18 NorthSandy Hook, NJ (286 kHz)SHK5SHK5NYQNNYQNNYCINYCINYBRNYBRNJNTNJNTMOR6MOR6MOR7MOR7NJOCNJOCSmart BaseNorth American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.2013_B310_VDatum_Ellip_MLLW.xyzVDatumFinalB310TJ2013CORP.zdfFinal Approved8531680.tidPreliminary zoning is accepted as final. Discrete ZoningSandy Hook, NJ853-16802013-06-112013-05-30Mean Lower Low WaterThe purpose of this project is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. 000051.551313.43.9000000051.551292.6000S2220000020.8500031012013-05-182013-05-192013-05-202013-05-212013-05-222013-05-232013-05-242013-05-252013-05-262013-05-272013-05-283330404Survey Coverage was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD. Survey H12526 Within the Project Area2file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/H12526_within_project.jpgThe entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.H12526 Survey Limits1file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/H12526_Survey_Limits.jpgThis survey was conducted in New York, approximately six nautical miles south of Jones Inlet. 73.47640.440573.665340.5056The sheet limits were extended by about 150 meters on the west side in order to overlap with junction H12158.NOAAUnited States6 NM South of Jones Inlet400002New YorkH12526Navigable AreametersMultibeam Echo SounderUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)2013Eastern Daylight Time2013-02-25CAPT Lawrence T. Krepp, NOAAAtlantic Hydrographic Branch2013-05-182013-05-28Approaches to New York, NYNew York, NYOPR-B310-TJ-13NOAA Ship THOMAS JEFFERSON2013-12-17CDR James M. Crocker, NOAACommanding Officer2013-12-17LT Megan Guberski, NOAAField Operations Officer2013-12-17ST Kimberly GlombSheet ManagerAs 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.The survey data meets or exceeds requirements as set forth in the NOS Hydrographic Surveys and Specifications Deliverables Manual, Field Procedures Manual, Standing and 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.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.Backscatter was logged as a 7k file and submitted to the Atlantic Hydrographic Branch for processing. One line per vessel, per day was processed aboard the Thomas Jefferson in order to assess and ensure quality. No deficencies were noted.The method used to calculate Total Propagated Uncertainty values for survey H12526 varied based on the process used to apply water level values to the data. The first method was applied to data reduced to MLLW using a POSPac IAPPK 3D positional solution and a VDatum separation mode. For this data, realtime uncertainty values for roll, pitch, gyro, navigation, and elevation were supplied via a SBET RMS file generated by Applanix POSPac. The remaining sources of uncertainty were a combination of: field assigned values for sound speed uncertainties; Operations Branch assigned values for VDatum separation model uncertainty; and a priori values for sonar mounting and vessel speed based on Appendix 4, table 4.9 of the NOAA Field Procedures Manual (ed 2013). Field assigned values for sound speed are in Table 6 above, Operations Branch assigned values for the VDatum model are in row 2 of Table 6. The second method used to calculate Total Propagated Uncertainty was applied to data reduced to MLLW via zoned tides. This data again used a POSPac IAPPK 3D positional solution, but used a zoned tide grid to reduce the data to MLLW. Uncertainties for this data also used an SBET RMS file for realtime pitch, roll, gyro, navigation, and elevation uncertainties, as well as a priori values for sonar mounting and vessel speed. However, uncertainties for tide gauge measurement, tidal datum computation error, and tidal zoning error were provided by the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). CO-OPS assigned values for tidal uncertainty are in row 1 of Table 6. Additionally, 6 lines of MB data did not have any correlating POSPac RMS error data, making application of real time uncertainties for roll, pitch, gyro, navigation, and elevation impossible. These lines used solely a priori values set by Appendix 4 table 4.9 of the NOAA Field Procedures Manual (ed 2013) to calculate uncertainties for roll, pitch, gyro, and navigation to calculate uncertainty. For a listing of lines, see section B.5.3 of this report. Total Propagated Uncertainties for the entire survey were evaluated to ensure compliance with section 5.1.3 of NOAA's HSSD (ed 2013). First the maximum allowable uncertainty for each node was calculated using the equation: -Uncertainty/(0.5^2 +((Depth*0.013)^2)^0.5). Second the ratio between the actual uncertainty and maximum allowed uncertainty was found for each node. The resulting 'IHO_Order1' layer was filtered using a colour map to show any areas where the ratio exceeded -1.0, indicating the surface failed to meet IHO Order 1 standards. The results showed IHO uncertainty values were exceeded along the edges of certain MB swaths. For a full discussion see section B.2.5 of this report. 0.0800.10200.2S222410.231014N/AThree junction comparisons were completed for survey H12569. Junctioning surveys H12525 and H12527 were acquired concurrently with this survey. Survey 12158 was completed in 2009 by NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson. Depth comparisons were performed in CARIS BathyData BASE using difference surfaces. Statistics were performed on each difference surface created.The difference between survey H12526 and H12158 ranged from -1.50m to 0.66m. The mean was -0.02m and the standard deviation was 0.143m. Out of 313,036 nodes, 3 have a meter of more of disagreement and 99.9% are within 1 meter. The fliers are on the outer edges of H12158.10000W2009NOAA Ship THOMAS JEFFERSONH12158The difference between survey H12526 and H12525 ranged from -0.36m to 0.25m. The mean was 0.005m and the standard deviation was 0.071m. Out of 68,363 nodes, 1 has a meter of more of disagreement and 99.9% are within 1 meter. There is about 80 meters of overlap between the junctions. 10000NW2013NOAA Ship THOMAS JEFFERSONH12525Survey H12526 with Junction Locations3file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/H12526_Junctions.jpgThe difference between survey H12526 and H12527 ranged from -0.53m to 0.52m. The mean was -0.125m and the standard deviation was 0.13m. Out of 100,570 of nodes, 1 has a meter of more of disagreement and 99.9% are within 1 meter. There is about 50-70 meters of overlap between the junctions. 10000NE2013NOAA Ship THOMAS JEFFERSONH12527Plot shows sound speed at the face of the transducer vs the speed of sound at the same depth point collected from MVP cast. The red line shows difference > 2m between the two sound speed methods.4file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/H12526_SV_plot.pngExample of beam formation error showing S-shaped error5file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/Beam%20Formation%20x-line%202.pngExample of beam formation showing downward spike on starboard side of swath.6file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/Beam%20Formation.pngVertical offset in the Caris CUBE surface due to ERS anomaly.7file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/ERS%20anomoly.pngExample of combined errors. In this case, the ERS vertical offset in conjunction with the s-shaped beam formation error.8file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/ERS%20&%20Beam%20Forming.pngAn area that exceeds IHO mandated uncertainty values. The nodes exceeding IHO Order1 have been filtered to appear red. This example occured when a swath of MB data with a downward vertical bias overlaped the unbiased lines to the north and south.9file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/H12526_IHO_Order1_exceptions.pngDuring post processing, the hydrographer noted vertical offsets in the 50cm and 2m CUBE surfaces. Examination of the associated MB data revealed that the vertical jumps stemmed from three distinct causes: 1. Errors due to sound velocity: A refraction artifact appears in the MB data collected by S222 RESON 7125 for H12526. The refraction error appears as either upward or downward bowing of the MB swath, which has caused vertical jumps in the CUBE reference surface as well as a striping effect in the standard deviation child layer. After discovery of the refraction problems, sound speed values were evaluated, using a python script named Cast Time, and compared to sound speed values recorded at the face of the vessel’s RESON 7125-ROV transducer against sound speed profiles collected by the MVP. The red lines on graph (see figure 4) shows points where the difference between the sensors exceeded 2m/s. The field unit cannot say which sensor caused the error. 2. Errors due to beam formation: An artifact of unconfirmed cause appears in the MB data collected by S222 Reson 7125. The artifact has two distinct characteristics; the first appears as a sharp upward or downward spike on the starboard edge of the MB swath (see figure 6), the second appears as an elongated ‘S’ shape across the swath (see figure 5). The field unit has encountered the ‘S’ shape in previous projects, and has historically attributed the artifact to an error in the 7125’s sectoring and beam steering algorithm. The outerbeam spike has not been observed before, but the periodic appearance across several different projects leads the field to believe it also stems from a systemic error in the 7125’s beam formation. Both types of beam forming errors have caused vertical jumps in the CUBE surface. 3. Errors due to an ERS anomaly: Finally, an artifact due to errors in the vertical element of IAPPK positional solutions applied to the MB data acquired by S222’s Reson 7125. Application of GPS Tides caused some MB data to jump above or fall below the general trend of the CUBE surface (see figure 7). Though portions of the MB data were reverted to zoned tides, IAPPK solutions is seen as superior method and some level of vertical jump were allowed. In many instances, the vertical offset seen in the CUBE surface was the result of two or more errors in combination (see figure 8). The errors due to ERS tide were the most common, and caused the largest vertical errors. Select portions of the MB data was reverted to zoned tides, however water level derived from IAPPK heights are seen as superior method and some level of vertical error was accepted in order to retain the IAPPK height solutions. The general amount of vertical offset seen in the CUBE surfaces was 0.20m. The largest error seen was 0.62m, at 40°30' 09.45"N 073° 30' 12.47"W. The errors do not cause spikes in a shoal biased sounding set, however the survey does contain nodes that exceed IHO Order 1 uncertainty values. The exceptions occur primarily when the outerbeams of a vertically offset MB swath overlaps a swath with no vertical offset (see figure 9)Vertical offsets in CUBE surfaceSonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.The Thomas Jefferson collected 51.55 lineal nautical miles of multibeam echosounder (MBES) crosslines, equating to 3.9% of mainscheam MBES data. All crosslines were filtered 45° to either side of nadir in order to remove the effects of outerbeam refraction and a beam processing artifact. A 4 meter CUBE surface was created using only mainscheme lines, while a second 4 meter CUBE surface was created using only crosslines.A difference surface was then created using CARIS BathyData Base, and statistics on the depth differences were calculated. The mean was 0.125m and the standard deviation was 0.09m. Survey H12526 complies with section 5.2.4.3 of the HSSD (2013 ed). For a full discussion of the outerbeam refraction and beam processing error, see section B.2.5 of this report. Moving vessel profiler (MVP) casts were taken by the ship approximately every 30 to 40 minutes. CTDs were taken by launch 3101 about every 4 hours. No sound speed zoning was required for this survey. During post processing, a sound velocity artifact was observed. It is believed the error is the result of a failure in one of S222's sound velocity sensors, and cannot be removed via sound velocity zoning. For further discussion of sound velocity artifacts, see point 3 in section B.2.5 above. There were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings.None ExistH12526 Areas That Did Not Meet Density10file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/H12526_Low_Density.jpgEach finalized surface was filtered from 0 to 4. These were selected to get the number of soundings that did not meet density. The number of soundings for the entire data set was found by using the compute statistics function in Caris BASE Editor. Density is met 99% of the time for the 2 meter grid. The 0.5 meter grid meets density 82% of the time. This is below the 95% density requirement. The survey line plan was created based on the 2012 Specifications and Deliverables, which had the object detection requirement set for 0-20 meters of water depth. The 2013 Specifications and Deliverables is dated April 2013 and changes the object detection depth to 0-22 meters of water. The Start date of this survey was 18 May 2013. H12526 Density ComplianceAll equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.POS/MVApplanixPositioning and Attitude SystemSeacat 19+SeabirdSound Speed SystemMVP 100Brook Ocean TechnologySound Speed System7125 ROVResonMBES7125 SV1ResonMBESRefer 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.208S222153131015.2Data were acquired by NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson and Hydrographic Survey Launch 3101. NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson acquired Reson 7125 multibeam echosounder soundings, sound velocity profiles, and bottom samples. Launch 3101 acquired Reson 7125 echosounder soundings, and sound velocity profiles. NOAA_0.5mH12526_50cm_MLLW_FinalObject DetectionCUBE22.0017.270.5NOAA_2mH12526_2m_MLLW_FinalComplete MBESCUBE26.3218.002NOAA_2mH12526_Combined_2m_FinalComplete MBESCUBE26.3217.272NOAAProfileField Version 5.3.2Two lines collected by S222 lack associated POS data. As a result, True Heave could not be loaded, nor could SBET or RMS error files be created. An additional 4 lines collected by HSL 3101 have no RMS error data. See below for a listing of lines: 3101, DN 148: lines 066_1534, 300_1332, 310_1417 have not RMS error data; 3101, DN 148: line 362_1701 has no RMS data; S222, DN 143: line 143_432_1841 has no True Heave, SBET, or RMS data; S222, DN 147: line 147_325_0337 has no True Heave, SBET, or RMS data. Lines without associated POS dataAll data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.On DN142 a brief timing error was observed in data collected by S222. A corrector was added to the vessel's Caris HVF file.2013-05-22A timing error was observed. A corrector of -0.3 seconds was applied, then removed from the HVF.Timing ErrorNo platforms exist for this survey.No new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area.No significant features exist for this survey.Comparisons were only made to the chart. No shoreline is present. No overhead features exist for this survey.No present or planned construction or dredging exist within the survey limits.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.Four cables cross the survey area. These are not seen in the data and are assumed to be properly buried. No new insets are recommended for this area.No Aids to navigation (ATONs) exist for this survey.Three AWOIS items are present in the survey area. All three are addressed. Consult the H12526_FFF for information about AWOIS items in the survey area. This survey covers part of the Nantucket to Ambrose traffic lane. No controlling depths are provided for that area. A sounding plot of H12526 was created and compared to the charts and ENCs. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.Two charted items are present. Consult the H12526_FFF for more information about the charted features in the survey area. No shoals or potentially hazardous features exist for this survey. Eight uncharted features were found. Consult the H12526_FFF for more information about the uncharted features in the survey area. No Danger to Navigation Reports were submitted for this survey.26US4NY1AM80000false2013-03-07In general the soundings agree within 0.6 meters. There are some 18.2 meter contours in the north, south west, and east that have gone away or changed.2US4NY1BM80000false2013-01-24In general the soundings agree within 0.6 meters. There are some 18.2 meter contours in the north, south west, and east that have gone away or changed. 60 Foot Contour Changes11file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/H12526_changed_60_foot_contour.jpg Northern 60 Foot Contour Change 12file:///I:/H12526/Data/Descriptive_Report/H12526_DR_images/H12526_changed_60_foot_contour_2.jpg522013-05-212013-06-016902013-068000012326In general the soundings agree within 2 feet. There are some 60 foot contours in the north, south west, and east that have gone away or changed. Consult the H12526_FFF for more information about the bottom samples acquired in the survey area.