S-J910-NRT1-2011Panama CityPanama City,FLNavigation Response Team 1H123571FinalApproach and St Andrews BayFloridaUnited States100002014Mark McMannBasic Hydrographic Survey2013-05-222011-09-122014-01-06Singlebeam Echo Sounder Multibeam Echo SounderSide Scan SonarmetersUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)UTC-6Pacific Hydrographic BranchThe purpose of this survey is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charts. All separates are filed with the hydrographic data. Notes in red were generated during office processing. The processing branch concurs with all information and recommendations in the DR unless otherwise noted. Page numbering may be interrupted or non-sequential. All pertinent records for this survey, including the Descriptive Report, are archived at the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) and can be retrieved via http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/. NOAAApproach and St Andrews Bay, Panama City, FL30.312585.875833333330.062777777885.7413888889Survey LimitsSupportFiles\surveylimits_PI.jpgSurvey Limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD.A request through the Regional Navigation Manager has requested a hydrographic survey in St. Andrews Bay and West Bay. There are reports of high spot in the Pass west of the channel and east of the western jetty. The approach to the Port and through St Andrews Pass needs validation of the charted depths. In Grand Lagoon, there is shoaling in the channel and changing channel course. Also, to survey and validate the charted depths and features in West Bay, West Bay Creek and the depths along the GIWW. Panama City is one of the MTS ports and an ENC Verification is needed. It is the intent of this survey to supersede all bathymetry, seafloor features, and bottom characteristics within the assigned survey area as defined by these instructions for updating of NOAA charts 11390 and 11391.The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.This survey spanned over 3 calendar years due to changes in survey vessels and integrating new Side Scan Sonar equipment. This time lag in no way effects the quality of the data or it's suitability for charting.Survey Coverage was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD.Survey Limit (general)SupportFiles\surveylimits_large.jpg3004000000556.527.7030014.215000035.5004.215000059227.7010.311620000132011-09-122011-09-132011-09-152011-09-212011-09-222011-09-282011-09-292011-10-042011-10-052011-10-062011-11-012011-11-022011-11-032011-11-092012-05-232012-06-112012-06-202012-06-272012-06-282012-07-102012-07-112012-09-272012-10-032012-10-042012-10-092012-10-102012-10-242012-10-252012-11-012012-11-052012-11-202012-11-272013-01-232013-06-262013-07-102013-08-062013-08-072013-08-272013-09-032013-09-042013-11-122013-12-022014-01-06Percent of XL equals 10.3% of 1/2 of total 200% MS mileageThe Vessel LNM values for 3001 should read as follows: Mainscheme SBES [39.7 LNM]; Mainscheme MBES [15.0 LNM]; Mainscheme SSS [39.3 LNM]. The Vessel LNM values for 3004 should read as follows: Mainscheme SBES [589.8 LNM]; Mainscheme SSS [556.5 LNM]; MBES/SBES Crosslines [27.7 LNM]. The Total LNM values for H12357 should read as follows: Mainscheme SBES [629.5 LNM]; Mainscheme MBES MS [15.0]; Mainscheme SSS [595.8 LNM]; MBES/SBES Crosslines [27.7 LNM]; Percent of XLs to [MS 4.30%].Refer to the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) for a complete description of data acquisition and processing systems, survey vessels, quality control procedures and data processing methods. Additional information to supplement sounding and survey data, and any deviations from the DAPR are discussed in the following sections.S30049.150.5S30019.150.5Survey Vessel S3004 SchematicsSupportFiles\S3004schematics.jpgSurvey Vessel S3001 SchematicsSupportFiles\S3001schematics.jpgOdomCV200SBESReson8125MBESKlein5000SSSEdgetech4125SSSTrimble ApplanixPOS MV 4Positioning and Attitude SystemTrimble ApplanixPOS MV 5Positioning and Attitude SystemSBESB19 Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorOdomDigibarSound Speed SystemX-lines equal 10.31% of 1/2 mainscheme mileage. Pydro generated crossline comparison report states a 99.8% IHO special order agreement and 0.2% IHO order1 agreement.Pydro Crossline Comparison General AgreementSupportFiles\Xline Comparison PieChart.jpgCrosslines mileage totaled 4.3% of mainscheme mileage.Uncertainty values returned from MBES surface were generally excellent with the great majority of points. 176248 points out of 2356498 total points are above 50cm of uncertainty (7.4%). These areas were analyzed and found to be MBES swath outer edges points and were not an hindrance to overall survey data quality. Areas with Uncertainty values greater than 50cmSupportFiles\H12357_MB_Surface_Uncertainty_above_50cm.jpgNo contemporary junction surveys available.Survey H12357 junctions with 2012 survey H12376.Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.POSmv4/IMU failure on two days of acquisition.We experienced a POSmv4/IMU failure on days 2013_177 and 2013_191. Direct DGPS input was used on these two calm days during data acquisition. Data quality remained good during these days.None ExistThere were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings.Daily CTD casts for mainscheme survey, every 4 hours maximum during MBES investigationsAll equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.MBES surface Node DensityMBES surface Node Density was controlled during data processing. The great majority of nodes showed a node density of or above 5. 365256 points out of 2356540 total points showed a density under 5 (15.4%). These areas were analyzed and found to be MBES swath outer edges points and were not an hindrance to overall survey data quality. MB Surface Node Density under 5, Inshore areaSupportFiles\H12357_MB_Surface_Node_Density_less_than_5_Inshore.jpgMB Surface Node Density under 5, Offshore areaSupportFiles\H12357_MB_Surface_Node_Density_less_than_5_Offshore.jpgSBES surface Node DensitySBES surface Node Density was controlled during data processing. The great majority of nodes showed a node density of or above 5. 4451 points out of 556589 total points showed a density under 5 (0.79%). These points were analyzed and found to be sparce, evenly distributed and not an hindrance to overall survey data quality. SB Surface Node Density under 5, Inshore areaSupportFiles\H12357_SB_Surface_Node_Density_less_than_5_Inshore.jpgSB Surface Node Density under 5, Offshore areaSupportFiles\H12357_SB_Surface_Node_Density_less_than_5_Offshore.jpgMBES surface Node Hypothesis Count MBES surface Node Hypothesis Count was controlled during data processing. The great majority of nodes showed an Hypothesis Count under 2. 12 points out of 2356498 total points showed an Hypothesis count above 2 (0.0005%). These points were analyzed and deemed not an hindrance to overall survey data quality. MB Surface Hypothesis Count above 2SupportFiles\H12357_MB_Surface_HypothesisCount_above_2.jpgMBES surface Node Hypothesis StrengthMBES surface Node Hypothesis Strength was controlled during data processing. The great majority of nodes showed an Hypothesis Strength of 0. 306 points out of 2356498 total points showed an HypothesisStrength above 0.01 (0.012%). These points were analyzed and found to be located in areas of sudden depth changes (e.g contacts edges, seawalls, etc...)and deemed not an hindrance to overall survey data quality. MB Surface Hypothesis Strength above 0.01SupportFiles\H12357_MB_Surface_HypothesisStrength_above_0point01.jpgSide Scan Sonar holidaysSide Scan Sonar holidays were identified from 100% and 200% mosaics created during data processing. These holidays were all found offshore, and were likely due to the swath displayed during acquisition of the new sonar used (Edgetech 4125). The holidays were closely examined. None of the holidays are common to 100% and 200% coverages, and no contact was found in the concurent mosaic coverage. Full Holiday tables are included in Bathy&Features/Hydrography QC and IHO Standard folder. Screen captures are displayed below.SSS Holidays identified, 100% coverageSupportFiles\H12357_SSS_100_Holidays_tablegrab.jpgSSS Holidays identified, 200% coverageSupportFiles\H12357_SSS_200_Holidays_tablegrab.jpgDue to the small size and wide distribution of the coverage gaps, the acquired side scan sonar data accomplished its intended purpose and the data is adequate for charting.All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.A new patch test is conducted every time the MBES is installed on the side arm.MBES patch test2012-02-21MB installed (for MB multi surface Settlement and Squat measurement purpose)MBES patch test2013-05-21MB installed (for MB multi surface Settlement and Squat measurement purpose)MBES patch test2013-08-21MB installed for contacts investigationsBackscatter was not collected for this survey.NOAA Profile V_5_3H12357_MBES_50cmCUBE0.51.722.2NOAA_0.5mMBES TracklineSBES Set Line SpacingH12357_SBES_Base_4mBASE Uncertainty40.423.7NOAA_4mMBES TracklineSBES Set Line SpacingH12357_100_1mSSS Mosaic100NOAA_1m100% SSSH12357_200_1mSSS Mosaic100NOAA_1m200% SSSCaris surfaces were generated following the Field Procedure Manual and the Specifications and Deliverables guidance. One MB Cube surface was generated at a 50cm resolution, One SB Base surface was generated at a 4m resolution, and a 1m resolution Mosaic was created for each 100% and 200% coverage for the Side Scan Sonar data.H12357_MBES_50cm Depth StatisticsSupportFiles\MB_surface_Cube_50cm_depthstats.jpgH12357_SBES_Base_4m Depth StatisticsSupportFiles\SB_surface_Base_4m_depthstats.jpgAdditional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.Mean Lower Low WaterDiscrete ZoningPanama City, FL87291088729108.tidFinal ApprovedJ910NRT12011RevCORP.zdfPreliminaryJ910NRT12012CORP.zdfPreliminaryJ910NRT12013CORP.zdfFinal2014-01-082014-09-24No changes made in Final Tides. Preliminary tides J910NRT12013CORP.zdf were approved as Final and applied to dataset.The Tide Note is attached.North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)UTM 16NSite ID 812Chart comparison for soundings was treated as such where bathymetry shoaler or deeper than one foot was observed. 1138914280000342011-062013-11-022013-11-02Sounding comparison was excellent.1139014140000252012-102013-11-022013-11-02Sounding comparison was excellent.1139114025000252013-012013-11-022013-11-02This is the largest scale chart covering the survey area. Overall sounding agreement is excellent with current survey soundings within 1 foot of charted soundings. See Section D.1.8 for survey discrepancies with the chart.11392148500072005-112013-10-262013-10-26Chart 11392 did not cover the current survey areaUS5FL61M4000042013-01-082013-01-08falseThia ENC does not cover any of the current survey area.US5FL66M2500072013-04-032013-04-03false Agreement between this ENC and the current survey is excellent.US5FL67M5000102011-09-152011-09-15falseThis ENC does not cover any of the current survey area.All assigned AWOIS were covered by 200% side scan sonar. Investigation targets were created when AWOIS items were detected, and MBES investigations were conducted.2 assigned AWOIS (#14923 and #14927) items were located in very shallow water, and could only be visually inspected.ABPSee attached AWOIS Report.No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.Charted features within survey sheet were covered by 200% SSS. Significant items found in SSS record were investigated with a MBES when possible and safe. 2 Charted features were investigated.866/37 Submerged piles, ChartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_5_1624.jpg333/113 59 ft Wreck, ChartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_5_1541.jpg Significant contacts seen in 200% SSS record were investigated with a MBES when possible and safe. 12 uncharted features were investigated.391/142 13 ft. Obstruction UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_1_1454.jpg766/112 14 ft Wreck UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_1_1708.jpg707/45 14.1 ft Wreck UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_1_1753.jpg452/172 12 ft Obstruction UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_3_1456.jpg584/42 11.1 ft wreck UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_3_1653.jpg331/57 19.3 ft Obstruction UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_3_1755.jpg634/89 11.5 ft Obstruction UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_4_1500.jpg345/125 26 ft. Wreck UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_4_1820.jpg581/32 16.4 ft Unknown Obstruction UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_5_1551.jpg718/9 8.1 ft Unknown obstruction UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_5_1630.jpg609/10 11.6 ft wreck UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_5_1723.jpg145/34 50 ft. Wreck UnchartedSupportFiles\H12357_3D_1_1606.jpg1DTON Report #12013-10-22DTON report submitted 10/22/13DTON #1, 30° 09' 14.9" N, 085° 40' 08.2" WSupportFiles\H12357_3D_1_1604.jpgDTON #2, 30° 10' 11.4" N, 085° 42' 19.3" WSupportFiles\H12357_3D_4_1518.jpgSee attached DTON Report.Soundings in the Northwest corner of the survey area adjacent to a charted dump site are significantly shoaler than the current survey depths. Chart the sounding from the current survey. (fig. 33) A charted 37 foot sounding was found to be in error. The current survey soundings are 25-27 feet. It appears the charted shoal to the Northwest has migrated Southeast and the 24 foot contour needs revision. This shoal does not present a danger to navigation. (fig. 34) A charted shoal on the Northwest side of the St Andrew Bay Entrance Channel was found to be 6-7 feet deeper than charted. (fig. 35) A series of three shoals, charted as 10 feet, 7 feet, and 11 feet were investigated with reduced line spacing SBES and least depths were 14 feet, 11 feet and 13 feet. (fig. 36) A charted 18 foot shoal was developed with reduced line spacing SBES and a least depth of 23 feet was found. The 18 foot sounding should be removed from the chart. (fig. 37) A charted 16 foot shoal was investigated with reduced line spacing and was not found. The sounding should be removed from the chart. (fig. 38) A charted 2 foot shoal was developed with SBES reduced line spacing and least depths of 1 foot were found. (fig. 39) A charted 5 foot shoal was developed with SBES reduced line spacing and was the 6 foot contour should be revised to cover a smaller area. (fig. 40) A charted 8 foot shoal was investigated with reduced line spacing single beam and was found to be accurately charted. (fig. 41) Shoal soundingsSupportFiles\sndgs.jpg37 foot soundingSupportFiles\37.jpg13 foot shoalSupportFiles\OS_shoal.jpgshoalsSupportFiles\shoals.jpg18 foot shoalSupportFiles\18_shoal.jpg16 foot shoalSupportFiles\16shoal.jpg2 foot shoalSupportFiles\2_shoal.jpg5 foot shoalSupportFiles\5shoal.jpg8 foot shoalSupportFiles\8_shoal.jpg The St Andrew Bay entrance channel was found to be in agreement with the USACE tabulated depths. During compilation, shoaling to 33 ft. (the tabulated depth is 36 ft.) was noted at approximate position 30-07-52N, 85-42-56W. The Army Corps of Engineers was notified of the shoal depths.Bottom samples were acquired at all charted labels of bottom characteristics. There was excellent agreement with the charted bottom characteristics. A charted characteristic at 85 41 48.7 N lat, 30 09 45.9 W lon. is mis-labeled as "f bk S". This label should be f bk Sh.Mis-labeled bottom SampleSupportFiles\BS.jpgThe mis-labeled bottom type was recommended to be deleted in the chart update product and a bottom type from the survey charted in the vicinity.Shoreline was not assigned in the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions or Statement of Work.The project instructions required Limited Shoreline Verification which was conducted by the Field Unit.No prior survey comparisons exist for this survey.Aids to navigation (ATONs) exist for this survey, but were not investigated.No overhead features exist for this survey.No submarine features exist for this survey.Four uncharted submerged cable features and two uncharted pipeline features were found during office processing and reported to NOAA's Nautical Data Branch. All the features were in the vicinity of the entrance to St. Andrews Bay and not considered dangerous to navigation. The survey area also contains one charted sewer which was not addressed by the survey and recommended to be retained in the chart update product.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.No platforms exist for this survey.No significant features exist for this survey.No present or planned construction or dredging exist within the survey limits.The area shown as St Andrew Bay East Pass has closed completely and there are no charted soundings in the vicinity. This area has very heavy recreational traffic and its' depiction of a non-existent pass is potentially dangerous.St Andrew Bay East PassSupportFiles\East_pass.jpgThe closed entrance to St. Andrew East Pass was reported to NOAA's Nautical Data Branch during compilation.No new insets are recommended for this area.As Chief of Party, Field operations for this hydrographic survey were conducted under my direct supervision, with frequent personal checks of progress and adequacy. I have reviewed the attached survey data and reports.All field sheets, this Descriptive Report, and all accompanying records and data are approved. All records are forwarded for final review and processing to the Processing Branch.The survey data meets or exceeds requirements as set forth in the NOS Hydrographic Surveys and Specifications Deliverables Manual, Field Procedures Manual, Letter Instructions, and all HSD Technical Directives. These data are adequate to supersede charted data in their common areas. This survey is complete and no additional work is required with the exception of deficiencies noted in the Descriptive Report.Reviewers of sheet H12357 will find deliverables both in Caris BdB and Pydro PSS formats.THE PSS CAN BE USED AS A SOURCE FOR INFORMATION, BUT THE FINAL DELIVERABLE (H12357_FFF.OOO) IS IN BdB FORMAT. Pydro was still used for deliverables like feature reports and crosslines checkpoints agreements.Mark J. McMannTeam Lead NRT-12014-02-05