OPR-B310-KR1-13New York Harbor and ApproachesLower New York HarborLeidos (formerly SAIC)H125872Raritan Bay to Navesink RiverNew JerseyUnited States100002013Paul L. DonaldsonBasic Hydrographic Survey2013-05-232013-08-192014-01-18Multibeam Echo SounderSinglebeam Echo Sounder Side Scan SonarMultibeam Echo Sounder BackscattermetersUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)UTCAtlantic Hydrographic BranchContract: DG133C-08-CQ-0003 Contractor: Leidos 221 Third Street, Newport, RI 02840 USA Subcontractors: Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc., 155 Hudson Avenue, Norwood NJ 07648; Divemasters, Inc., 15 Pumpshire Road, Toms River, NJ 08753; Rotator Staffing Services, 25 Kennedy Blvd., East Brunswick NJ 08816 Leidos Doc 14-TR-015ContractorThe area surveyed was a section of the Lower New York Harbor off New Jersey, Raritan Bay to Navesink River (Figure 1).40.48817574.26362540.363486111173.97543888891H12587 Survey Boundsfile:///M:/charlie/NOAA_Sandy_2013/H12587/DR_Working/H12587_Figure_1.jpgThe purpose of this project is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. This project covered approximately 49 square nautical miles (SNM) Critical and Priority 2 and 3 areas as identified in the 2012 NOAA Hydrographic Survey Priorities (NHSP) document. This project was in response to different user group needs following Hurricane Sandy landfall. Specifically these data will adjoin updated shoreline, address the need for updated bathymetry for inundation modeling, and help identify marine debris for potential removal.The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.Leidos, formerly Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), warrants only that the survey data acquired by Leidos and delivered to NOAA under Contract DG133C-08-CQ-0003 reflects the state of the sea floor in existence on the day and at the time the survey was conducted. H12587 was surveyed in accordance with the following documents: 1. Project Instructions, OPR-B310-KR1-13, dated 23 May 2013 2. Tides and Water Levels Statement of Work OPR-B310-KR1-2013 New York Harbor and Approaches, NY and NJ, dated 13 March 2013 3. NOS Hydrographic Specifications and Deliverables, April 2013, released 18 April 2013 (HSSD)Survey Limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD.2Final Bathymetry Coverage for H12587file:///M:/charlie/NOAA_Sandy_2013/H12587/DR_Working/H12587_Figure_2.jpgSurvey Coverage was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD.2013-08-192013-08-202013-08-212013-08-222013-08-232013-08-242013-08-252013-08-262013-08-272013-08-282013-08-292013-08-302013-08-312013-09-012013-09-022013-09-032013-09-042013-09-052013-09-062013-09-072013-09-082013-09-092013-09-102013-09-112013-09-122013-09-132013-09-142013-09-152013-09-162013-09-172013-09-182013-09-192013-09-202013-09-232013-09-242013-09-252013-10-052013-10-062014-10-132013-10-142013-10-162013-10-202013-10-212013-10-222014-10-242013-11-222013-11-252013-11-262013-12-032013-12-042013-12-052013-12-062013-12-082013-12-102013-12-112013-12-162013-12-172013-12-182013-12-212014-01-112014-01-122014-01-132014-01-162014-01-18742000028.59M/V Atlantic Surveyor00000255.08020.970R/V Oyster Bay00001406.11144.611261.50119.150R/V Henry Hudson00000876.40072.19000001406.111276.091261.50212.3108.4Leidos used their ISS-2000 software on a Windows XP platform to acquire these survey data. Survey planning and data analysis were conducted using the Leidos SABER software on Red Hat Enterprise 5 Linux platforms. L-3 Klein 3000 side scan data and L-3 Klein 3900 side scan data were collected on a Windows XP platform using L-3 Klein’s SonarPro software. Subsequent processing and review of the side scan data, including the generation of coverage mosaics, were accomplished using SABER. A detailed description of the systems and vessels used to acquire and process these data is included in the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) for OPR-B310-KR1-13, previously delivered with the H12586 Descriptive Report (DR) on 16 April 2014. There were no variations from the equipment configuration described in the DAPR.M/V Atlantic Surveyor1109R/V Oyster Bay303R/V Henry Hudson453The M/V Atlantic Surveyor was used to collect multibeam sonar (RESON 7125 SV), side scan sonar (L-3 Klein 3000), and sound speed data during twenty-four hours per day survey operations. Twelve hours per day survey operations were conducted from the R/V Oyster Bay and the R/V Henry Hudson. The R/V Oyster Bay was used to collect singlebeam (Odom echo sounder, 19 August to 20 October 2013), multibeam (RESON 8101 ER, 22 November 2013 to 18 January 2014), side scan sonar (L-3 Klein 3000), and sound speed data. The R/V Henry Hudson was used to collect multibeam (RESON 8101 ER) side scan sonar (L-3 Klein 3900, 24 August to 20 October 2013 and L-3 Klein 3000, 21 October to 24 October 2013), and sound speed data. A detailed description of the vessels used is included in Section A of the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR).RESONSeaBat 7125 SVMBESRESON8101 ERMBESOdomCVMSBESL-3 Klein3000SSSL-3 Klein3900SSSApplanixPOS/MV 320Positioning and Attitude SystemTrimbleProbeaconPositioning SystemBrooke Ocean TechnologyMVP-30Sound Speed SystemSeabirdSBE-19Sound Speed SystemA detailed description of the equipment installed on each vessel is included in Section A of the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR).There were 212.31 linear nautical miles of crosslines and 2537.59 linear nautical miles of main scheme lines surveyed on H12587. This resulted in crossline mileage approximately 8.4% of the main scheme mileage which meets the requirement (Section 5.2.4.3 of the HSSD) to achieve at least eight percent for a multibeam or singlebeam survey using set line spacing. For efficiency, the main scheme line orientation varied throughout the survey area. Crosslines were oriented between 45° and 90° of the main scheme lines and were spaced in order to result in linear mileage that was 8% of the main scheme mileage. In the field, hydrographers conducted daily comparisons of main scheme to near nadir crossline data to ensure that no systematic errors were introduced and to identify potential problems with the survey systems. After the application of all correctors and completion of final processing in the office, separate two-meter CUBE PFM grids were built. One grid contained the full valid swath (±60° from nadir) of main scheme multibeam or singlebeam data and the other included only the near nadir swath (±5° from nadir) or singlebeam crossline data. Separate main scheme and crossline grids were created for each vessel and sonar used for acquisition, M/V Atlantic Surveyor RESON 7125 SV multibeam, R/V Oyster Bay Odom singlebeam, R/V Oyster Bay RESON 8101 ER multibeam, and R/V Henry Hudson RESON 8101 ER multibeam. Difference grids were then generated by subtracting one grid from the other. The SABER Frequency Distribution tool was used to analyze the difference grids. All comparisons fell within the requirement defined in Section 5.2.4.3 of the HSSD which states that at least 95% of the depth difference values are to be within the maximum allowable total vertical uncertainty. Figure 3 summarizes the results for each comparison. See Separates II for a complete discussion of the analysis and tabular results.3Summary of Crossing Analysisfile:///M:/charlie/NOAA_Sandy_2013/H12587/DR_Working/H12587_Figure_3.jpgThe Total Propagated Uncertainty (TPU) model that Leidos has adopted had its genesis at the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), and is based on the work by Rob Hare and others (“Error Budget Analysis for NAVOCEANO Hydrographic Survey Systems, Task 2 FY 01”, 2001, HSRC FY01 Task 2 Final Report). Once the TPU model is applied to the GSF bathymetry data, each beam is attributed with the horizontal uncertainty and the vertical uncertainty at the 95% confidence level. For specific details on the use and application of the SABER Total Propagated Uncertainty model, see Section B.1 in the DAPR. The vertical and horizontal uncertainty values that were estimated by the TPU model for individual multibeam and singlebeam soundings varied little across the dataset, tending to be most affected by beam angle in the multibeam data. During application of horizontal and vertical uncertainties to the GSF files, individual beams where either the horizontal or vertical uncertainty exceeded the maximum allowable IHO S-44 5th edition Order 1a specifications were flagged as invalid. As a result, all individual soundings used in development of the final CUBE depth surface had modeled vertical and horizontal uncertainty values at or below the allowable IHO S-44 5th edition, Order 1a uncertainty. During the creation of the CUBE surface, two separate vertical uncertainty surfaces are calculated by the SABER software. One surface contains the standard deviation of all soundings that are contributing to the CUBE hypothesis (Hyp. StdDev) and the other contains the average of the vertical uncertainty of all soundings contributing to the CUBE hypothesis (Hyp. AvgTPE). A third vertical uncertainty surface is generated from the larger value of these two uncertainties at each node and is referred to as the Hypothesis Final Uncertainty. For specific details on this process see Section B.2 of the DAPR. For H12587 two two-meter surfaces are being delivered; one, which contains all multibeam and singlebeam data while the other contains only the singlebeam data. Throughout this report, the two-meter with all multibeam and singlebeam is referenced as the final surface. The final two-meter PFM CUBE surface contained final vertical uncertainties that ranged from 0.270 to 1.709 meters. The IHO Order 1a maximum allowable vertical uncertainty was calculated to range between 0.501 to 0.540 meters, based on the minimum CUBE depth (0.220 meters) and maximum CUBE depth (15.725 meters). The SABER Check PFM Uncertainty function was used to highlight all instances in the Hypothesis Final Uncertainty surface where a given node exceeded the IHO Order 1a allowable vertical uncertainty for the CUBE depth at that node. The final two-meter PFM CUBE surface contained 6081 individual CUBE nodes with final vertical uncertainties that exceeded IHO Order 1a allowable vertical uncertainty. The two-meter singlebeam only PFM CUBE surface contained 749 individual nodes with final vertical uncertainties that exceed the IHO Order 1a maximum allowable uncertainty. The nodes that exceed the IHO Order 1a allowable vertical uncertainty for the CUBE depth are located on steep slopes and around features where there is a high variability in the depth soundings. This is more prevalent in areas where only singlebeam data were acquired where the sparseness of the data combined with the variability of the depth yielded higher uncertainties. The SABER Check PFM Uncertainty function was also run on each of the 30 half-meter feature PFM Hypothesis Final Uncertainty surfaces. The results are listed in Figure 4 and Figure 5. As expected, there are higher numbers of nodes that exceed uncertainty limits due to the smaller node resolution and the high variability of sounding depths around features. The SABER Frequency Distribution tool was also used to review the Hypothesis Final Uncertainty surface within the final two-meter grids and 30 half-meter resolution PFM grids. The results show that in the final two-meter PFM, 99.69% of all nodes had final uncertainties less than or equal to 0.300 meters. Review of the Hypothesis Final Uncertainty Surface for the two-meter singlebeam only PFM showed 99.78% of all nodes had final uncertainties less than or equal to 0.300 meters In the 30 individual feature PFM grids, at least 94.08% of all grid nodes contained total vertical uncertainties of 0.300 meters or less. 4Number of Nodes Exceeding the Allowable IHO Order 1a Uncertainty in the Feature BAG Files 1 of 30 through 15 of 30file:///M:/charlie/NOAA_Sandy_2013/H12587/DR_Working/H12587_Figure_4.jpg5Number of Nodes Exceeding the Allowable IHO Order 1a Uncertainty in the Feature BAG Files 16 of 30 through 30 of 30file:///M:/charlie/NOAA_Sandy_2013/H12587/DR_Working/H12587_Figure_5.jpgAn analysis of H12587 junctions with contemporary surveys H12586, H11399, and H11709 was performed. Figure 6 shows the general locality of H12587 as it relates to the sheets for which junctions were performed. Details for H12586, H11399, and H11709 are listed in Table 6. See Separates II for a complete discussion of the junction results and tabular listings. 6General Locality of H12587 Junction Areas with Contemporary Surveys H12586, H11399, H11601, and H11709file:///M:/charlie/NOAA_Sandy_2013/H12587/DR_Working/H12587_Figure_6.jpgH12586100002014LeidosNH12587 junctions with H12586 to the North. 99% of the soundings differ by +/-0.15 meters H11399100002008Navigation Response Team 5WH12587 junctions with H11399 to the West. 99% of the soundings differ by +/-2.50 meters. The larger deltas in comparisons were isolated to the overlap area common with the Great Beds Reach and Ward Point Secondary Channel. Differences within the common areas outside of the maintained channels resulted in soundings differing by +/- 0.50 meters 99% of the time.H11709100002007NOAA Ship THOMAS JEFFERSONEH12587 junctions with H11709 to the East. 95% of the soundings differ by +/-1.10 meters. The larger deltas in comparisons were isolated to the overlap area common with the Naval Weapons Station Earle turning basin, Terminal Channel, and Raritan Bay East Reach Channel. Differences within the common areas outside of the maintained channels resulted in soundings differing by +/- 0.40 meters 99% of the time. Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.None ExistThere were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness.None ExistThere were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings.On the M/V Atlantic Surveyor, the MVP-30 was used to collect sound speed profile (SSP) data. SSP data were obtained at intervals frequent enough to meet depth accuracy requirements. Section 5.2.3.3 of the HSSD requires that if the sound speed measured at the sonar head differs by more than two meters/second from the commensurate profile data, then another cast shall be acquired. There were times when the sound speed values exceeded the two meters/second threshold due to the local temporal and tidal variability. During these times, several profiles were acquired and reapplied in an effort to reduce these effects. The product of this effort resulted in the final data bearing no significant artifacts due to sound speed differences. On the R/V Oyster Bay the Seabird CTD was used to collect sound speed profile (SSP) data. SSP data were acquired at least twice per day. Additional SSP data were obtained during the day as necessary to ensure that depth accuracy requirements were met. On the R/V Henry Hudson the Seabird CTD was used to collect sound speed profile (SSP) data. SSP data were acquired at least twice per day. Additional SSP data were obtained during the day as necessary to ensure that depth accuracy requirements were met.Additional information can be found in Section A.8 of the DAPR. A total of 265 sound speed profiles were applied to online data for H12587. All profiles that were applied for online bathymetry data collection were acquired within the bounds of the survey area. Please refer to the DAPR for specific details regarding acquisition (Section A.8) and application (Section C.1.3) of sound speed profiles. Confidence checks of the sound speed profile casts were conducted periodically (approximately once per week) by comparing at least two consecutive casts taken with different SV and P Smart Sensors, an SV and P Smart Sensors and a CTD, or two different CTDs. Fourteen sound speed confidence checks were conducted during H12587 and the results can be found in Separates II within the “Comparison Cast Log” section. Sound speed profiles were obtained for four different survey purposes. The “Sound Speed Profile Log” section of Separates II is a cumulative report detailing each cast associated with H12587, as collected from the three different survey platforms. The log is separated by the purpose of the applied cast; with individual tables for “Used for Bathymetry” (online bathymetry), “Used for Comparison”, “Used for Lead Line”, and “Used for Closing”. Additionally, in a separate folder on the delivery drive (H12587/Data/Processed/SVP/ CARIS_SSP), there are eight (.svp) files. Four files for CTD sound speed data and four files for MVP sound speed data. These eight files contain concatenated SSP data that has been formatted for use in CARIS. The CARIS SSP files are designated based on the purpose of the cast and their filenames match the tables within the sound speed profile log. All sound speed profile files are delivered with the H12587 delivery data and are broken out into sub-folders, which correspond to the purpose of each cast.All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.Coverage AnalysisThe Project Instructions specified coverage in depths greater than four meters as “200% SSS with concurrent Set Line Spacing, SBES or MBES with Backscatter, or Object Detection MBES with Backscatter” and in depths two to four meters as “100% SSS with concurrent Set Line Spacing, SBES or MBES with Backscatter, or Object Detection MBES with Backscatter”. To achieve this coverage: · The M/V Atlantic Surveyor used a towed L-3 Klein 3000 side scan sonar set to a 50-meter range in depths greater than approximately five meters. Main scheme line spacing was 40 meters. · The R/V Oyster Bay used a bow mounted L-3 Klein 3000 side scan sonar set to a 25-meter range in depths less than approximately five meters. Main scheme line spacing was 20 meters in depths to approximately four meters. Main scheme line spacing was 40 meters in depths less than approximately four meters. · The R/V Henry Hudson used a bow mounted L-3 Klein 3900 side scan sonar set to a 30-meter range or a bow mounted L-3 Klein 3000 side scan sonar set to a 25-meter range in depths less than five meters. Main scheme line spacing was 20 meters. This survey scenario provided a consistent 200% coverage to depths slightly less than four meters and 100% coverage in depths from two to four meters. This combination of line spacing and range settings resulted in up to 20 meters of overlap between adjacent lines in depths greater than four meters and up to five meters of overlap in depths less than four meters. The SABER Gapchecker routine was used to flag bathymetry data gaps exceeding the allowable limit of three contiguous nodes. Additionally, the entire surface was visually scanned for holidays at various points during the data processing effort. Additional survey lines were run to fill any holidays that were detected. A final review of the CUBE Depth surface in the two-meter grid containing all multibeam and singlebeam showed that valid depths exist in 100% of the nodes and there were no areas where three or more nodes sharing adjacent sides lacked data. All grids were examined for the number of soundings contributing to the chosen CUBE hypotheses for each node by running SABER’s Frequency Distribution tool on the Hypothesis Number of Soundings (Hyp # Soundings) surface of the PFM grid. The Hyp # Soundings surface reports the number of soundings that were used to compute the chosen hypothesis. Analysis of the H12587 final two-meter containing all multibeam and singlebeam PFM grid revealed that 99.53% of all nodes contained three or more soundings; satisfying the requirements for set line spacing surveys, as specified in Section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. Analysis of the two-meter singlebeam only PFM grid revealed that 98.66% of all nodes contained three or more soundings. Analysis of the 30 half-meter PFM grids showed that all but thirteen had at minimum of 95% of all individual nodes contained three or more soundings to meet object detection coverage (HSSD Section 5.2.2.1). These thirteen half-meter PFM grids are detailed below. H12587_features_area1_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 1 of 30 had 93.71% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around seven individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 98.78% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area2_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 2 of 30 had 90.72% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around six individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.59% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area3_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 3 of 30 had 94.07% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around four individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.76% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area4_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 4 of 30 had 91.86% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around four individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.54% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area5_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 5 of 30 had 93.74% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around thirteen individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.53% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area6_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 6 of 30 had 94.77% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around three individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.59% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area7_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 7 of 30 had 93.12% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around three individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.61% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area9_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 9 of 30 had 93.32% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around six individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.28% of the nodes contained three or more soundings for four of the six features. Two of the features were populated with outer beam data resulting in a minimum of 96.68% of the nodes containing three or more soundings. H12587_features_area13_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 13 of 30 had 92.79% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around two individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.66% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area14_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 14 of 30 had 92.16% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around thirty seven individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.02% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area15_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 15 of 30 had 93.42% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around six individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.53% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. H12587_features_area25_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 25 of 30 had 89.94% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around seventeen individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.53% of the nodes contained three or more soundings for sixteen of the seventeen features. One of the features was populated with outer beam data resulting in a minimum of 99.31% of the nodes containing three or more soundings. H12587_features_area27_50cm_MLLW PFM used to generate the delivered BAG 27 of 30 had 89.72% of the nodes contained three or more soundings. This PFM was built around twelve individual features and includes a large amount of singlebeam data between the features. Each feature was covered with multibeam and analysis of the nodes in the multibeam coverage for each feature results in a minimum of 99.68% of the nodes contained three or more soundings for eleven of the twelve features. One of the features was populated with outer beam data resulting in a minimum of 98.93% of the nodes containing three or more soundings. All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR.In accordance with the April 2013 NOS HSSD and the Project Instructions, Leidos collected multibeam backscatter with all GSF data acquired by the RESON 7125 SV and RESON 8101 ER. The multibeam settings used for each system were checked to ensure acceptable quality standards were met and to avoid any acoustic saturation of the backscatter data. The multibeam backscatter data acquired by each system was written to the GSF in real-time by ISS-2000 and are delivered in the final GSF files for each sheet.LeidosSABER5.1.4.6.52014-04-18ProcessingLeidosSABER5.1.4.6.62014-04-23ProcessingNOAA Extended Attribute Files V5-2.There were two software configuration changes after the DAPR was submitted. SABER version 5.1.4.6.5 was installed on 18 April 2014 for general processing. SABER version 5.1.4.6.6 was installed on 23 April 2014 and was used for side scan contact XML merging.H12587_MB_VB_2m_MLLWBAG20.22015.725N/AMBES TracklineSBES Set Line SpacingH12587_VB_2m_MLLWBAG20.22014.542N/AMBES TracklineSBES Set Line SpacingH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_1of30BAG500.6247.918N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_2of30BAG501.2803.480N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_3of30BAG501.1993.172N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_4of30BAG501.6835.803N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_5of30BAG500.3635.770N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_6of30BAG501.1833.391N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_7of30BAG500.7565.450N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_8of30BAG500.7556.736N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_9of30BAG501.2375.766N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_10of30BAG500.6808.755N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_11of30BAG500.9107.009N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_12of30BAG501.1307.679N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_13of30BAG500.5106.951N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_14of30BAG500.3206.478N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_15of30BAG504.1576.361N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_16of30BAG501.4507.260N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_17of30BAG501.2065.893N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_18of30BAG500.7037.449N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_19of30BAG501.1797.059N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_20of30BAG500.52514.938N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_21of30BAG503.73215.751N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_22of30BAG500.4616.116N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_23of30BAG500.6856.360N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_24of30BAG505.64815.747N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_25of30BAG500.4334.070N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_26of30BAG503.05010.691N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_27of30BAG500.2203.410N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_28of30BAG501.4574.724N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_29of30BAG500.6295.156N/AObject DetectionH12587_MB_VB_50cm_MLLW_30of30BAG500.82910.815N/AObject DetectionH12587_ss_1_100SSS Mosaic1N/A100% SSSH12587_ss_2_100SSS Mosaic1N/A200% SSSA PFM CUBE Depth surface was used to assess and document multibeam and singlebeam survey coverage. The CUBE depth is populated with either the node’s chosen hypothesis or the depth of a feature or designated sounding set by the hydrographer, which overrides the chosen hypothesis. The range of CUBE depths in H12587 was from 0.220 meters (0 feet, 0.290-meter uncertainty) to 15.725 meters (51 feet, 0.280-meter uncertainty). Section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD requires a four-meter grid resolution for depths ranging from zero meters to 40 meters for set line spacing surveys. Due to the range of depths encountered on this project, Leidos requested and was granted permission to deliver all final grids at the higher two-meter node resolution. Therefore, final CUBE surfaces for H12587 were generated at two-meter grid node resolution. Over significant features, CUBE surfaces were generated at half-meter grid node resolution to meet the object detection specifications defined in Section 5.2.2.1 of the HSSD. Three hundred and ninety significant features were identified in H12587 and 30 half-meter resolution PFM grids were generated to cover these 390 features. Data within the half-meter resolution CUBE PFM grids also remain in the two-meter CUBE PFM grid. The final gridded bathymetry data are delivered as Bathymetric Attributed Grids (BAG). The BAG files were exported from CUBE PFM grids as detailed in Section B.2.4 of the DAPR. As of the date of delivery of H12587, CARIS does not support version 1.5.1 BAGs with optional surfaces. Therefore, BAG version 1.1.0 files are delivered. Since the BAG version 1.1.0 files only contain two surfaces, the standard CUBE Depth and Final Hyp. Uncertainty, BAGs will be delivered with the additional surfaces delivered as supplemental non-standard BAG files. These additional BAG files were generated through the same process as the standard BAG files. The version 1.1.0 BAG format only allows for a Depth surface and an Uncertainty surface. Therefore, each of the non-standard BAG files were created with the CUBE Depth values populating the Depth surface of the BAG and each of the additional group surfaces listed below populating the Uncertainty surface of the BAG. Non-standard BAG files for this project are only delivered for the two-meter resolution grids. Please note when reviewing these additional, non-standard version 1.1.0 BAG files the file name designates the layer that populates the Uncertainty layer of the BAG (Figure 7). Please also note that when displayed the two layers of the BAG remain named Depth and Uncertainty. These non-standard BAGs are provided for review purposes only and are not intended to be used as archival products. These additional surfaces are referred to as Elevation Solution Group surfaces and Node Group surfaces. Note that by definition, BAG files contain elevations not depths however; many software packages display a BAG elevation surface as a depth (positive values indicating water depth). The Elevation Solution Group is made up of the following three surfaces: · shoal elevation - the elevation value of the least-depth measurement selected from the sub-set of measurements that contributed to the elevation solution. · number of soundings - the number of elevation measurements selected from the sub-set of measurements that contributed to the elevation solution. · stddev - the standard deviation computed from all elevation values which contributed to any hypothesis within the node. Note that the stddev value is computed from all measurements contributing to the node, whereas shoal elevation and number of soundings relate only to the chosen elevation solution. The Node Group is made up of the following two surfaces: · hypothesis strength - the CUBE computed strength of the chosen hypothesis. · number of hypotheses - the CUBE computed number of hypotheses.7Summary of Non-standard H12587 BAG Filesfile:///M:/charlie/NOAA_Sandy_2013/H12587/DR_Working/H12587_Figure_7.jpgSide Scan Coverage AnalysisFor all details regarding side scan data processing, see Section B.3 of the DAPR. The Project Instructions required 200% side scan coverage with concurrent set line spacing multibeam or singlebeam data for depths greater than four meters and 100% side scan coverage with set line spacing multibeam or singlebeam for water depths of two to four meters. The 200% side scan coverage was verified by generating two separate 100% coverage mosaics at one-meter cell size resolution as specified in Section 8.3.1 of the HSSD. The first and second 100% coverage mosaics were independently reviewed using tools in SABER to verify data quality and swath coverage. Both coverage mosaics are determined to be complete and sufficient to meet the requirements contained within the Project Instructions. The mosaics are delivered as TIFF (.tif) images with accompanying world files (.tfw). · H12587_ss_1_100_mosaic · H12587_ss_2_100_mosaic Side scan sonar contacts were investigated and confirmed using SABER Contact Review. All side scan sonar contacts and accompanying images are delivered in one of two Side Scan Sonar Contacts S-57 files. The main side scan sonar contact S-57 file contains all side scan contacts with the exception of contacts identified as moorings. This S-57 file does contain polygons delineating the extents of the mooring fields support by the data. A separate supplemental S-57 file containing side scan contacts of individual moorings, as point objects, and the polygons delineating the extents of the mooring fields is also delivered. One exception to this is the large Naval Weapons Station Earle mooring buoy, which is delivered as a point MORFAC object in the Final Feature File S-57.No vertical or horizontal controls were established, recovered, or occupied during data acquisition for OPR-B310-KR1-13, which includes H12587. Therefore a Horizontal and Vertical Control Report was not required.Mean Lower Low WaterDiscrete ZoningSandy Hook, NJ85316808531680_verified_082013_012014.tidVerified ObservedB310KR12013CORP.zdfFinalNo final tide note was provided by the NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). Leidos is not required to have a final tide note from CO-OPS for H12587 however, a final tide note has been provided by Leidos in Appendix I. The Tides Statement of Work specified NOAA tide station 8531680 Sandy Hook, NJ as the source for water level correctors. A full explanation of the tide zone assessment is detailed in Section C.4 of the DAPR. For H12587, 8531680 Sandy Hook, NJ was the source of all final verified water level heights for determining correctors to soundings. All data for H12587 were contained within sixteen tide zones (NY1, NY7, NY9, SHB0, SHB1, SHB2, SHB3, SHB4, SHB5, SHB6, SHB7, SHB11, SHB13, SHB14, SHB15, and SHB16) which were provided from NOAA. Leidos did not revise the delivered tide zones for tide station 8531680 Sandy Hook, NJ as the water level zoning parameters in the file B310KR12013CORP.zdf, provided by National Ocean Service (NOS) were deemed adequate for the application of observed verified water levels. As a result, they were accepted as final and applied to all H12587 bathymetry data.North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)UTM Zone 18, NorthSandy Hook, NJ (286 kHz)Moriches, NY (293 kHz)Please refer to the DAPR for details regarding all antenna and transducer offsets. Horizontal positioning of the multibeam or singlebeam transducer by the POS/MV was verified by frequent comparison checks against an independent DGPS system. During survey data acquisition, the ISS-2000 real-time system provided a continuous view of the positioning comparison between the POS/MV and the Trimble DGPS. An alarm was triggered within ISS-2000 if the comparisons were not within an acceptable range. Any soundings with total horizontal uncertainties exceeding the maximum allowable IHO S-44 5th Edition Order 1a specifications were flagged as invalid and therefore not used in the CUBE Depth calculations. Daily positioning confidence checks for H12587 were conducted several times throughout the day and a daily value is presented as a table within Separates I, “Daily Positioning Confidence Checks” for each vessel. Daily positioning confidence checks for the M/V Atlantic Surveyor were within 0.57 meters, the R/V Oyster Bay were within 1.04 meters, and the R/V Henry Hudson were within 2.80 meters.The chart comparisons were conducted using the Leidos SABER software to view the BSB raster charts with overlain data for H12587 such as the CUBE gridded surface, selected soundings, contacts, and features. Charting recommendations for depths follow Section 5.1.2 of the HSSD where depths and uncertainties are to be rounded by standard arithmetic rounding (round half up) and accompanying chart depth units are rounded using NOAA cartographic rounding (0.75 round up). All CUBE depths and uncertainty values are provided to millimeter precision. For ENC comparisons, a combination of Jeppesen’s dKart Inspector, SevenCs’ SeeMyDENC, and CARIS’ EasyView were used in conjunction with SABER. United States Coast Guard (USCG) District 1 Local Notice to Mariners publications were reviewed for changes subsequent to the date of the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions and before the end of survey (as specified in Section 8.1.4 of the HSSD). The Notice to Mariners reviewed were from week 22/13 (29 May 2013) until week 03/14 (21 January 2014).123256921500042012-062014-04-082014-03-22Chart 12325 covers the survey area from 40° 25’ 26.00”N 074° 03’ 47.55”W to 40° 21’ 49.25”N 073° 58’ 32.60”W. Depths in the Leonardo Harbor Channel were generally 4-5 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the Shrewsbury River Highlands Reach Channel were generally 1-8 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the Navesink River Barley Point Reach and Fair Haven Reach Channels were generally 1-9 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. CUBE depths within sheet H12587 were generally within ±3 feet of the charted depths except for the following area. Shoaling was found in an area centered approximately 40° 24’ 41.70”N 073° 59’ 26.30”W with a radius of approximately 130 meters. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. Charted depths in this area are 13 to 19 feet. CUBE depths in this area were 4 to 10 feet. The charted depth curves (6-foot, 12-foot, and 18-foot) throughout H12587 were generally found to be in agreement with the survey data. Most were found to be located within 200 meters of their charted locations. The charted submerged pile in approximately 40° 22’ 10.25”N 074° 02’ 24.55”W was not found. The area around the submerged pile was covered with 100% side scan with resulting singlebeam. The charted submerged pile in approximately 40° 22’ 12.25”N 074° 02’ 04.80”W was not found. The area around the submerged pile was covered with 100% side scan with resulting singlebeam. Of the ten charted Markers from approximately 40° 22’ 46.68”N 074° 01’ 06.07”W to 40° 22’ 41.85”N 074° 00’ 51.45”W six were found by side scan (Features 385 and 785 through 789). These private aids to navigation mark the entrance to the Rumsford, NJ, marina facilities from the Fair Haven Reach of the Navesink River. They are included in the S-57 Final Feature File. The charted groins from approximately 40° 22’ 50.50”N 073° 59’ 31.45”W to approximately 40° 22’ 51.30”N 073° 59’ 13.40”W were found as charted by side scan. The charted groin from approximately 40° 22’ 52.35”N 073° 59’ 03.65”W to approximately 40° 22’ 53.05”N 073° 58’ 56.95”W was found as charted by side scan. The charted dangerous ruins area from approximately 40° 23’ 48.90”N 073° 58’ 47.55”W to approximately 040° 23’ 47.85”N 073° 58’ 39.50”W were found by side scan and partial multibeam coverage. The charted dangerous wreck labeled PA in approximately 40° 24’ 04.40”N 073° 58’ 49.45”W was not found. The area around the wreck was covered by 200% side scan and multibeam coverage. One contact was found (OB_20132491106069001) in 40° 24’ 03.98”N 073° 58’ 49.32”, approximately 15 meters south of the charted wreck. The contact could not be identified as a wreck and was classified as insignificant in the multibeam investigations. The two charted piles in approximately 40° 24’ 37.85”N 073° 59’ 53.30”W and approximately 40° 24’ 37.25”N 073° 59’ 53.30”W were not found. The area around the piles was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam. The charted exposed wreck labeled PA in approximately 40° 25’ 10.30”N 074° 00’ 06.75”W was not found. The area around the wreck was partially covered with 100% side scan. No wrecks were visible in the area during the survey. The charted 5-foot dangerous obstruction labeled Obstn in approximately 40° 24’ 57.15”N 074° 00’ 57.80”W was found. Two obstructions (Features 548 and 549) 20 meters apart were found. The shoalest (Feature 548) has a least depth of 4 feet (1.211 meters, 0.270 meter uncertainty) in 40° 24’ 56.37”N 074° 00’ 57.64”W, approximately 25 meters south of the charted obstruction. The charted 3-foot dangerous obstruction labeled Obstns in approximately 40° 24’ 54.80”N 074° 00’ 57.75”W was found. An obstruction (Feature 550) with a least depth of 3 feet (1.0261 meters, 0.280 meter uncertainty) in 40° 24’ 54.57”N 074° 00’ 57.94”W, approximately 10 meters south-southwest of the charted obstruction. The charted 1-foot dangerous sounding labeled pier ruins in approximately 40° 24’ 53.20”N 074° 00’ 57.95”W was found. Pier ruins (Feature 674) was found by side scan in 40° 24’ 53.27”N 074° 00’ 58.25”W, approximately 5 meters west of the charted dangerous sounding. The four charted submerged piles centered in approximately 40° 25’ 10.50”N 074° 02’ 01.30”W were found. Numerous submerged pilings were found in the area. The shoalest (Feature 168) had a least depth of 9 feet (2.844 meters, 0.270 meter uncertainty) in 40° 25’ 11.07”N 074° 02’ 02.00”W, approximately 20 meters north-northwest of the approximate center of the four charted submerged piles. The four charted piles centered in approximately 40° 25’ 04.75”N 074° 01’ 58.10”W were not found. The area around the piles was covered with 100% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The charted pile in approximately 40° 25’ 05.90”N 074° 02’ 01.85”W was not found. The area around the pile was covered with 100% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The offshore end of the charted submerged ruined pier in approximately 40° 25’ 19.80”N 074° 02’ 09.40” was found by side scan. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The offshore end of the charted submerged ruins and dolphins in approximately 40° 25’ 24.00”N 074° 02’ 25.30” W was not found. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The offshore end of the charted submerged ruined pier from approximately 40° 25’ 29.10”N 074° 02’ 30.55”W to approximately 40° 25’ 25.60”N 074° 02’ 32.50”W was found by side scan. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The two charted submerged dolphins in approximately 40° 25’ 29.30”N 074° 02’ 30.35”W and approximately 40° 25’ 29.90”N 074° 02’ 28.00”W were not found. The area around the submerged dolphins was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The charted dolphin in approximately 40° 25’ 28.45”N 074° 02’ 29.75”W was found as a submerged pile (contact OB_2013287113216500). Additional obstructions were found by side scan in the area and therefore not covered completely due to safety concerns. The charted platform labeled Platform PA in approximately 40° 25’ 29.75”N 074° 02’ 29.70”W was not found. The area around the platform was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The charted dangerous rock in 40° 23’ 06.91”N 073° 58’ 43.56”W was not found. The area around the charted rock was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. A CUBE depth of 1.856 meters was found by singlebeam. All AWOIS items on this chart are discussed in Section D.1.3. All new uncharted features found, assigned AWOIS items, and charted feature updates are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57). 12331224115000322010-012014-04-082014-04-05Chart 12331 covers the survey area from 40° 29’ 15.85”N 074° 07’ 36.30”W to 40° 26’ 19.75”N 074° 15’ 43.55”W. Depths in the Keyport Harbor Channel, Reach A and Reach B, were generally 1-2 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the Raritan Bay Ward Point Secondary Channel were generally 2-10 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the Raritan River Great Beds Reach and South Amboy Reach Channels were generally 1-6 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. CUBE depths within sheet H12587 were generally 1 to 3 feet deeper than the charted depths. The charted depth curves (6-foot, 12-foot, 18-foot, and 30-foot) throughout H12587 were generally found to be in agreement with the survey data. Most were found to be located within 200 meters of their charted locations with the following exceptions. The 6-foot depth curve from approximately 40° 28’ 52.60”N 074° 15’ 32.65”w to approximately 40° 28’ 18.77”N 074° 15’ 19.70”W was found up to 500 meters west of the charted position. The 6-foot depth curve from 40° 26’ 46.25”N 074 11’ 59.54”W to 40° 26’ 58.50”N 074° 12’ 16.50”W was found up to 500 meters west of the charted position. The 6-foot depth curve from approximately 40° 27’ 38.90”N 074° 08’ 38.50”W to approximately 40° 28’ 08.00”N 074° 07’ 36.00”W was found up to 900 meters south of the charted position. The 12-foot depth curve from approximately 40° 28’ 52.70”N 074° 13’ 55.90”W to approximately 40° 28’ 28.25”N 074° 11’ 00.50”W was found up to approximately 1200 meters south of its charted position. The charted dangerous obstruction with a danger circle and labeled Obstn in approximately 40° 28’ 58.00”N 074° 14’ 44.10”W was from Danger To Navigation Report 1. This report was based on side scan data and visual observation of an exposed obstruction on 08 September 2013 (Julian Day 240). On 15 September (Julian Day 258) the obstruction was found in approximately 40° 28’ 57.10”N 074° 14’ 35.40”W approximately 200 meters east of the reported position. On 19 September 2013 (JD 262) the obstruction was found in approximately 40° 28’ 54.45”N 074° 14’ 27.90”W approximately 400 meters east of the reported position. On 23 September 2013 (JD 267) the obstruction was found in approximately 40° 28’ 51.75”N 074° 14’ 02.80”W approximately 1000 meters east of the reported position. On 07 October 2013 (Julian Day 280) the obstruction could not be found. Multibeam and side scan data collected on 10 December 2013 (Julian Day 344) disproved the obstruction in the charted position. Additional information and correspondence can be found in Appendix II. The charted dangerous wreck labeled PA (Rep 2012) in approximately 40° 28’ 05.45”N 074° 15’ 16.90”W was found by side scan (Feature 668) in 40°28’ 05.77”N 074° 15’ 16.82”W, approximately 10 meter north of the charted position. Least depth was not determined for safety reasons. The charted exposed wreck labeled (Rep 1984) in approximately 40° 28’ 30.40”N 074° 10’ 20.43”W was not found. The charted area was covered by 200% side scan data and resulting multibeam. The charted dangerous wreck in approximately 40° 27’ 52.78”N 074° 15’ 01.68”W was found in less than two meters of water in its charted position by side scan. The wreck was not covered by bathymetry data due to safety concerns. The charted dangerous wreck labeled PA (Rep 2012) in approximately 40° 28’ 35.17”N 074° 14’ 35.95”W was found as an obstruction (Feature 517) with a least depth of 9 feet (2.719 meters, 0.280 meter uncertainty) in 40° 28’ 34.60”N 074° 14’ 35.75”W, approximately 20 meters south of the charted position. The charted sewer outfall pipe in approximately 40° 27’28.40”N 074° 13’ 32.08”W was found within the side scan data (contact OB_20132412016092300) in 40° 27’ 28.85”N 074° 13’ 33.00”W, approximately 27 meters northwest of the charted position. The charted pile in 40° 27’17.38”N 074° 08’ 55.15”W was not found. The area was covered by 100% side scan coverage. All AWOIS items on this chart are discussed in Section D.1.3. All new uncharted features found, assigned AWOIS items, and charted feature updates are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57).12401224615000112011-102014-04-012014-04-12Chart 12401 covers the survey area from 40° 29’ 15.50”N 073°58’ 46.20”W to 40° 24’ 15.00”N 074° 08’ 19.5”W. Depths in the Raritan Bay East Reach Channel were generally 2-5 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the southwest end of the Chapel Hill South Channel were generally 2-5 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the west end of the Sandy Hook Channel (Bayside) were generally 1-10 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the Leonardo Harbor Channel were generally 0-10 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the Belford Harbor (Shoal Harbor) Channel were generally 4-5 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the Lower Bay Terminal Channel (Navy) were generally 2-12 feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths. Depths in the Turning Basin (Navy) were generally 3-6 feet shoaler than the tabulated controlling depths. In the southeast corner of the Turning Basin, in the vicinity of Pier 2, depths were generally 10-13 feet shoaler than the tabulated controlling depths. Note that the polygon defining the turning basin on ENC US5NY18M does not include Pier 2. Also on ENC US5NY18M the depth range for the turning basin is 36 to 59 feet (10.9 to 18.2 meters) which differs from the controlling depths presented on chart 12401 (45 feet, 13.7 meters). CUBE depths within sheet H12587 were generally within ±3 feet of the charted depths except for the following two areas. Shoaling was found in an area centered approximately 40° 24’ 41.70”N 073° 59’ 26.30”W with a radius of approximately 130 meters. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. Charted depths in this area are 13 to 19 feet. CUBE depths in this area were 4 to 10 feet. CUBE depths of 10 to 14 feet were found in an area approximately 800 by 220 meters oriented 130° - 310° centered approximately 40° 26’ 59.20”N 074° 08’ 31.20”W. Charted depths in this area are 3-4 feet. The charted depth curves (6-foot 12-foot, 18-foot, and 30-foot) throughout H12587 were generally found to be in agreement with the survey data. Most were found to be located within 300 meters of their charted locations with the following two exceptions. The charted 18-foot depth curve from approximately 40° 27’ 19.70”N 074° 02' 27.45"W to approximately 40° 26’ 47.70”N 074° 01’ 10.50”W was found approximately 300 to 1200 meters south and west of its charted position. The charted 18-foot sounding and surrounding 18-foot depth curve in approximately 40° 27’ 26.85”N 074° 02’ 27.60”W was not found. The area was covered with 200% side scan and 100% multibeam. CUBE depths in the area were 20 to 21 feet. The charted fish trap area centered approximately 40° 27’ 10.59”N 074° 00’ 46.62”W was not found to have fixed fishing gear but was active in surface fishing for clams. There were obstructions (DTON 9) identified in the northwest corner of the fish trap area. A fish weir was present just south of the charted fish trap area. By the completion of the H12587 survey the fish weir was removed and the area was covered by multibeam and 200% side scan. Submerged remains of the fish weir were found and submitted as DTON 24 (Feature 219). The two charted piles in approximately 40° 24’ 37.85”N 073° 59’ 53.30”W and approximately 40° 24’ 37.25”N 073° 59’ 53.30”W were not found. The area around the piles was covered with 200% side scan and resulting multibeam and singlebeam. The charted exposed wreck labeled PA in approximately 40° 25’ 10.30”N 074° 00’ 06.75”W was not found. The area around the wreck was partially covered with 100% side scan. No wrecks were visible in the area during the survey. The charted 5-foot dangerous obstruction labeled Obstn in approximately 40° 24’ 57.15”N 074° 00’ 57.80”W was found. Two obstructions (Features 548 and 549) 20 meters apart were found. The shoalest (Feature 548) has a least depth of 4 feet (1.211 meters, 0.270 meter uncertainty) in 40° 24’ 56.37”N 074° 00’ 57.64”W, approximately 25 meters south of the charted obstruction. The charted 3-foot dangerous obstruction labeled Obstns in approximately 40° 24’ 54.80”N 074° 00’ 57.75”W was found. An obstruction (Feature 550) with a least depth of 3 feet (1.0261 meters, 0.280 meter uncertainty) in 40° 24’ 54.57”N 074° 00’ 57.94”W, approximately 10 meters south-southwest of the charted obstruction. The charted 1-foot dangerous sounding labeled pier ruins in approximately 40° 24’ 53.20”N 074° 00’ 57.95”W were found. Pier ruins (Feature 674) were found by side scan in 40° 24’ 53.27”N 074° 00’ 58.25”W, approximately 5 meters west of the charted dangerous sounding. The four charted submerged pilings centered in approximately 40° 25’ 10.50”N 074° 02’ 01.30”W were found. Numerous submerged pilings were found. The shoalest (Feature 168) had a least depth of 9 feet (2.844 meters 0.270 meter uncertainty) in 40° 25’ 11.07”N 074° 02’ 02.00”W, approximately 20 meters north-northwest of the approximate center of the four charted submerged piles. The four charted piles centered in approximately 40° 25’ 04.75”N 074° 01’ 58.10”W were not found. The area around the piles was covered with 100% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The charted pile in approximately 40° 25’ 05.90”N 074° 02’ 01.85”W was not found. The area around the pile was covered with 100% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The offshore end of the charted submerged ruined pier in approximately 40° 25’ 19.80”N 074° 02’ 09.40” was found by side scan. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The offshore end of the charted submerged ruins and dolphins in approximately 40° 25’ 24.00”N 074° 02’ 25.30” W was not found. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The offshore end of the charted submerged ruined pier from approximately 40° 25’ 29.10”N 074° 02’ 30.55”W to approximately 40° 25’ 25.60”N 074° 02’ 32.50”W was found by side scan. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The two charted submerged dolphins in approximately 40° 25’ 29.30”N 074° 02’ 30.35”W and approximately 40° 25’ 29.90”N 074° 02’ 28.00”W were not found. The area around the submerged dolphins was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The charted dolphin in approximately 40° 25’ 28.45”N 074° 02’ 29.75”W was found as a submerged pile (contact OB_2013287113216500). Additional obstructions were found by side scan in the area and therefore not covered completely due to safety concerns. The charted platform labeled Platform PA in approximately 40° 25’ 29.75”N 074° 02’ 29.70”W was not found. The area around the platform was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The charted pipe labeled Pipe PA in approximately 40° 26’ 52.44”N 074° 06’ 30.50”W was found by side scan. An exposed pipe (Feature 818) was found by side scan in 40° 26’ 51.95”N 074° 06’ 31.68”W, approximately 30 meters southwest of the charted position. All AWOIS items on this chart are discussed in Section D.1.3. All new uncharted features found, assigned AWOIS items, and charted feature updates are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57).US5NJ11M15000312013-05-012014-02-12falseChart US5NJ11M covers the survey area from 40° 29’ 18.00”.00”N 074° 07’ 35.90”W to 40° 26’ 19.75”N 074° 15’ 43.55”W. Depths in the Keyport Harbor Channel, Reach A and Reach B, were generally 0.3-0.8 meters deeper than the depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. Depths in the Raritan Bay Ward Point Secondary Channel were generally 0.6-3.0 meters deeper than the depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. Depths in the Raritan River Great Beds Reach and South Amboy Reach Channels were generally 0.3-2.0 meters deeper than the depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. CUBE depths within sheet H12587 were generally 0.3-1.0 meter deeper than the charted depths. The charted depth curves (1.8-meter, 3.6-meter, 5.4-meter, and 9.1-meter) throughout H12587 were generally found to be in agreement with the survey data. Most were found to be located within 200 meters of their charted locations with the following exceptions. The 1.8-meter depth curve was found to differ from the charted position in the following areas: The 1.8-meter depth curve from 40° 28’ 52.40”N 074° 15’ 32.56”W to 40° 28’ 17.40”N 074° 15’ 18.66”W was found up to 500 meters west of the charted position. The 1.8-meter depth curve from 40° 26’ 46.25”N 074 11’ 59.82”W to 40° 26’ 58.59”N 074° 12’ 16.78”W was found up to 500 meters west of the charted position. The 1.8-meter depth curve from 40° 27’ 38.87”N 074° 08’ 38.44”W to 40° 28’ 07.52”N 074° 07’ 35.90”W was found up to 900 meters south of the charted position. The 3.6-meter depth curve from 40° 28’ 52.77”N 074° 13’ 55.71”W to 40° 28’ 28.24”N 074° 10’ 59.98”W was found up to approximately 1200 meters south of its charted position. The charted dangerous submerged obstruction in 40° 28’ 58.00”N 074° 14’ 44.10”W was from Danger To Navigation Report 1. This report was based on side scan data and visual observation of an exposed obstruction on 08 September 2013 (Julian Day 240). On 15 September (Julian Day 258) the obstruction was found in approximately 40° 28’ 57.10”N 074° 14’ 35.40”W approximately 200 meters east of the reported position. On 19 September 2013 (JD 262) the obstruction was found in approximately 40° 28’ 54.45”N 074° 14’ 27.90”W approximately 400 meters east of the reported position. On 23 September 2013 (JD 267) the obstruction was found in approximately 40° 28’ 51.75”N 074° 14’ 02.80”W approximately 1000 meters east of the reported position. On 07 October 2013 (Julian Day 280) the obstruction could not be found. Multibeam and side scan data collected on 10 December 2013 (Julian Day 344) disproved the obstruction in the charted position. Additional information and correspondence can be found in Appendix II. The charted dangerous submerged wreck in approximately 40° 27’ 52.73”N 074° 15’ 01.69”W was found in less than two meters of water in its charted position by side scan. The wreck was not covered by bathymetry data due to safety concerns. The charted dangerous submerged wreck in 40° 28’ 05.43”N 074° 15’ 16.92”W was found by side scan (Feature 668) in 40°28’ 05.77”N 074° 15’ 16.82”W, approximately 10 meter north of the charted position. Least depth was not determined for safety reasons. The charted dangerous submerged wreck in 40° 28’ 35.18”N 074° 14’ 35.99”W was found as an obstruction (Feature 517) with a least depth 2.719 meters (0.280 meter uncertainty) in 40° 28’ 34.60”N 074° 14’ 35.75”W, approximately 20 meters south of the charted position. The charted sewer outfall pipe in approximately 40° 27’28.38”N 074° 13’ 32.00”W was found within the side scan data (contact OB_20132412016092300) in 40° 27’ 28.85”N 074° 13’ 33.00”W, approximately 27 meters northwest of the charted position. The charted pile in 40° 27’17.38”N 074° 08’ 55.15”W was not found. The area was covered by 100% side scan coverage. The charted always dry wreck labeled in 40° 28’ 30.48”N 074° 10’ 20.40”W was not found. The charted area was covered by 200% side scan data and resulting multibeam. All AWOIS items on this chart are discussed in Section D.1.3. All new uncharted features found, assigned AWOIS items, and charted feature updates are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57).US5NJ15M15000122014-01-022014-02-07falseChart US5NJ15M covers the survey area from 40° 24’ 15.00”N 073° 58’ 32.60”W to 40° 21’ 49.25”N 074° 03’ 47.55”W. Depths in the Shrewsbury River Highlands Reach Channel were generally 0.5-2.5 meters deeper than the depth range value1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. Depths in the Navesink River Barley Point Reach and Fair Haven Reach Channels were generally 0.3-3.0 meters deeper than the depth range value1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. CUBE depths within sheet H12587 were generally within ±1 meters of the charted depths except for the following area. The charted depth curves (1.8-meter, 3.6-meter, and 5.4-meter) throughout H12587 were generally found to be in agreement with the survey data. Most were found to be located within 200 meters of their charted locations. The charted submerged snag/stump in 40° 22’ 10.22”N 074° 02’ 24.55”W was not found. The area around the submerged pile was covered with 100% side scan with resulting multibeam. The charted submerged snag/stump in 40° 22’ 12.25”N 074° 02’ 04.77”W was not found. The area around the submerged pile was covered with 100% side scan with resulting multibeam. Six of the charted ten special purpose marks from 40° 22’ 46.68”N 074° 01’ 06.05”W to 40° 22’ 41.48”N 074° 00’ 52.90”W were found by side scan (Features 385 and 785 through 789). These private aids to navigation mark the entrance to the Rumsford, NJ, marina facilities from the Fair Haven Reach of the Navesink River. They are included in the S-57 Final Feature File. The charted submerged groins from 40° 22’ 50.53”N 073° 59’ 31.51”W to 40° 22’ 50.66”N 073° 59’ 29.66”W and 40° 22’ 50.14”N 073° 59’ 24.73”W to 40° 22’51.58”N 73° 59’ 10.80”W were found as charted by side scan. The charted submerged groin from 40° 22’ 52.35”N 073° 59’ 03.62”W to 40° 22’ 53.04”N 073° 58’ 56.76”W was found as charted by side scan. The charted ruined jetty area from 40° 23’ 49.01”N 073° 58’ 47.52”W to 040° 23’ 48.02”N 073° 58’ 39.55”W was found by side scan and partial multibeam coverage. The charted dangerous submerged wreck in 40° 24’ 04.44”N 073° 58’ 49.49”W was not found. The area around the wreck was covered by 200% side scan and multibeam coverage. One contact was found (OB_20132491106069001) in 40° 24’ 03.98”N 073° 58’ 49.32”, approximately 15 meters south of the charted wreck. The contact could not be identified as a wreck and was classified as insignificant in the multibeam investigations. The charted underwater rock which covered and uncovers and an unknown depth in 40° 23’ 06.91”N 073° 58’ 43.56”W was not found. The area around the charted rock was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. A CUBE depth of 1.856 meters was found by singlebeam. All AWOIS items on this chart are discussed in Section D.1.3. All new uncharted features found, assigned AWOIS items, and charted feature updates are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57). US5NY18M15000312013-12-132014-04-03falseENC US5NY18M covers the survey area from 40° 29’ 15.50”N 073°58’ 46.30”W to 40° 24’ 15.00”N 074° 07’ 03.00”W. Depths in the Raritan Bay East Reach Channel were generally 0.6-1.5 meters deeper than the depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. Depths in the southwest end of the Chapel Hill South Channel were generally 0.6-1.5 meters deeper than depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. Depths in the west end of the Sandy Hook Channel (Bayside) were generally 0.3-3.0 meters deeper than the depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. Depths in the Leonardo Harbor Channel were generally 0-3 meters deeper than the depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. Depths in the Belford Harbor (Shoal Harbor) Channel were generally 1.0-1.5 meters deeper than the depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. Depths in the Lower Bay Terminal Channel (Navy) were generally 0.6-3.5 meters deeper than the depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) for the dredged area. Depths in the Turning Basin (Navy) were generally 1-2 meters deeper than depth range value 1 (DRVAL1) and 4.0-6.0 meters shoaler than the depth range value 2 (DRVAL2) for the depth area. Note that the polygon defining the Turning Basin (Navy) does not include the area around Pier 2 where raster chart 12401 includes the area around Pier 2. Also on the raster chart the Controlling depth is tabulated as 45 feet where on ENC US5NY18M the depth range values are 10.9 to 18.2 meters (36–59 feet). CUBE depths within sheet H12587 were generally within ±1.0 meters of the charted depths except for the following two areas. Shoaling was found in an area centered approximately 40° 24’ 41.70”N 073° 59’ 26.30”W with a radius of approximately 130 meters. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. Charted depths in this area were 3.9 to 5.7 meters. CUBE depths in this area were 1.570 to 3.102 meters. CUBE depths of 2.698 to 4.522 feet were found in an area approximately 800 by 220 meters oriented 130° - 310° centered approximately 40° 26’ 59.10”N 074° 06’ 31.20”W. Charted depths in this area were 0.9 meters. The charted depth curves (1.8-meter, 3.6-meter, 5.4-meter, and 9.1-meter) throughout H12587 were generally found to be in agreement with the survey data. Most were found to be located within 300 meters of their charted locations with the following two exceptions. The charted 5.4-meter depth curve from 40° 27’ 19.65”N 074° 02' 27.37"W to 40° 26’ 47.55”N 074° 01’ 10.22”W was found approximately 300 to 1200 meters south and west of its charted position. The charted 5.4-meter sounding and surrounding 5.4-meter depth curve in 40° 27’ 26.79”N 074° 02’ 27.43”W was not found. The area was covered with 200% side scan and 100% multibeam. CUBE depths in the area were 6.222 to 6.560 meters. The two charted piles in 40° 24’ 37.77”N 073° 59’ 53.41”W and 40° 24’ 37.12”N 073° 59’ 53.44”W were not found. The area around the piles was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam. The charted exposed wreck in 40° 25’ 10.20”N 074° 00’ 06.60”W was not found. The area around the wreck was partially covered with 100% side scan. No wrecks were visible in the area during the survey. The charted dangerous obstruction with a depth of 1.5 meters in 40° 24’ 57.22”N 074° 00’ 57.78”W was found. Two obstructions (Features 548 and 549) 20 meters apart were found. The shoalest (Feature 548) has a least depth of 1.211 meters (0.270 meter uncertainty) in 40° 24’ 56.37”N 074° 00’ 57.64”W, approximately 25 meters south of the charted obstruction. The charted dangerous obstruction with a depth of 0.9 meters in 40° 24’ 54.82”N 074° 00’ 57.67”W was found. An obstruction (Feature 550) with a least depth of 1.0261 meters (0.280 meter uncertainty) was found in 40° 24’ 54.57”N 074° 00’ 57.94”W, approximately 10 meters south-southwest of the charted obstruction. The charted dangerous obstruction in 40° 24’ 53.21”N 074° 00’ 57.97”W was found. Pier ruins (Feature 674) were found by side scan in 40° 24’ 53.27”N 074° 00’ 58.25”W, approximately 5 meters west of the charted dangerous sounding. The four charted submerged obstructions centered in approximately 40° 25’ 10.50”N 074° 02’ 01.30”W were found. Numerous submerged pilings were found. The shoalest (Feature 168) had a least depth of 2.844 meters (0.270 meter uncertainty) in 40° 25’ 11.07”N 074° 02’ 02.00”W, approximately 20 meters north-northwest of the approximate center of the four charted submerged piles. The four charted piles centered in approximately 40° 25’ 04.75”N 074° 01’ 58.10”W were not found. The area around the piles was covered with 100% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The charted pile in 40° 25’ 05.93”N 074° 02’ 01.84”W was not found. The area around the pile was covered with 100% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The offshore end of the charted submerged pier from 40° 25’ 20.68”N 074° 02’ 09.74”W to 40° 25’ 18.79”N 074° 03’ 09.77”W was found by side scan. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The offshore end of the charted submerged pier from 40° 25’ 24.83”N 074° 02’ 26.11”W to 40° 25’ 21.96”N 074° 02’ 24.49”W was not found. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The two charted submerged dolphins in 40° 24’ 24.45N 074° 02’ 24.12”W and 40° 25’ 25.16”N 074° 02’ 26.27”W were not found. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The offshore end of the charted submerged pier from 40° 25’ 29.47”N 074° 02’ 29.50”W to 40° 25’ 26.96”N 074° 02’ 31.98”W was found by side scan. The area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam coverage. The two charted submerged dolphins in 40° 25’ 29.28”N 074° 02’ 30.32”W and 40° 25’ 28.88”N 074° 02’ 27.99”W were not found. The area around the submerged dolphins was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The charted dolphin in 40° 25’ 28.42”N 074° 02’ 29.83”W was found as a submerged pile (contact OB_2013287113216500). Additionally obstructions were found by side scan in the area and therefore not covered completely due to safety concerns. The charted offshore platform in 40° 25’ 29.13”N 074° 02’ 29.64”W was not found. The area around the platform was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The charted pile in 40° 26’ 52.44”N 074° 06’ 30.48”W was found by side scan. An exposed pipe (Feature 818) was found by side scan in 40° 26’ 51.95”N 074° 06’ 31.68”W, approximately 30 meters southwest of the charted position. The charted fish trap area and structures centered approximately 40° 27’ 10.59”N 074° 00’ 46.62”W was not found to have fixed fishing gear but was active in surface fishing for clams. There were obstructions (DTON 9) identified in the northwest corner of the fish trap area. A fish weir was present just south of the charted fish trap area. By the completion of the survey the fish weir was removed and the area was covered by multibeam and 200% side scan. Submerged remains of the fish weir were found and submitted as DTON 24 (Feature 219). All AWOIS items on this chart are discussed in Section D.1.3. All new uncharted features found, assigned AWOIS items, and charted feature updates are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57).All assigned and information AWOIS item updates are included in the Final Feature File (S-57). AWOIS 1573 was found by side scan only. The area around this information only AWOIS was covered by 200% side scan to approximately the 3.0-meter depth curve and 100% side scan from approximately the 3.0-meter depth curve to approximately the 1.5-meter depth curve, and singlebeam. Wreckage (Feature 673) was found in 40° 22’ 41.03”N 074° 01’ 12.80”W and was identified in two side scan contacts (OB_20132791654244200 and OB_20132791702417900) approximately ten meters southwest of charted position. CUBE depths in the area were 1.5 to 1.6 meters and unsafe for multibeam operations. AWOIS 1577 was not found. The area around this information only AWOIS area was covered by 200% side scan to approximately the 1.5-meter depth curve, 100% side scan from approximately the 1.5-meter depth curve to approximately the 1.2-meter depth curve, and singlebeam. No objects were found within 100 meters of the charted position in the survey coverage. AWOIS 2447 was not found. The area west of this information only AWOIS area was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam to approximately the 1.8-meter depth curve (approximately 210 meters from the charted position), 100% side scan coverage and resulting singlebeam from approximately the 1.8-meter depth curve to approximately the 1.5-meter depth curve (approximately 140 meters from the charted position. No objects were found within the survey coverage. AWOIS 2448 was observed visually. The area west and south of this information only AWOIS was covered by 200% side scan to approximately the 2.1-meter depth curve (approximately 130 meters from the charted position), 100% side scan from approximately the 2.1-meter depth curve to approximately the 1.5-meter depth curve (approximately 55 meters from the charted position), and resulting singlebeam. A photograph of the object is included in the S-57 Final Feature File. AWOIS 2449 was found. Approximately 95 meters of the eastern part of the 200-meter search radius was covered by 200% side scan; 100% side scan coverage of approximately 130 meters of the northern, eastern, and western parts of the search radius; and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The entire area was not covered due to safety reasons. Two debris mounds were found by side scan (OB_20132541828322200 and OB_20132361532016700) inside the search radius. Pier ruins were found by side scan and singlebeam (Feature 658) with a least depth of 3 feet (1.100 meters, 0.290 meter uncertainty) in 40° 26’ 57.89”N 074° 05’ 12.36”W. This feature is approximately 275 meters 008° from the reported position, but inside the charted pier ruins area. AWOIS 2450 was not found. The 200-meter search radius was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam. One insignificant side scan contact (OB_20132541850542101) with an estimated height of 0.33 meters in CUBE depths of 1.9 to 2.0 meters was identified inside the search area. AWOIS 2460 was found. The 50-meter search radius was covered with 200% side scan with resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. A wreck (Feature 178) with a least depth of 7 feet (2.294 meters, 0.280 meter uncertainty) in 40° 24’ 42.38”N 073° 59’ 54.09”W was found approximately 40 meters west of the charted position. AWOIS 2461 was not found. The 200-meter search radius was covered with 200% side scan coverage and resulting multibeam and singlebeam coverage. No features were found within the search area. AWOIS 2462 was found. The 200-meter search radius was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage; except for approximately a 75-meter section in the northwest where the Naval Weapons Station Earle Pier is encompassed in the search area. An obstruction (Feature 390) with a least depth of 9 feet (2.819 meters, 0.280 meter uncertainty) was found in 40° 26’ 14.11”N 074° 03’ 31.51”W approximately 150 meters (at 182°) from the charted position. AWOIS 2463 was found. The 200-meter search radius was covered with 200% side scan coverage and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. An obstruction (Feature 334) with a least depth of 14 feet (4.418 meters, 0.280 meter uncertainty) was found in 40° 25’ 14.94”N 074° 00’ 23.14”W approximately 100 meters (at 341°) from the charted position. AWOIS 3337 was found. Half of the 100-meter search radius was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. The Naval Weapons Station Earle Pier is encompassed in the western half of the search area. A wreck (Feature 227) that covers and uncovers was found in 40° 26’ 24.29”N 074° 03’ 32.97”W. AWOIS 6833 was not found. The area approximately 25 meters north and east of this information only AWOIS was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. No wrecks were found inside the coverage area nor were there any visible wrecks observed by the survey crew. AWOIS 7546 was not investigated during this survey. The charted position was in CUBE depths less than approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters) and unsafe for survey operations. AWOIS 9756 was found. The area around this information only AWOIS was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. An obstruction (Feature 153) with a least depth of 13 feet (3.911 meters, 0.380 meter uncertainty) was found in 40° 27’ 12.39”N 074° 02’ 41.61”W approximately in the charted position. AWOIS 10650 was not found. The 50-meter search radius was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. No features inside the search area were found. AWOIS 10662 was not found. The 200-meter search radius was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. No wrecks inside the search area were found. AWOIS 10664 was not found. The 200-meter search radius was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. No wrecks inside the search area were found. AWOIS 12967 was found. The area around this information only AWOIS area was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. Seven objects were found and investigated within approximately 350 meters of the charted position. The closest to the charted position is an insignificant obstruction (Feature 102) with a least depth of 19 feet (5.974 meters, 0.280 meter uncertainty) in 40° 27’ 37.30”N 074° 03’ 36.73”W approximately 25 meters south of the charted position. A shoaler obstruction (Feature 58) with a least depth of 17 feet (5.264 meters, 0.280 meter uncertainty) in 40° 27’ 38.06”N 074° 03’ 27.94”W was found approximately 200 meters east of the charted position. AWOIS 12968 was found. The area around this information only AWOIS was covered with 200% side scan and resulting multibeam. An obstruction (Feature 8) with a least depth of 22 feet (6.861 meters, 0.270 meter uncertainty) in 40° 29’ 03.83”N 074° 03’ 08.57”W was found approximately 395 meters (at 009°) from the charted position. AWOIS 13232 was found. The area around the information only AWOIS was covered by 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. An obstruction (Feature 127) with a least depth of 12 feet (3.714 meters, 0.280 meter uncertainty) was found in 40° 26’ 04.18”N 074° 00’ 21.80”W approximately 10 meters north of the charted position. AWOIS 13233 was found. The area around this information only AWOIS was covered with 200% side scan and resulting singlebeam and multibeam coverage. A wreck (Feature 94) with a least depth of 16 feet (4.980 meter, 0.280 meter uncertainty) was found in 40° 25’ 53.98”N 074° 00’ 39.11”W approximately 10 meters (at 145°) from the charted position.No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.All charted features labeled PA, ED, PD, or Rep not assigned as an AWOIS item and investigated are discussed in Section D.1 for each chart. See the S-57 Final Feature File for all the details and recommendations regarding new uncharted features investigated.28H12587_dton1.0002013-09-11H12587_dton2.0002013-09-11H12587_dton3.0002013-09-13H12587_dton4.0002013-09-13H12587_dton5.0002013-09-23H12587_dton6.0002013-09-26H12587_dton7.0002013-09-26H12587_dton8.0002013-10-16H12587_dton9.0002013-11-15H12587_dton10.0002013-11-15H12587_dton11.0002013-11-15H12587_dton12.0002013-11-15H12587_dton13.0002013-12-12H12587_dton14.0002013-12-12H12587_dton15.0002013-12-12H12587_dton16.0002013-12-12H12587_dton17.0002013-12-12H12587_dton18.0002013-12-12H12587_dton19.0002014-01-30H12587_dton20.0002014-01-30H12587_dton21.0002014-02-03H12587_dton22.0002014-02-03H12587_dton23.0002014-02-04H12587_dton24.0002014-02-04H12587_dton25.0002014-02-06H12587_dton26.0002014-02-06H12587_dton27.0002014-02-06H12587_dton28.0002014-03-27Leidos submitted twenty-eight Danger to Navigation Reports (DTON) in S-57 format. Copies of the Atlantic Hydrographic Branch (AHB) verification email and Atlantic Hydrographic Branch reports, in PDF format, submitted to the Nautical Data Branch (NDB)/Marine Chart Division (MCD) are included in a sub-directory within Appendix II of this Data Report. Note that H12587_dton6.000, as submitted by Leidos, was not submitted by AHB to MCD. More information about this is contained in Appendix II.No shoals or potentially hazardous features exist for this survey.H12857 covered sections of the Raritan Bay Channel (East Reach, Great Beds Reach, and Ward Point Secondary Channel sections), Keyport Harbor Channel (Reach A and B), Belford Harbor Channel (Reach A, B, and C), Leonardo Harbor Channel, Naval Weapons Station Earle turning basin, part of the Terminal Channel, Shrewsbury River (Highlands Reach), and Navesink River (Barley Point Reach and Fair Haven Reach). Survey depths were generally one to six feet (0.5 to 2.0 meters) deeper than the tabulated controlling depths but as much as twelve feet deeper than the tabulated controlling depths for the Naval Weapons Station Earle Terminal Channel. Depths in the turning basin (Navy) were generally 3-6 feet shoaler than the tabulated controlling depths. In the southeast corner of the turning basin, in the vicinity of Pier 2, depths were generally 10-13 feet shoaler than the tabulated controlling depths. Note that the polygon defining the turning basin on ENC US5NY18M does not include Pier 2. Also on ENC US5NY18M the depth range for the turning basin is 36 to 59 feet (10.9 to 18.2 meters) which differs from the controlling depths presented on chart H12401 (45 feet, 13.7 meters). In accordance with both the Project Instructions and Section 7.1 of the HSSD, bottom characteristics were obtained for H12587. Bottom characteristics were acquired at the locations proposed in the Project Reference File (PRF) by NOAA. From the PRF, Leidos modified the position of two bottom samples that were located outside the 2-meter inshore depth limit as defined in the Project Instructions. Leidos did not modify any other locations from the recommended locations provided by NOAA. Seventy-four samples were collected. Bottom characteristics are included in the H12587 S-57 Final Feature File, H12587_FFF.000, within the Seabed Area (SBDARE) object and are classified according to the requirements set forth in Appendix 10 of the HSSD. In addition to being maintained within the S-57 Final Feature File, bottom characteristic results are represented in Appendix II of this document. Bottom characteristics obtained for H12587 are sufficient to be used to update the respective charts.Shoreline was not assigned in the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions or Statement of Work.The junction analysis with the contemporary 2013-2014 H12586 survey, and the contemporary 2007 and 2008 H11399 and H11709 surveys was conducted and the results are presented in section B.2.3 of this Report.One hundred fifty one (151) Aids to Navigation (ATONs) exist for this survey of which 76 were USCG maintained aids to navigation, which are not included in the S-57 Final Feature File as called for in the HSSD. The 75 ATONs that are included in the S-57 Final Feature File are as follows: · 2 Beacon, Special Purpose (BCNSPP) · 2 Buoy, Isolated Danger (BOYISD) · 12 Buoy, Lateral (BOYLAT) · 40 Buoy, Special Purpose General (BOYSPP) · 19 Daymarks (DAYMAR) The individual Feature Correlator Sheets for all ATONs are presented as JPEG files in the Multimedia folder and are named by the feature number. Individual Feature Correlator Sheets for USCG maintained ATONs are presented as JPEG files in the Multimedia folder (Features 677, 679, 680, 682, 690–700, 702, 703, 709, 713, 714, 716–724, 726–736, 738–740, 743–753, 755–775, and 784). Each USCG maintained ATON was compared to the United States Coast Guard List Volume II Atlantic Coast, updated through LNM week: 01/14. All USCG maintained ATONs were found to serve their intended purpose. A few ATONs were found to differ slightly from their charted position but is consistent with the cautionary notes indicating buoys may be relocated or removed and to see the U.S. Coast Guard Light List for details.The fixed Highlands Bridge over the Shrewsbury River and the fixed and bascule sections of the Oceanic Bridge over the Navesink River exist and are adequately charted. Charted clearances on the Highlands Bridge is 61 feet (18.50 meters) and on the Oceanic Bridge charted clearance is 22 feet (6.70 meters). Actual clearance was not surveyed. Insignificant side scan contacts were made on what may be exposed sections of pipeline on chart 12401. One pipeline, approximately 260 meters in length, is located northwest of Point Comfort (Features 660 and 661). A pipeline was located in the Belford Harbor Channel just south of navigational aid red nun number 8 (contact OB_20132541628517100) continuing into Belford Harbor to the junction of Reach B and C (contact OB_201325417143700). The charted sewer outfall pipe in approximately 40° 27’28.40”N 074° 13’ 32.08”W was found within the side scan data (contact OB_20132412016092300) in 40° 27’ 28.85”N 074° 13’ 33.00”W, approximately 27 meters northwest of the charted position. During the survey, dredge operations began in the vicinity of Horseshoe Cove. Numerous dredge pipes were established within the area centered around 40° 26’ 27.76”N 074° 00’ 06.25”W. The existence of the dredge pipes in the side scan, singlebeam, and multibeam data were variable as the dredge pipes were being installed and moved throughout the survey. Nine sections of dredge pipe are identified within the S-57 Final Feature File.Three uncharted ferry terminals exist within H12587: · Atlantic Highlands Terminal in approximately 40° 25’ 12.05”N 074° 02’ 05.20”W. · Conners Highlands Terminal in approximately 40° 24’ 32.76”N 073° 59’ 44.54”W. · USCG Fort Hancock Ferry Terminal in approximately 40° 27’ 52.55”N 074° 00’ 26.48”W (seasonal 30 June to Labor Day). One charted ferry terminal was found in approximately 40° 26’ 00.30”N 074° 04’ 44.65”W (Belford Harbor), see Features 822, 948, and 949. These ferry terminals are included in the S-57 Final Feature File as Shoreline Construction objects (SCLONS), with notes referencing the name of the terminal in the Remarks attribute, and identified with a label “Ferry Terminal”. There were no charted Ferry Routes.No platforms exist for this survey.Within the charted circular Pipeline Area centered in approximately 40° 28’ 52.25”N 074° 15’ 11.90”W four regularly spaced deep approximately 7-meter deep holes were found, Feature 8. CUBE depths in these holes were 10.1 to 10.6 meters with surrounding depths of approximately 3.0 to 3.3 meters, Figure 9. Survey operations in this area on Julian Day 267 and 344 reported that there were four visible areas of upwelling on the water surface. This is the approximate location of the Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) wastewater outfall.8Four 7-meter Deep Holes in Vicinity of Charted Circular Pipeline Areafile:///M:/charlie/NOAA_Sandy_2013/H12587/DR_Working/H12587_Figure_8.jpg9MultiView Editor of Four 7-meter Deep Holes in Vicinity of Charted Circular Pipeline file:///M:/charlie/NOAA_Sandy_2013/H12587/DR_Working/H12587_Figure_9.jpgDuring the H12587 survey dredge operations began in the vicinity of Horseshoe Cove centered around 40° 26’ 27.76”N 074° 00’ 06.25”W. The existence of the dredge pipes in the side scan, singlebeam, and multibeam data were variable as the dredge pipes were being installed and moved throughout the survey. Nine sections of dredge pipe are identified within the S-57 Final Feature File.Designated SoundingsDesignated soundings were used to help better preserve the shallowest sounding relative to the computed depth surface. Separate flags exist in the Generic Sensor Format (version 3.04) for designated soundings and features. All depths flagged as features and designated soundings override the CUBE best estimate of the depth in the final BAG files. Both the designated soundings and features flags as defined within GSF are mapped to the same HDCS flag when ingested into CARIS (PD_DEPTH_DESIGNATED_MASK). Thirty-nine designated soundings were set for H12587 to preserve the least depth on non-significant objects. The difference between the least depth of these objects and the CUBE depth was more than one-half the maximum allowable total vertical uncertainty at that depth.Final Feature S-57 FileIncluded with H12587 delivery is the S-57 Final Feature File, H12587_FFF.000. Details on how this file was generated and quality controlled can be found in Section B.2.6 of the DAPR. The S-57 feature file delivered for H12587 contains millimeter precision for the value of sounding (VALSOU) attribute. As specified in Section 8.2 of the HSSD, the S-57 feature file is in the WGS84 datum and is unprojected with all depth units in meters. All of the features found in H12587 are retained within the S-57 Final Feature File. Feature Correlator sheets were exported as an image file (.jpg) and is included in the S-57 Final Feature File under the NOAA Extended Attribute field “images” where applicable. The polygons that delineate the mooring fields from the supplemental Mooring Buoy S-57 File are also included within this Final Feature S-57 File.Side Scan Sonar Contacts S-57 FileIncluded with H12587 delivery is the Side Scan Sonar Contact S-57 File, H12587_SSCon.000. Details on how this file was generated and quality controlled can be found in Section B.2.6 of the DAPR. As specified in Section 8.2 of the HSSD, the S-57 feature file is in the WGS84 datum and is unprojected with all depth units in meters. All side scan contacts with the exception of contacts identified as moorings are retained within the Side Scan Sonar Contact S-57 File. This file does contain the polygons delineating the extents of the mooring fields. For each contact included in this S-57 file, a JPEG image of the side scan contact is included under the NOAA Extended Attribute field “images”.Mooring Buoy S-57 FileAs requested by AHB, Leidos also generated a supplemental S-57 file to present the side scan contacts based on the individual mooring buoys and polygons that delineate the mooring fields that were observed within H12587 (H12587_MORFAC.000). One exception is the large Naval Weapons Station Earle mooring buoy, which is delivered as a point MORFAC object in the Final Feature File S-57. Details on how the H12587_MORFAC file was generated, attributed, and quality controlled can be found in Section B.3.5 of the DAPR. For each contact included in this S-57 file, a JPEG image of the side scan contact is included under the NOAA Extended Attribute field “images”. This supplemental Mooring Buoy S-57 file is delivered in a sub-directory of the S-57_Features directory named, “Mooring_Field_Side_Scan_Sonar_Contacts”.No new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area.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.Data Report, H125862014-04-16Data Acquisition and Processing Report2014-04-16