Science and Justice 50 (2010) 141149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science and Justice

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c i j u s

Geophysics and the search of freshwater bodies: A review

Rachael Parker a, Alastair Ruffell a,, David Hughes b, Jamie Pringle c
a b c

School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen's University, Belfast, BT7 1NN, United Kingdom School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen's University, Belfast, BT7 1NN, United Kingdom School of Physical and Geographical Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Geophysics may assist scent dogs and divers in the search of water bodies for human and animal remains, contraband, weapons and explosives by surveying large areas rapidly and identifying targets or environmental hazards. The most commonly applied methods are described and evaluated for forensic searches. Seismic reection or refraction and CHIRPS are useful for deep, open water bodies and identifying large targets, yet limited in streams and ponds. The use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) on water (WPR) is of limited use in deep waters (over 20 m) but is advantageous in the search for non-metallic targets in small ditches and ponds. Large metal or metal-bearing targets can be successfully imaged in deep waters by using towsh magnetometers: in shallow waters such a towsh cannot be used, so a non-metalliferous boat can carry a terrestrial magnetometer. Each device has its uses, depending on the target and location: unknown target make-up (e.g. a homicide victim with or without a metal object) may be best located using a range of methods (the multi-proxy approach), depending on water depth. Geophysics may not denitively nd the target, but can provide areas for elimination and detailed search by dogs and divers, saving time and effort. 2009 Forensic Science Society. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 17 July 2009 Received in revised form 19 September 2009 Accepted 23 September 2009 Keywords: Geophysics Search Body recovery Sunken objects

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The problem The need to search water bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydrogeophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Seismic methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1. Seismic reection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2. Seismic refraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. CHIRP sub-bottom proler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Side scan sonar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Ground penetrating radar (GPR, here used as WPR or water penetrating radar) 4.5. Magnetometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6. Other techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Published case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Search for a victim of drowning: Gregory Reedy, Oregon USA . . . . . . . 5.2. Search for sunken snowmobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. Evaluation of polluted pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. Search for sunken jetski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5. Search for diseased animals in a ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6. Search for a homicide victim in a reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7. Search of a ditch for the body of a badger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8. Search for explosives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 142 142 142 142 143 143 144 144 145 146 146 146 146 147 147 148 148 148 148 148 148 149

Corresponding author. E-mail address: a.ruffell@qub.ac.uk (A. Ruffell). 1355-0306/$ see front matter 2009 Forensic Science Society. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2009.09.001

142

R. Parker et al. / Science and Justice 50 (2010) 141149

1. Introduction Geophysicists are sometimes asked by law enforcement ofcials (police, environment agency, customs, and the military) and search and rescue personnel, to provide advice on assisting searches of water, which, by its very nature, is a challenging environment. Likewise, geophysicists and other Earth scientists, used to using geophysics on land or from an airborne platform, may not be aware of how different shallow (typically, 020 m water depth) survey methods perform on and in water. Thus we felt the need for a review paper that examines a recurrent request made to us: what geophysical devices can be deployed on and in freshwater? This question is asked because of a lack of knowledge amongst those conducting the search regarding the capabilities of geophysics, especially in water and often in freshwater. This knowledge gap may be that the investigator does not know of the existence of water-borne geophysics, or may be that they over-estimate the capability of the method. On the latter point, it is often the case that the technique will not necessarily nd the sunken object, but may be used to exclude areas of the lake, river or pond, such that other methods (e.g. divers, search dogs, draining) may be targeted, saving time and effort.

(dogs and divers) are ideal when used conjunctively with geophysics as a means of target denition. 3. Geophysics Geophysics encompasses a range of non-destructive and non invasive means of remotely investigating subsurface of the Earth, commonly deployed in forensic searches [5]. Geophysical methods measure the Earth's physical properties providing specic information governed by their own make-up, best known to investigators when searching soil and sediment. The use of geophysical methods on (or in) water is slightly different to land in that freshwater is chemically less variable (vertically and horizontally) than soil yet is mobile over shorter periods of time. Nonetheless, each geophysical method not only characterises the subsurface but can identify inhomogeneous features or objects that are not characteristic of the surrounding host material in water, water-covered sediment or soil. Identication of these anomalies is often the objective of a geophysical survey e.g. utility surveying or target identication [6,7]. Objects are readily identied when a contrast is sufciently large to alter the geophysical signal depicting the anomaly as an alien feature of the subsurface, i.e., different physical and/or chemical properties than the surroundings in which it is located. The success of geophysics is dependent upon the presence of a contrast between features, layers, objects and the ability of a geophysicist to interpret the data. Geophysics lls the void of mesoscale data via its depth of exploration and spatially dense sampling. [6]. Geophysical surveying will not always remove the need for invasive studies but by maximising the rate of ground cover [7] surveying with the use of geophysics means any need for invasive methods will be minimal. 4. Hydrogeophysics Geophysics plays a vital role in exploring the aquatic environment. The unknown nature of the subsurface is increased due to the water body covering the land; as a result geophysics has been adapted for exploration of this medium (see references below). The principal benet can be identied as geophysics may provide spatially distributed data models of physical properties in regions that are difcult to sample... [8]. Hydrogeophysical methods that may be adapted for the forensic search include study of sedimentation archives [9], groundwater ow modelling [10], engineering faults and failures [11], sediment classication [12], benthic mapping [13] and aquatic engineering [14]. However it is still a research technique that can be referred to as state-of-the-practice [6] rather than state-of-the-art meaning it is developing and geophysicists are still learning the organisation of the multitude of parameters to enhance data output. The shallow water environment poses several operational problems that have a detrimental effect on the results of a geophysical survey [15]. The hydrogeophysical methods most applicable to surveying freshwater bodies will be considered: seismic: reection and refraction; side scan sonar; CHIRPs; ground penetrating radar (GPR); magnetometry and multi-sensor platforms. For each method, as freshwater has minimal inuence on acquisition, it is the suitability of the method for locating different materials that will be considered in detail. 4.1. Seismic methods Two seismic methods are considered: reection and refraction; both of which are typically applied to exploration seismology. Seismology with relation to this work is the scientic study of seismic waves propagating through the Earth. Seismic methodologies (whether reection or refraction) are used to measure the travel time of propagating acoustic waves created by a sound source resulting in ground movement which is then recorded by an array of ground sensors, usually hydrophones. Boyd [16] details how seismic experiments were rst conducted by Robert Mallet, 1845. Mallet used containers of mercury at various spacing distances and recorded the time it took each container to ripple after an explosion. From this date it has been accepted that the acoustic energy

2. The problem The need to search water bodies Common methods of disposing of homicide victims [1], still-born neonates, diseased animals and incriminating materials (contraband, weapons, drugs, explosives [2]) may include: burial in soil or sediment; cremation; dissolution; encasement in concrete; crushing (e.g. in a scrapped vehicle) and deposition in a deserted or covert location [1] (caves, abandoned mines or body of water). The latter location presents particular opportunities and challenges for the investigator because preservation of the material and associated evidence may be better than some of the other environments mentioned, yet the search can prove difcult. Unlike land, freezers, scrapped cars or buildings, water bodies deeper than wading depth (about 1 m) cannot easily be searched by teams of personnel. In shallow waters, wading may obscure visibility by sediment stirring, can be hazardous (tripping on objects, slipping on mud, becoming stuck) and disturb the scene/deposition site [1]; in deeper waters the search is difcult unless the water is clear, or cadaver (victim recovery) dogs and boats are available [3]. The deposition of homicide victims in marine waters has been considered previously [4], yet without access to a pier/jetty or boat large enough to carry the suspect material, the perpetrator is dependant on disposal from the shoreline, which may be exposed to view and may not provide much of a challenge for the search team. Consequently, access to freshwater bodies (lakes, rivers, ponds, ditches, reservoirs) is easier for the perpetrator, making these, sometimes enclosed from view locations common disposal sites [5]. Whilst water-borne physical evidence (microorganisms, sediment) can be used in the same way as soil to potentially exclude a suspect from all but one location [5], as mentioned above, the subsequent search of this water body may prove challenging if possibly very rewarding in terms of evidence recovery. The latter is critical, as it is common for the perpetrator to dispose of weapons, coverings (bags, carpet, tarpaulins) at the same location as the body [1]/contraband, due to the principle of minimum effort expenditure [5]. Thus it is essential that the water body be searched in an appropriate (i.e., using a method that is t for purpose) and efcient manner. Draining the water body, trawling with grappling hooks, deployment of scent dogs and divers may all be considered. Draining may be impractical for environmental and cost reasons; trawling may not be efcient and may damage and compromise evidence; scent dogs may not react to well-wrapped materials and divers may not have good visibility. Furthermore the nature of moving waters makes accuracy of search by any means (scent dogs, divers or trawling) the most difcult. Most water bodies have ow movements and therefore positioning, marking and equal coverage of any water search is challenging. Nonetheless, the latter two methods

R. Parker et al. / Science and Justice 50 (2010) 141149

143

wave's travel through the subsurface can be likened to that rst noticed in the mercury containers by Mallet, i.e., hemispherical propagating waves [16]. Seismic reection and refraction use acoustic wave (short duration and constant frequency) propagation to measure changes in acoustic impedance [17]. Seismic waves travel through the subsurface as body waves, whilst they travel along the Earth's surface as surface waves. It is the body waves which are of relevance for reection and refraction success. Body waves can then be further divided to p waves which propagate through the subsurface medium at a faster rate and s waves which are slower in propagation ability. P waves are generally used as the recording source for seismic surveys [16]. Seismic reection and refraction measure different elastic properties: both methods can be adapted for water surveying by means of oatation devices or bank side layout of equipment using waterproofed cables [18]. 4.1.1. Seismic reection Anselmetti [12] describe seismic reection as a method which provides an image of the subsurface and is particularly useful in delineating sedimentary layers, bedrock outcrops, depth to acoustic basement and other geological features beneath the watersediment interface. It is a measurement of the travel time of an acoustic wave which reects from an interface between differing densities [15]. The transmitted acoustic waves and in particular the p wave are described as wave fronts and raypaths (wave fronts are perpendicular to raypaths) at a given frequency selected by the researcher. Seismic energy travels through the material until a point at which reections are generated, causing the p wave to be reected from the boundary. Changes are detected by piezoelectric transducers or hydrophones on the surface where they are then converted to frequency, ltered and displayed. Wave reections are ultimately caused by sudden change in elastic properties or density of a medium, i.e., change in acoustic impedance [17]. The success of seismic reection proling is dependent on a frequency selection that best ts the research objective [20]. Frequency determines the depth of penetration but also the given resolution. Frequency resolution is inversely proportional to depth penetration [20]. An accepted rule of frequency is high frequency waves constitute short wave lengths which result in low penetration depths but increased resolution output. Alternatively low frequency waves constitute long wave lengths that result in high penetration depths but low resolution outputs. As a result the researcher must select a frequency best suited to their research objective. Generally within seismic reection high frequencies are 3.5 to 14KHz whilst low frequencies are 300 to 2000 Hz. Interpretation of seismic data yields subsurface velocity information attributable to each subsurface material with differing acoustic impedance values. One advantage of seismic reection proling is the continuity of a cross section prole [15] giving a continuous visualisation of the water base and sediments below, such as that recorded by Anselmetti [12] when using the method to research Western Swiss Lakes (to rene the Holocene lake level curves). Furthermore continuous surveying gives an effective horizontal resolution based on the selection of suitable pre-determined survey line spacing; this can become a limitation when knowledge and experience lacks resulting in poor horizontal resolution [12]. The output of a seismic reection survey is greatly superior to that of refraction however it does come at an economic cost. A 3-D seismic reection survey produces an image of the subsurface geometry for imaging small objects and complex subsurface geometries [21]. Seismic reection can be applied to hydrogeophysics in that the inability of water to transmit shear waves makes collection of high quality reection data possible even at very shallow depths that would be impractical to impossible on land [18]. A general limitation of seismic reection proling is the inadequate ability for a precise depth measurement to be made. Velocities obtained from the survey may be 10% and can be up to 20% inaccurate of their true velocities [19], resulting in inaccurate depth measurements and exact feature locations. This limitation is not a major problem when the survey is used for target denition, to be followed by extraction of the feature/object being researched. Seismic reection data interpretation is a skill which requires a

qualitative approach and is labour intensive resulting in the need for an experienced researcher who has interpreted previous (similar) data. Lack of user knowledge and interpretation ability is a large limitation to any research objective. Seismic reection can be expensive and computer intensive [15]. Data collection size can at times be overwhelming causing an over complication of a survey site and ultimately leading to survey failure and wrong interpretations [15]. In relation to small (less than a few tens of metres) and shallow (less than the draft of the survey boat, generally a few metres) water bodies, seismic reection may prove problematic as it requires a survey spacing of several metres. Furthermore it is imperative that the receiver spacing is adapted to the frequency range to avoid spatial aliasing of the data [21]. In a small shallow water body this may not always be possible and seismic reection output will be of poor quality as a result. It is also necessary in reection surveying to suppress the surface waves, particularly in shallow subsurface surveys as they can record high amplitudes which impede the recording of the true body waves (p waves) within the Earth. A further limitation of seismic reection for use in shallow water bodies is the hindrance caused to acoustic waves by gas or air bubbles. The inuence of gas or air bubbles causes an increased rate of scattering of the propagated wave resulting in a poor output. Signal processing is required to remove ringing which is a common feature in shallow water bodies. Anselmetti [12] recognise that seismic surveying is difcult in gas-lled sediments, shallow water and some on shore settings. Alternatively Anselmetti [12] also acknowledge the benet of acquiring seismic reection in conjunction with ground penetrating radar (or rather water penetrating radar, or WPR, see below) to allow comparison of the data outputs. Seismic reection as a solo technique is most successful in open, deep water bodies when sediment penetration (e.g. submerged and sediment-covered targets) is required. Materials of similar density to the host water or sediment will not be imaged: small targets (e.g. cadavers) require high frequency seismic inputs that will not achieve good sediment penetration. For this reason, in concurrence with cost, size of survey lines/survey boat and the problem of gas-prone sediment, seismic reection may only be required for specialist forensic searches of large, non-metallic (see the use of magnetometers, below) objects in large, deep water bodies. These environments share many common characteristics to marine locations, with attendant restrictions on perpetrator activity (see above) and thus, as yet, there are no publications on the forensic use of seismic reection in freshwater. However, as stated above, these methods are state-of-the-practice and in analogous search environments [12] may prove useful for locating specic objects. 4.1.2. Seismic refraction Refraction surveying is a popular method for land surveying [2]. Refraction surveying is similar to that of the reection method with relation to the p wave principle however it differs in measurement: a similar boat, seismic source and array of geophone detectors is required (Fig. 1). The seismic refraction method measures travel time of waves refracted along an acoustic interface [19]. The transmitted acoustic waves (and in particular the p wave) travel through the surface until a point at which the wave reaches an acoustic boundary. The penetration of the wave into the boundary and subsequent strata is similar to that of a light beam penetrating a glass prism and therefore it is governed by Snell's Law [16]. As the ray path of the p wave intersects the boundary it causes a change in direction ultimately due to a change in velocity, i.e., the path recorded is the quickest ray path which the wave would travel between interchanging boundaries of differing velocities [16]. The success of seismic refraction proling is similar to that of reection, i.e., it is highly dependent on the frequency selected as a best t for the research objective [20]. As previously described, frequency determines the depth of penetration but also the given resolution. Frequency resolution is inversely proportional to depth penetration. One great advantage of seismic refraction proling is that it is generally a cheaper alternative to that of its sister method however it is still relatively expensive in relation to other geophysical surveys [18]. Data interpretation is much simpler and data

144

R. Parker et al. / Science and Justice 50 (2010) 141149

4.2. CHIRP sub-bottom proler A compressed high intensity radar pulse or CHIRP is a sub-bottom proler which transmits a linear, frequency modulated (FM) acoustic pulse with a desired frequency bandwidth that is inversely proportional to the resolution which will be output [21]. A frequency modulated pulse effectively means that the frequency of the transmitted pulse adjusts linearly with time. The use of an FM pulse results in an improvement in signal to noise ratio which is problematic in other seismic methods, i.e., seismic reection. The combination of FM pulse, correct ltering (compression of the swept FM signal into short duration wave) and efcient surveying methods ultimately leads to increased resolution in conjunction with penetration which results in successful data interpretation by the researcher [23]. The CHIRP source (towsh) is positioned directly in the water and towed beneath the water surface at a given speed, the system requires the same sort of boat and towsh, but without the geophone array, as the seismic method (Fig. 1). It is a method by which a continuous vertical survey of the sedimentary make-up of a water body can be recorded [24]. Like seismic reection it propagates through the water surface and then the subsurface using acoustic waves. The acoustic waves measure acoustic impedance vertically through the subsurface via the reective nature of each differing material type it comes into contact with. The rst boundary reection recorded by CHIRP is between the water and sediment followed by the sequential layers beneath; each individual interface reects the acoustic wave and is recorded. CHIRP is versatile in that it can be readily applied to both shallow waters and marine environments. However as with many other methods, boat draft and depth of towsh limit the survey to the navigable channel [20]. The main advantage of the CHIRP sub-bottom proler is the dependence on the bandwidth of the transmitted pulse and not the wave length [23]. The CHIRP can project long pulses into the water and thus increase the range and effectiveness of the method but retain resolution quality. It essentially reduces the trade-off between signal range and resolution quality and can provide imaging of up to 20m of the subsurface, described by Gutowski [21]. Limitations of CHIRP in relation to use in shallow water bodies is the depth required to tow the towsh. Shallow water bodies may not be sufciently navigable to oat the towsh [24]. CHIRP, like seismic reection is also affected by gas bubbles in the sediment or water body. Laverty and Quinn [24] describe acoustic blanking where reections are faint or absent due to gas absorption of acoustic wave energy. They also describe the affect of sediment types on the acoustic wave of CHIRP. For example they show evidence that a mixed gravel and ne sediment lake bottom results in chaotic internal reections whilst gravels provide irregular strong signals. As a result the sedimentary type may require to be known before the CHIRP is implemented and poor results retrieved as a result. 4.3. Side scan sonar Side scan sonar is similar to CHIRP however it sends a focussed acoustic beam at right angles to the vessel's track [15]. Most side scan sonar systems measure approximately 100200 m either side of the vessel. It is typically a narrow beam with only 2 width and a vertical angle of approximately 50 [15]. The beam design enables the sea oor to be imaged in similar detail to a photographic image. Side scan sonar surveys the lithology and terrain of the water body oor, as a result a fairly at and smooth sea oor does not produce a good output on the data display. Side scan sonar requires a raised surface in order for a return signal; it provides a graphic representation of how materials on the lake oor interact with acoustic energy [24]. It is the irregularities of the lake oor which will cause increased back scatter of the signal to be recorded and depicted more readily on a side scan sonar image e.g. rocks and boulders as well as covertly-sunken objects. Furthermore the return signal is affected by the material in which it has come into contact with. Some material will reect better

Fig. 1. The seismic reection survey. Similar larger-boat and towsh arrays are used for the CHIRP and towsh magnetometer systems discussed in text. The survey was modied after. University of Rhode Island, 2008 (www.dosits.org).

processing is less than that of reection. A further advantage of seismic refraction proling is the continuity of a cross section prole giving a continuous visualisation of the water body bottom [12,21]. Furthermore, continuous surveying gives an effective horizontal resolution based on the selection of suitable pre-determined survey line spacing; this can become a limitation when a lack of knowledge and experience results in poor data output. Seismic refraction does produce adequate depth resolution for the depiction of subsurface features. An important limitation is that refraction is only successful if the speed of propagation through the Earth increases with depth [19]. Seismic refraction is limited by depth penetration, i.e., depths less than 100ft (appx. 70 m). Greater lengths of array displacement across the survey site (at least three times the length of the desired depth [19]) would aid a greater depth of penetration however in small survey areas this is not possible. In relation to array displacement, the larger the spread of geophones, the more degraded the recorder resolution becomes. Survey size is a trade-off between penetration and resolution similar to frequency selection (as in reection, above and WPR, below). Seismic refraction is limited by the presence of air and gas-prone water and sediment: the inuence of gas or air bubbles causes an increased rate of scattering of the propagated wave resulting in a poor output. Additionally refraction often requires an acoustic source which is much larger than that for seismic reection. This larger source is required to be able to be detected between the source and receiver. The size and in particular type of acoustic source can become problematic especially in shallow sheltered areas: the shot energy required to produce the acoustic wave for depths greater than 100ft could ultimately lead to too large an explosive charge causing concern over safety [16]. It has been noted by Cha et al. [22] whilst researching for engineering applications, that a possible advance in seismic refraction is to deploy the hydrophones directly on the sub-bottom thus removing the ray path within the water body however this requires a more complicated surveying technique as well as an increase in costs and risks (possible loss of equipment). Overall, the refraction method's application to aquatic environments is limited, notably so in shallow waters. As a method it yields reliable results when applied to a lake or lagoon, where the surface is at and velocities increase with depth [22].

R. Parker et al. / Science and Justice 50 (2010) 141149

145

than others whilst some may absorb a signicant part of the energy resulting in poor backscatter for example ne sediments. In relation to shallow water surveying side scan sonar is possible but again is dependent on the water body size. Dobinson and McCann [15] describe how shallow water systems are available but are limited to a frequency range of 100 to 500 KHz resulting in a range resolution of 2050 cm of the subsurface lake oor. High frequencies, such as 500 KHz to 1 MHz give excellent resolution but the acoustic energy travels a shorter distance [20] and vice versa for low frequencies. The major limitation of side scan sonar in shallow water is the depth of the water body. An extremely shallow water body will not provide sufcient depth to attach and oat the sonar beneath the boat. Side scan sonar is ideal for rapid searching for surface objects in moderately-deep (more than a few metres, and less that hundreds of metres) waters. Sediment-covered objects may not be resolved unless still upstanding. 4.4. Ground penetrating radar (GPR, here used as WPR or water penetrating radar) The rst use of radar as a general application for surface variance was by Christian Hulsmeyer, an engineer from Dusseldorf, Germany. Hulsmeyer patented the rst worldwide use of radar technology in 1904. The patent can be summarised: if a beam of radio waves were transmitted which impinged on an object, such as a ship, then some of those waves would be reected back to a receiver adjacent to the transmitter, thus revealing the presence of the object [25]. In 1910 Gotthelf Leimback and Heinrick Lowy attained a patent for use of radar for detection of buried objects. This is rst known use of surface penetrating radar or GPR as we now know it. Lowy and Leimback used a continuous radar wave via surface antennas before Hulsenbeck in 1926 patented a pulse radar. GPR is a high resolution electromagnetic technique that is designed primarily to investigate the shallow subsurface of the Earth [26]. It is a methodology which uses electromagnetic radar waves that propagate into the Earth's surface. The GPR technique is similar in principle to seismic and sonar methods [27]. GPR consists of one transmitting antenna and one receiving antenna, usually placed on the ground, but these devices can also be lowered on long cables down boreholes and wells. It is the reection of a pulse from electromagnetic radiation by which homogeneous and inhomogeneous material can be recorded. The transmitter antenna sends out a single pulse (wavelet) which will contain a number of frequencies based on the antenna being used but will be referred to by the central frequency. The wave will travel through the host material at a velocity determined by the dielectric permittivity of the material. The wave will continue at the same velocity until such time that it meets a material with a different permittivity to the host. At the point of interaction with an inhomogeneous material the wavelet is scattered and detected by the receiving antenna. A GPR wave records the interaction between the initially transmitted electromagnetic wave and several factors [28] namely: the spatial variation within the complex/material; the EM properties of the Earth material (dielectric permittivity, electrical conductivity and magnetic permittivity). The velocity of the travelling wave is determined by the dielectric permittivity of the material: put simply a wavelet of the same central frequency governed by the same antenna being used on the same GPR machine when passed through two differing materials over the same distance will inevitably arrive at the receive antenna at different times. Permittivity therefore determines travel time. Energy is returned to the surface to be received at the receiving antenna anytime there is a contrast in dielectric properties; the amplitude of the return energy is illustrative of the degree of contrast at the interface of the differing materials. Dielectric permittivity and electrical conductivity are complex frequency dependent parameters that describe the microscopic electromagnetic properties of materials. Whilst dielectric permittivity controls velocity it is also true that electrical conductivity controls/affects attenuation. As a result GPR is not a viable choice for surveying in clay rich areas where 510% clay content can reduce penetration depth to less than 1m

[28]. As previously mentioned upon impingement with an object/feature the wave scatters and this can occur in four ways. First, Specular Reection Scattering (based on the laws of reection, where the angle of reection is equal to the angle of incidence)where the wave impinges on an interface it scatters according to the shape and roughness. Second, Refraction Scatteringsome of the wave is refracted back into the material based on Snell's Law. Third, Diffraction Scatteringthe bending of EM waves when the wave is partially blocked by a sharp boundary, creating semi-coherent energy patterns which disperse in several directions. Fourth, Resonant Scattering (Ringing)occurs when the wave bounces back and forth between boundaries of the object. The length of time taken for the signal to return depends upon the permittivity contrasts. Antenna selection plays a large role in determining penetration depth and resolution quality. Transmitting antennae are transducers, i.e., they convert electric currents on the metallic antenna elements to transmitted electromagnetic waves that propagate into the subsurface (vice versa of this description for receiving antennae that capturing electromagnetic radiation). Antenna frequencies generally range from 101000 MHz and selection of the correct operating frequency is necessary for a successful visual output. In low conductivity settings such as dry sand and gravels, low frequency GPR systems of 50100 MHz can achieve penetration depth of up to several tens of metres, whilst high frequency antenna of 450900 MHz achieve penetration of one to several metres [27]. Resolution is therefore determined by the period of the emitted pulse which is controlled by the frequency. General purpose GPR systems use dipole antennas that typically have a two octave band width [29] meaning that frequencies vary between one half of the centre frequency and double the same value, i.e., an antenna with a central frequency of 300 MHz generates an overall frequency of 150 MHz to 600Mhz. However as previously stated they are referred to as the centre frequency by users [28]. The pulse length is inversely proportional to the centre frequency [30]. Low frequency antennas have a long wave length and thus greater penetration yet poor resolution compared to higher frequency antennas. As expected higher frequencies consist of shorter wave lengths and thus shorter penetration depths are only possible. Standard dipole antennas radiate energy into the ground in an elliptical wave taking on the appearance of a cone like shape or conical beam [31], with the apex of the cone at the centre of the transmitting antenna resulting in the ability to trace a hyperbola [31]. The key factors to consider when selecting antenna frequencies for surveys are as follows: presumed electrical properties of the ground at the site; depth necessary for survey; size and dimensions of features (the stratigraphic resolution required); site access; presence of possible outside interference. Antenna orientation will also play a role in the quality of the data collected; the two orientations are parallel and perpendicular to the traverse, however there are variations in which the antennas can be orientated [32] although the effect of these variants on freshwater surveying has not been documented. When electromagnetic wave energy makes contact with an object within the subsurface energy is reected and traces a feature on the GPR trace known as a hyperbola. Depending upon the location of the object and the location of the antenna above it on the surface the hyperbola develops a cone like appearance. The convexity of the cone will be dependent upon the travel distance, i.e., if positioned directly above the object the convexity will be acute and become more obtuse with distance from it. It is the reected events in a radar section that trace out a hyperbola (Huisman et al., 2003 [27]). The main advantages of WPR are that it is a sub-bottom proler meaning it can be used for sedimentation studies, civil engineering, hydrological studies and many more. Its ability to be used in a variety of locations (for example small dams, loughs, reservoirs) is its strongest advantage over many of the other geophysical methods. Additionally as a sub-bottom proling method it provides a continuous reading of the subsurface giving clarity of the ground surface or lake bed as an entirety rather than selected locations. WPR may be used to measure large areas quickly resulting in good coverage of the survey location. From this subsequent decisions can then be made without any previous means of invasive research. Further advantages of WPR include the high resolution pseudo image of the subsurface which is similar in

146

R. Parker et al. / Science and Justice 50 (2010) 141149

quality to that of seismic reection. Data collection requires minimal effort depending on survey size however interpretation does require geophysical knowledge. WPR is relatively cost effective, when compared to other geophysical methods described in this work, and it is generally accepted that the cost of surveying is justied by the effective 3D outputs gained. With relation to shallow water surveys WPR is at an advantage due to the equipment being of a compact size in comparison to the other geophysical techniques described. WPR equipment can be loaded onto a small inatable boat [33] and towed through shallow waters which are not able to host surveys such as seismic or CHIRP (Fig. 2). Increasingly smaller GPR devices are becoming commercially available making them a viable option for lock surveying and dam surveying. The main limitation of WPR is its inability to be used in saline environments. This is due to conductivity resulting high attenuation and little penetration producing excessive ringing. This makes the application of WPR limited to freshwater lakes, ponds, dams and upper sections of rivers. Tidal estuarine environments are presumed to be not possible locations for GPR application, although this requires testing. Conductivity of the water should be considered before application of GPR. A further problem with GPR in shallow water is the coupling of the antenna to the water surface. Waterproong of the antenna removes the presence of air providing better coupling resulting in a peak frequency change. However many water surveys oat the antenna in a dinghy or similar object causing a gap between the water surface and the antenna. Several water surveys have been conducted; documented surveys range from identifying inlled scour holes by Forde et al. [34] to identifying unexploded objects by Pope et al. [35]. Unlike the search for buried objects, the above works did not need to consider antenna efciency, i.e., type, frequency, and orientation in shallow waters. This is perhaps due to the need for perfect coupling of water and antenna interfaces to remove an impedances and thus attenuation of the radar signal. The examples mentioned previously use low frequency antenna and gained mixed results: there appears to be no consistency of data. Forde et al. [33] suggest a range of 100500 MHz based on depth with depths as little as 12m being successfully surveyed with 500 MHz. Pope et al. [33] successfully surveyed objects using 100 MHz antennae but found direct oatation problematic as wave movement causes alteration of hyperbola. In addition to direct water surveying by means of oatation on a boat or water proong, antennas have also been suspended by cable over river courses [36]. However this results in a large air wave and is perhaps only a solution when safety is an issue with regards to water currents and water velocity. Borehole antennae have the advantage of being waterproof and able to be lowered into water, avoiding the energy loss caused by deep water: the dis-

advantage is that the antenna and cable can get caught on objects and possibly lost. 4.5. Magnetometers The search for ferrous objects, or of subtle differences in magnetic potential, is best conducted using a boat-borne magnetometer. Two methods of deployment are possible. In open water of substantial depths (over 5 m) the magnetometer may be deployed as a towsh: the device looks similar to the CHIRP largely and is deployed away from metallic objects in the boat. In shallow water, or where the towsh may become snagged, terrestrial magnetometers may be placed on a otation device (Fig. 3), or be used by the operator in a rubber boat. The prevalence of metal in submerged objects of forensic, disasterrelated (e.g. shipwrecks) and archaeological interest makes the device very useful indeed [37], with many commercial companies advertising their use in cable and pipe detection, shipwreck bounty reclaims and the search for lost or disposed of valuables. Magnetometers may use a total eld sensor and or electromagnetic induction: Nelson and McDonald [38] describe a dual-sensor device (deploying both types) for the discovery of unexploded ordnance and mines in water. The common devices, having a towsh, are limited in their use to open waters with reasonable (a few metres) depth to allow manoeuvring and avoid snagging. A terrestrial magnetometer system has been deployed (Fig. 3) on a platform that can be rowed (with plastic oars) or towed by a metal-free operator. The latter has proven to be useful in enclosed ponds, ditches and streams: see Case study 5.3 (below) for a description of the use of boat-borne magnetometer surveys. 4.6. Other techniques In addition to those geophysical methods already mentioned several other techniques may be considered. LiDAR is a method which utilises laser projection to determine distance, or more readily in this case water depth (infra-red for position of water surface and blue-green for depth of water column). The measurement is based on the round trip travel time for the laser pulse [39]. The pulse used is typically 4 to 10 kHz. It is a sub-bottom proler which under homogeneous water conditions can penetrate water depths of up to 60 m [40]. At locations of excellent water clarity the main advantage of bathymetric LiDAR over passive imaging systems is its capacity to measure at two to three times the Secchi Depth[40]. However the accuracy of this technique is hindered when the water becomes optically dirty [41]. LiDAR can be affected further by aquatic vegetation and air entrainment. Radiometrics and gravimetry are two further techniques which may be considered. Both are complex methods for calculation of physical parameters of the Earth material/objects under survey. Gravimetrics is the study of the gravitational eld or in particular the changes in gravitational pull or acceleration. Density variations of the Earth's materials cause changes in the force of gravity meaning they can be measured in terms of gravitational changes. Radiometric surveying measures Earth materials which contain radio-emitting isotopes to obtain gamma-ray data. Such data may provide improved resolution of data in areas which are problematic to survey. Both techniques can be complex and difcult to obtain but in a survey situation where they are believed t for purpose they can be sources of invaluable data. 5. Published case studies 5.1. Search for a victim of drowning: Gregory Reedy, Oregon USA Alaimo (2003: [42]) reports on this tragic case, wherein 38-year-old Gregory Reedy waded into the weed-infested Herbert's Pond (Douglas County, Oregon) in order to retrieve a broken remotely-controlled

Fig. 2. A regular ground penetrating radar system, here placed in a small boat for water penetrating radar surveys.

R. Parker et al. / Science and Justice 50 (2010) 141149

147

who disappeared in 1998. In fact Alaimo [42] is incorrect in quoting sonar equipment, as the photograph in her article shows the twinhulled, metal-free boat being rowed across the pond, running GPR at the same time. Alaimo continues in the photo caption: Search and rescue personnel Scott Robbins of Eugene, standing, and Mark Harrison of England talk with Douglas County Sheriff's Ofce divers Scott Batsch, left, and Brandon Sardi as they search for the body of 38-year-old Gregory C. Reedy of Myrtle Creek in Herbert's Pond Monday afternoon. Data from the survey were used in real-time to direct two police divers to anomalies that could have corresponded to the body of Mr. Reedy, as mentioned by Hardisty [5]. The description of conditions in Alaimo's article [42] demonstrates the usefulness of GPR in providing targets in these types of environments: The weeds grow nearly to the surface of the pond and were so thick that divers described the environment as one of the most difcult they have ever searched through. The details of the GPR survey are condential, but it is known that Mr. Reedy's body was retrieved not long after the police search concluded (M. Harrison, pers comm.). He was buried some three weeks later. 5.2. Search for sunken snowmobile Sjstrm (2002: [43]) provides an account of the use of GPR in the search for a snowmobile in an Arctic lake, wherein such vehicles safely navigate frozen lakes throughout the winter, but come the spring, the ice thins but the rider cannot see this and may sink. Sjstrm states that such accidents are common, although rarely fatal. He [43] continues One snowmobile accident happened in the spring of 2002 in a lake near Ammarns, Sweden. Right after the accident some GPS coordinates where taken on the edge of the ice to keep a reference The problem here was that the snowmobile [had] sunk. In addition to this the bottom of the lake has a slope of about 45 down to about 35 m depth. Sjstrm [43] then makes a very valid point for this review: The rst attempts to search for the snowmobile with the help of scuba divers failed due to very dark water and the steep slope that made bottom grid searching more difcult. The team decided to wait until the ice had melted completely, and deployed a GPR system with 100 MHz unshielded antennas linked to a GPS. The antennas were placed at the bottom of a small plastic boat and a survey grid of 150 m length lines, 3 m apart established. The tenth prole to be gathered displayed a clear hyperbolae, which was conrmed by collecting an orthogonal line. The location was noted and the snowmobile recovered by divers. 5.3. Evaluation of polluted pond Reynolds (2002: [44]) provides a case study that is equally-well suited to the search for hidden waste, toxic waste or environmental forensics. In this case, a lagoon in North Wales (United Kingdom) had been used for over 180 years as a dumping ground for coal waste, metals drums (numbering at least 1000) of unknown chemicals, sulphuric acid, tar and predominantly heavy oil (mixed with bentonite), hence the site was referred to as an acid tar lagoon. In order to begin remediation, environment agencies needed to know the location of the metal barrels, areas of elevated pollution and the geometry (for volumetrics) of the lagoon. Reynolds [44] considers these targets and demonstrates the deployment of a boat-borne magnetometer (for location of metal targets) and a seismic survey (for the geometry of the lagoon). Electrical methods (resistivity, electromagnetic surveying, GPR) would not have achieved the accuracy or penetration of such material as the acid tar that most likely occurred in the lagoon. Both magnetometer and seismic equipment were deployed on a twin-hull boat (the MagCat), moved by acid-resistant ropes and positioned using a prism on the boat and robotic geodimeter on the land. The results, especially the magnetic anomaly map are very convincing, demonstrating the t for purpose nature of understanding what is being searched for, and selecting appropriate geophysical tools in this unusual environment.

Fig. 3. Three views of the MagCat system a regular terrestrial magnetometer deployed from a oating platform (see Published Case Studies: Evaluation of Polluted Pond, by Reynolds, 2002: [44]). Photo courtesy of Chris Leech, Geomatrix Systems Ltd.

model motor boat in the evening of 25th May, 2003. By nightfall, Mr. Reedy had not returned to shore, sparking a local search, followed by a police operation. Alaimo (2003) provides the background to the story: Divers did a painstaking grid search of the northwest corner of the pond using sonar equipment and cadaver-snifng dogs. A special search crew visiting from the United Kingdom took a half-day off from the Stephanie Condon case to help out in the recovery effort. Condon is a Riddle girl

148

R. Parker et al. / Science and Justice 50 (2010) 141149

5.4. Search for sunken jetski Ruffell (2006: [33], also summarised in [5]) recounts the use of GPR in resolving a dispute over events that occurred during the collision between a jetski and speedboat in a lake used for recreation in Ireland. In the case, the speedboat collided with the jetski, causing damage to the former and sinking the latter. The speedboat driver claimed the jetski moved into his path: the jetski operator claimed to be stationary. Thus the position and nature of the damage to the jetski was critical to evaluate, a situation not helped by the dispute only coming to light some months after the incident, when visibility-obscuring silt had been deposited in the lake. The damage could easily be assessed by simply bringing the vehicle to surface, but this would destroy the jetski's position. A number of tests were undertaken by Ruffell [45] using different antenna frequencies in order to establish the optimum frequency for depth to target imaging, as well as to determine what other objects may be present that may confuse the results. Local intelligence suggested numerous metal targets would be present from boating and shing nearby. It was thus the size of this mostly plastic target that would provide a location. 200 MHz antennae were deployed, as this frequency overcame the problem of silt-covering but could resolve the size of the jetski. A grid pattern of lines was gathered by [45] and one large target was conrmed as the jetski by divers. 5.5. Search for diseased animals in a ditch Ruffell & McKinley (2008: [5]) describe how a report from a farm worker regarding his former employer led environmental agencies to search a ooded quarry and nearby ditch, using GPR. The quarry was too polluted to provide good surveying conditions but the survey of the ditch produced excellent results. These were obtained by the investigators placing 200 MHz antennae in a rubber boat that was dragged along the ditch. A diseased and possibly abused calf cadaver was recovered and used in prosecution of the perpetrator. 5.6. Search for a homicide victim in a reservoir Ruffell & McKinley (2008: [5]) describe a search for a missing person in Northern Ireland that included areas of farmland, quarries, ditches, building sites and the sea. A public appeal generated some specic information: that the keeper of shing boats on a large freshwater reservoir was had noticed one boat had been used at about the time of the supposed abduction. Another witness reported activity at one end of this lake at the same time. Scent dogs were deployed on boats that showed interest in certain areas of the lake. As Snovak [4] go to state: The problem remained of how to focus any diver-based search in waters of 4 m depth with unknown thickness of silt below. Boat-borne GPR was considered and the following positive and negative attributes determined. The survey deployed low frequency (50 and 100 MHz

antennae). These have deep penetration and large footprint, effectively seeing more of the water and sediment. Anomalies were marked with weighted buoys and then re-surveyed using lower-frequency, 100 and 200 MHz antennae, in order to locate any anomalies. The main target identied was recovered as a tree stump. 5.7. Search of a ditch for the body of a badger In this case, Parker et al. [45] used WPR to locate a badger that had been placed in a sack with rocks, and thrown into a ditch (similar to Case 5.5, above). A 200 MHz antenna was placed in a small rubber boat (rib) with the oor slats removed to facilitate good connection with the water. Twenty meter-long bre optic cables were then purchased to allow remote control of the survey while the boat was towed along. Problems encountered included unstable sections of the ditch bank and snagging of cables on vegetation. Where targets were observed on the radar monitor, these were marked on the adjacent bank. The two anomalies were recorded, the rst of which was the badger. 5.8. Search for explosives In this case, one of the authors [46] described how a raid on a terrorist house in one location caused associates in a nearby farmhouse to dump sealed and weighted barrels of explosives in a pond. The investigators noted evidence of activity near the pond (footprints in mud) and ordered a search. The explosives were known to be Semtex and ammonium nitrate with fuel oil mixes in plastic barrels weighed down with either lead shing weights or rocks. Boat-borne magnetometers and metal detectors failed to produce a response, as the suspected metal was not present. A dog trained in detecting explosives was not available. Oily patches were observed in some locations: WPR located over 30 anomalies, some of which were the explosive-lled barrels, often where surface oil coincided with the WPR anomaly. 6. Conclusions Having examined the most common geophysical techniques applicable to the freshwater environment it is evident that researchers have a good selection of geophysical technology (Table 1). However it is lack of understanding of the basic advantages and disadvantages of each technique that may hinder surveys. Each geophysical method is vulnerable to several limitations, some more so than others. Seismic reection and refraction are most readily applied to large open water bodies and suffer from several problems once the water body is reduced to a small, shallow feature. CHIRP, sonar and towsh magnetometers also succumb to this limitation also whilst the MagCat [44] and WPR does not: the latter is limited by saline concentration. Where intelligence suggests that metal may be present in the object to be searched for, in open, deep waters, the

Table 1 Summary of the methods described for the geophysical search of freshwater bodies, with advantages and limitations indicated. Method Seismic (reection and refraction) CHIRPS Detection Changes in compressive strength of subsurface, from 0 m to over 10 km. Water depth of operation Boat-borne requires draft of boat, usually more than 2 m upwards. Width/length of water body Requires a streamer with geophones ~ 10 m or more.

Changes in compressive strength of subsurface. From 0 m to ~ 100 m. Sonar/side Topography, lake/river bed, no subsurface scan sonar penetration. Water penetrating Dielectric contrast (chemistry) of surface and radar subsurface, from 0 to ~ 20 m. Magnetometer Changes in metal content, from surface to tens of metres, depending on size of metal object. LiDAR Surface texture, no sediment penetration. Radiometrics Radioactive emission, low radiation at surface to high radiation when buried.

Shallower than seismic (~1.5 m), but problem of Shorter than seismic ~ 5 m, again manoeuvring of snagging towsh. towsh limits. Boat draft, can be ~ 1 m. No long streamer required boat length required (~3 m). Positioning of towsh may limit. From 0 m. From 1 m (for shallow targets needing a small antenna). From 0 m (boat-or Magcat-borne) to length of Boat-borne (small, or Magcat), 34 m, with towsh wire (~50 m, could be deeper). towsh, at least 50 m. 05 m, depending on light penetration. 10 m up to tens of km. From 0 m upwards, depending on radioactive 23 m (hand-held device at surface to tens of km emission. (airborne platform).

R. Parker et al. / Science and Justice 50 (2010) 141149

149

towsh magnetometer has a distinct advantage over all other methods, as the towsh can be lowered to be close to the sediment surface (if used in conjunction with a depth sounder to avoid snagging and equipment loss). If metal is thought to be present in shallow, restricted waters, then a regular, terrestrial magnetometer may be deployed from a rubber or plastic boat, with no metal on board at all: this can be quite problematic but if overcome, could likewise prove a very useful method, as shown by [44] for the MagCat. If non-metallic objects are being searched for, then if large enough, in deep water, seismic is appropriate, especially if the object is possibly covered by sediment: if not, then sonar is also ideal (Table 1). For small objects in deep water, a GPR (WPR) borehole antenna can be lowered to the sediment surface (again, a depth sounder will be required, possibly in an advance boat to warn of upstanding snags to the antenna and cable). If non-metallic objects are thought to occur in small water bodies, then seismic, CHIRP, sonar and magnetometers will not be suitable, where WPR is. If there is no intelligence concerning the metal content of the target in shallow water, GPR can be used, as this reacts to metal as well, but would be best being deployed with a terrestrial magnetometer in a metal-free environment. Two messages from this review are apparent. First, a knowledge of the target to be identied is essential, as is the size of the water body, its chemistry, depth and sub-bottom sediment and geology. Second, the methods described are rarely capable of directly nding the object being searched for: they are better thought of as a range of assets available to the search coordinator to limit the time dogs and divers spend on and in the water. Geophysical devices are target identiers and allow elimination of large areas of open water, leading to a quicker and less hazardous search. References
[1] W.D. Haglund, M.H. Sorg, Advances in forensic taphonomy, Human Remains in Water Environments, 2001, pp. 202216, Chapter 10. [2] H.H. Nelson, J.R. McDonald, Multisensor towed array detection system for UXO detection, Geoscience & Remote Sensing 39 (2001) 11391145. [3] A. Snovak, Barron's Guide to Search and Rescue Dogs, Baron, New York, 2004. [4] J. Hardisty, Hydrodynamic modelling as investigative and evidential tools in murder enquiries: examples from the Humber and Thames, in: K. Pye, D. Croft (Eds.), Forensic Geoscience: Principles, Techniques and Applications, Geological Society of London, 2003, 34 March 2003. [5] A. Ruffell, J. McKinley, Geoforensics, Wiley & Son, Chichester, 2008 288 pp. [6] D.A. Robinson, A. Binley, N. Crook, D.F. Day-Lewis, P.A. Ferre, V.J.S. Grauch, R. Knight, M. Knoll, V. Lakshmi, R. Miller, J. Nyquist, L. Pellerin, K. Singha, L. Slater, Advancing process-based watershed hydrological research using near-surface geophysics: a vision for, and review of, electrical and magnetic geophysical methods, Hydrological Processes 22 (2008) 36043635. [7] P. Kearey, M. Brooks, I. Hill, Chapter 1: The Principles and Limitations of Exploration Methods' in An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, WileyBlackwell, 2002. [8] H. Vereecken, A. Binley, G. Cassiani, A. Revil, K. Titov, Applied Hydrogeophsics, NATO Science Series, IV Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol. 71, Springer, Amsterdam, 2004. [9] F.P. Haeni, Application of continuous seismic-reection methods to hydrologic studies, Ground Water 24 (1) (1986) 2331. [10] B.P. Hansen, W.W. Lapham, Geohydrology and simulated groundwater ow. PlymouthCarver Aquifer, southeastern Massachusetts, US Geological Survey, 1992, WRIR 90-4204. [11] S.R. Gorin, F.P. Haeni, Use of surface-geological methods to assess riverbed scour at bridge piers. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report, 1989. [12] F. Anselmetti, M. Fuchs, M. Beres, Sedimentological Studies of Western Swiss Lakes with High Resolution Reection Seismic and Amphibious GPR Proling, 10th international conference on ground penetrating radar, 21st24th June, Delft, The Netherlands, 2004. [13] B.D. Wilson, J.A. Madsen, Acoustical methods for bottom and sub-bottom imaging in estuaries: benthic mapping project to identify and map the bottom habitat and sub-bottom sediments of Delaware Bay, Sea Technologies 47 (6) (2006) 4346. [14] X. Xingxin, et al., Case study: application of GPR to detection of hidden dangers to underwater hydraulic structures, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 32 (2006) 1220. [15] A. Dobinson, D. McCann, Application of marine seismic surveying methods to engineering geological studies in the near shore environment, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 23 (1990) 109123. [16] T.M. Boyd, Seismic Methods:Reection and Refraction, Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, Colorado School of Mines, 2003, http://galitzin.mines.edu/INTROGP/

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22] [23] [24]

[25] [26] [27]

[28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

[33] [34] [35]

[36]

[37] [38] [39]

[40] [41]

[42]

[43] [44] [45]

[46]

notes_template.jsp?url=SEIS%2FNOTES%2Fsintro.html&page=Refraction%3A% 20Notes%3A%20Method%20Overview, [last accessed 10/12/2008]. F. Hassani, P. Guevremont, M. Momayez, A. Sdari, K. Saleh, Application of nondestructive evaluation techniques on concrete dams, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science 34 (1997) 34. Enviroscan, Seismic Refraction Versus Seismic Reection, 2003 http://www. enviroscan.com/html/seismic_refraction_versus_re.html, last accessed 10/12/ 2008. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 8: Geophysical Techniques' in Field Sampling Procedures Manual, 2005 http://www.state.nj.us/ dep/srp/guidance/fspm/pdf/fsmp2005.pdf, last accessed 29/01/09. D. Fitzgerald, G. Zarillo, S. Johnston, Recent developments in the geomorphic investigations of engineered tidal inlets, Coastal Engineering Journal 45 (4) (2003) 565600. M. Gutowski, J. Bull, J. Dix, T. Henstock, P. Hogarth, T. Hiller, T. Leighton, P. White, Three-dimensional high resolution acoustic imaging of the sub-seabed, Journal of Applied Acoustics 68 (2008) 412421. Y.H. Cha, C. Jo, H. Suh, Water bottom seismic refraction survey for engineering applications, Geosystems Engineering 6 (2003) 4045. Teledyne Benthos, 2007, Teledyne Benthos Undersea Systems and Equipment, http://www.benthos.com/ [last accessed 29/01/09]. B. Lafferty, R. Quinn, C. Breen, A side-scan sonar and high resolution Chirp sub-bottom prole study of the natural and anthropogenic sedimentary record of Lower Lough Erne, northwestern Ireland, Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2005) 756766. B. Kendal, An overview of the development and introduction of ground radar to 1945, Journal of Navigation 56 (3) (2003) 343352. J. Daniels, Ground Penetrating Radar Fundamentals. U.S.EPA Report, Appendix 121, 2000. J.A. Huisman, S.S. Hubbard, J.D. Redman, A.P. Annan, Measuring soil and water content with ground penetrating radar: a review, Vadose Zone Journal 2 (2003) 476491. R. Knight, Ground penetrating radar for environmental applications, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science 29 (2001) 229255. L. Conyers, D. Goodman, Ground Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists, Altamira Press, USA, 1997. J.L. Davis, A.P. Annan, Ground-penetrating radar for high-resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy, Geophysical Prospecting 37 (1989) 531551. Gruber, S., and Ludwig, F., 1996. Application of Ground Penetrating Radar in Glaciology and Ground Frost Prospecting [unpublished]. H.M. Jol, C.S. Bristow, GPR in sediments: advice on data collection, basic processing and interpretation, a good practice guide, in: C.S. Bristow, H.M. Jol (Eds.), Ground Penetrating Radar in Sediments, vol. 211, Geological Society, London, 2003, pp. 927, Special Publications. A. Ruffell, Underwater scene investigation using GPR in the search for a sunken jet ski, Northern Ireland, Journal of Science and Justice (2006). M.C. Forde, D.M. McCann, M.R. Clark, K.J. Broughton, P.J. Fenning, A. Brown, Radar measurement of bridge scour, NDT&E International 32 (1999) 481492. J. Pope, R.D. Lewis, T. Welp, Beach and Underwater Occurrences of Ordance at a Former Defence Site/; Erie Army Depot, Ohio, Army Corps of Engineers CERC Report 96-1, 1996. J.E. Costa, K.R. Spicer, R.T. Cheng, F.P. Haeni, N.B. Melcher, E.M. Thurman, W.J. Plant, W.C. Keller, Measuring stream discharge by non-contact methodsa proof-ofconcept experiment, Geophysical Research Letters 27 (2000) 553556. E.T. Hall, The use of the proton magnetometer in underwater archaeology, Archaeometry 9 (1966) 3244. H. Nelson, J. McDonald, Multisensor towed array detection system for UXO detection, IEEE Transactions Geoscience and Remote Sensing 39 (June 2001) 11391145. Z. Bowen, R. Waltermire, Evaluation of Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) for measuring river corridor topography, Journal of American Water Resources Association 38 (2002) 3341. C. Wang, W. Philpot, Using SHOALS LIDAR system to detect bottom material change, Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, vol. 5, 2002, pp. 26902692. S. Pe'eri, W. Philpot, Increasing the existence of very shallow-water LIDAR measurements using the red-channel waveforms, Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, vol. 45, 2007, pp. 12171223. M. Alaimo, Family nds Myrtle Creek drowning victim. News Review Today, Tuesday, May 27th, 2003, 2003, http://www.nrtoday.com/article/20030527/ NEWS/105270001&parentprole=search. T. Sjstrm, Searching for a sunken snowmobile in an arctic lake! Mala Geoscience Newsletter, 2002, 2002 www.malags.se/snowmobile. J.M. Reynolds, The role of environmental geophysics in the investigation of an acid tar lagoon, Llwyneinion, North Wales, UK, First Break 20 (2002) 630636. R. Parker, J.M. McKinley, A. Ruffell, Application of ground-penetrating radar to shallow freshwater bodies for forensic search, 15th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 2009, Conference Abstract. http://www.eage.org/events/ index.php?eventid=110&Opendivs=s3. A. Ruffell, L.J. Donnelly, L. Dawson, The future of geoforensics. Geoscientsists at crime scenes, Geological Society of London, 17th December, 2008 Conference Abstract, 2008, http://www.stratascan.co.uk/pdf/EIGG/Forensic%20Geoscience% 20Group%20Programme.pdf.