Spatial variability of bottom types in the lower Chesapeake Bay and adjoining estuaries and inner shelf

• Published in: Estuarine, coastal and shelf science Vol. 24; no. 6; pp. 765 - 784
• Main Authors: Wright, L.D., Prior, D.B., Hobbs, C.H., Byrne, R.J., Boon, J.D., Schaffner, L.C., Green, M.O.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Elsevier Ltd 01.06.1987; Elsevier
• Subjects: benthic environment; bottom topography; boundary layers; Brackish; Chesapeake Bay; continental shelf; Earth sciences; Earth, ocean, space; estuaries; Exact sciences and technology; Marine; Marine geology; side-scan sonar; continental shelf; benthic environment; Chesapeake Bay; bottom topography; estuaries; boundary layers; side-scan sonar; United States; Morphology; Sonar; America; Roughness; Estuaries; Sonar methods; Inner shelf; North America; Virginia; Boundary layer
• DOI: 10.1016/0272-7714(87)90151-X
• ISSN: 0272-7714

The spatial distributions of the bed textural and morphologic properties that influence boundary-layer roughness characteristics in the lower Chesapeake Bay, the lower portions of the York, James and Elizabeth Rivers, and the adjacent inner continental shelf were systematically mapped. A high resolution, fully-corrected side-scan sonar mapping system (100 kHz) was used for remote acoustic detection of bottom roughness, supported by ‘ground-truthing’ by direct in situ observations by divers. These complementary methods proved to be especially effective in detecting a wide range of roughness-controlling bed surface properties at various scales. Fine-scale variations in sediment size and associated bottom texture are considered to be the main source of heterogeneity in Nikuradse (skin friction) roughness. A wide variety of small- and intermediate-scale morphologic elements provide meso-scale and small-scale distributed (form drag) roughness. Depending upon location, the distributed roughness may be either biogenic or hydrodynamically induced (by currents and waves), although anthropogenic roughness prevails in certain instances (e.g. port areas). In terms of particular combinations of roughness scales and types, combined sonar and diver observation data allow the beds to be systematically but qualitatively classified into 10 bottom types, each of which is associated with a particular type of subenvironment.