining the surficial geology of the continental shelf through data integration and 

fuzzy set theory. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA. 

Abstracts with Programs 33:A106. 

Shokr, M.E. 1991. Evaluation of second-order texture parameters for sea ice 

classification from radar images. Journal of Geophysical Research. 96: 10625-

10640. 

 

Stein, D.L., and W.G. Pearcy. 1982. Aspects of reproduction, early life history, and 

biology of macrourid fishes off Oregon, U.S.A. Deep Sea Res: 29:1313-1329. 

Sternberg, R.W. 1986. Transport and accumulation of river-derived sediment on the 

Washington continental shelf, USA. Journal of the Geological Society of 

London, v. 143, p. 945-956. 

 

Valentine, P.C., G.R. Cochrane, and K.M. Scanlon. 2003. Mapping the seabed and 

habitats in National Marine Sanctuaries. Marine Technology Society. 37(1): 10-

17. 

Venkatarathnam, K., and McManus, D.A. 1973. Origin and distribution of sands and 

gravels on the northern continental shelf off Washington. Journal of Sedimentary 

Petrology, v. 43, p. 799-811. 

Yaklovich, M.M., H.G. Greene, G.M. Cailliet, D.E. Sullivan, R.N. Lea, and M.S. Love. 

2000. Habitat associations of deep-water rockfishes in a submarine canyon: an 

example of a natural refuge. Fishery Bulletin 98: 625-641. 

12 
APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Vessel offset diagram including sensor offset measurements from an 

arbitrarily chosen common reference point (rp). gps = antennae position; usbl = pole 

mount position for acoustic positioning. 

Appendix 2. Isis Processing Parameters 

Heading Offset: use gyro with offset of 23 degrees 

Lateral Offset: -3.4m 

Layback Offset: 44m 

Mosaic resolution:. 1m 

Apply BAC 

Apply duration: 282m 

TVG: start at first return 

 Line 1,3 (south block): -7 +.109 +(-13) 

 Line 2 (south block): -3 +.03 + (-4) 

 Line 4,5,6,6b,7,8: -6 + .109 + (-13) 

** For line6b also put an across track angle of 4 degrees in the BAC 

compensation 

 For shallow water smaller range scale lines (East block): -1.4 + 0.22 + (-2) 

13 
ONMS CONSERVATION SERIES PUBLICATIONS 

To date, the following reports have been published in the Marine Sanctuaries 

Conservation Series. All publications are available on the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries website (http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/). 

Channel Islands Deep Water Monitoring Plan Development Workshop Report (ONMS-05-05) 

Movement of yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus Block 1790) and black grouper 

(Mycteroperca bonaci Poey 1860) in the northern Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as 

determined by acoustic telemetry (MSD-05-4) 

The Impacts of Coastal Protection Structures in California's Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary (MSD-05-3) 

An annotated bibliography of diet studies of fish of the southeast United States and Gray's Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-05-2) 

Noise Levels and Sources in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the St. 

Lawrence River Estuary (MSD-05-1) 

Biogeographic Analysis of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (MSD-04-1) 

A Review of the Ecological Effectiveness of Subtidal Marine Reserves in Central California

(MSD-04-2, MSD-04-3) 

Pre-Construction Coral Survey of the M/V Wellwood Grounding Site (MSD-03-1) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop, Seattle, 

Washington (MSD-01-04) 

Workshop on Marine Mammal Research & Monitoring in the National Marine Sanctuaries (MSD01-03) 

A Review of Marine Zones in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-2) 

Distribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary (MSD-01-1) 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: A Rapid Assessment of Coral, Fish, and Algae 

Using the AGRRA Protocol (MSD-00-3) 

The Economic Contribution of Whalewatching to Regional Economies: Perspectives From Two 

National Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-00-2) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be Avoided Education and Monitoring 

Program (MSD-00-1) 

Multi-species and Multi-interest Management: an Ecosystem Approach to Market Squid (Loligo

opalescens) Harvest in California (MSD-99-1)

14