OPR-C308-KR-13 New Jersey Coast and Vicinity, NJ New Jersey Coast and Vicinity, NJ David Evans & Associates, Inc. H12596 1 Vicinity of Barnegat Inlet New Jersey United States 40000 2013 Jonathan L. Dasler, PE, PLS, CH Basic Hydrographic Survey 2013-07-27 2013-07-18 2013-10-30 ODOM CV-100 and RESON 8101 EdgeTech 4200-HF and EdgeTech 4200 HFL meters Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) UTC Atlantic Hydrographic Branch NAD83, UTM Zone 18, Meters, Times are UTC. The purpose of this contract is to provide NOAA with modern, accurate hydrographic survey data with which to update nautical charts of the assigned area. Contractor David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) conducted hydrographic survey operations in the vicinity of Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey. Survey H12596 was conducted in accordance with the Statement of Work (June 20, 2013) and Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions (June 27, 2013). The Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions reference the 2012 Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD) as the technical requirements for this project. To better align with the Hydrographic Surveys Division (HSD) advancements in standards, project OPR-C308-KR-13 surveys were performed using the 2013 HSSD. This modification was approved by HSD staff. 39.783386 74.120393 39.717916 74.056208 1 OPR-C308-KR-13 Assigned Survey Areas SupportFiles/H12596_AssignedSurveyAreas.png The purpose of this survey is to provide National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with modern, accurate hydrographic survey data with which to update nautical charts of the assigned area. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data. Survey Limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD. 2 H12596 Survey Outline SupportFiles/H12596_SurveyOutline.png The survey consisted of 200% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent single beam in all waters 4 meters and deeper; and 100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent single beam in depths between 2 meters and 4 meters in waters inside the polygon DEA_2m_region.shp provided by HSD staff. For survey H12596, this polygon encompassed Barnegat Inlet, its approaches, and the channel leading to Barnegat Bay. The survey polygon depicted in the Project Reference File (PRF) OPR-C308-KR-13_PRF.000, which was included with the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions (June 27, 2013), was used to define the limits for each survey. The survey was conducted over 80-meter and 130-meter set line spacing per 100% coverage (50-meter and 75-meter side scan sonar ranges, respectively) with additional lines spaced to fill holidays created when effective range was reduced in shallow waters. Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) items identified by side scan sonar and significant side scan sonar contacts were developed with multibeam sonar to meet Object Detection coverage requirements for multibeam surveys. The coverage area totaled 5.7 square nautical miles using a combination of side scan, single beam and multibeam survey methods. 2013-07-18 2013-07-20 2013-07-21 2013-07-22 2013-07-23 2013-07-24 2013-07-26 2013-07-27 2013-07-28 2013-07-29 2013-07-30 2013-08-01 2013-08-13 2013-08-15 2013-08-16 2013-08-17 2013-08-18 2013-08-21 2013-08-22 2013-08-23 2013-10-28 2013-10-29 2013-10-30 6 3 0 0 0 5.7 R/V Chinook 0 0 0 0 0 257.9 0 28.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 257.9 0 28.3 0 11.0 The OPR-C308-KR-13 Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) submitted with this survey, details equipment and vessel information as well as data acquisition and processing procedures used during this survey. There were no vessel or equipment configurations used during data acquisition that deviated from those described in the DAPR. R/V Chinook 28 2 3 R/V Chinook SupportFiles/H12596_RV_Chinook.png ODOM CV 100 SBES RESON 8101 MBES Edgetech 4200-HF SSS Edgetech 4200-HFL SSS AML SV Pulse V2 Primary Sound Speed Profiler Sea-Bird SEACAT SBE-19 CTD Profiler Secondary Sound Speed Profiler Applanix POS/MV 320 v4 Positioning & Attitude Single beam crosslines were run in a direction perpendicular to main scheme lines across the entire surveyed area, providing a good representation for analysis of consistency. All crosslines were used for crossline comparisons. Crossline analysis was performed using the CARIS Hydrographic Information Processing System (HIPS) Quality Control (QC) Report tool, which compares crossline data to a gridded surface and reports results. Crosslines were compared to a 4-meter CUBE surface encompassing mainscheme data for the entire survey area. The QC Report tabular output is included in Separate II Digital Data. The results of the analysis meet the requirements as stated in the 2013 HSSD. Additional crossline analysis was performed by computing a 4-meter CUBE surface from the crossline data. The surface was then differenced from a 4-meter CUBE surface comprised of all mainscheme, fill, and investigation data. The resultant difference surface was exported using the Base Surface to American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) function and statistics were compiled on the ASCII data. The crossline analysis included 2,892 node comparisons with an mean difference of 0.02 meters and standard deviation of 0.144 meters. Maximum deviations appear in areas where significant bedform movement occurred during the survey and in areas adjacent to steep slopes. 0 0.122 R/V Chinook 2.000 n/a 0.500 Additional discussion of these parameters is included in the DAPR. During surface finalization in HIPS, the "greater of the two” option was selected, where the calculated uncertainty from total propagated uncertainty (TPU) is compared to the standard deviation of the soundings influencing the node, and where the greater value is assigned as the final uncertainty of the node. The uncertainty of the finalized surfaces increased for nodes, where the standard deviation of the node was greater than the total propagated uncertainty. The resulting calculated uncertainty values of all nodes in the finalized 4-meter single beam surface range from 0.276 meters to 0.730 meters with a standard deviation of 0.017 meters. The uncertainty values of all nodes in the finalized 1 meter Complete Coverage multibeam surface range from 0.265 meters to 1.124 meters with a standard deviation of 0.043 meters. The uncertainty values of all nodes in the finalized 50-centimeter Object Detection multibeam surfaces range from 0.265 meters to 2.272 meters with a standard deviation of 0.077 meters. To determine if surface grid nodes met International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1 specification, a ratio of the final node uncertainty to the allowable uncertainty at that depth was determined. As a percentage, this value represents the amount of error budget utilized by the uncertainty value at each node. Values greater than 100% indicate nodes exceeding the allowable IHO uncertainty. For the 4-meter single beam surface the allowable uncertainty utilized ranges from 52% to 138%. The mean allowable uncertainty for the surface is 55% with a standard deviation of 0.033. In total 270 nodes out of 212,744 fail to meet specification. For the 1 meter Complete Coverage multibeam surface the allowable uncertainty utilized ranges from 48% to 218%. The mean allowable uncertainty for the surface is 54% with a standard deviation of 0.082. In total 3,748 nodes out of 393,281 fail to meet specification. For the 50-centimeter Object Detection multibeam surface the allowable uncertainty utilized ranges from 48% to 439%. The mean allowable uncertainty for the surface is 56% with a standard deviation of 0.145. In total 13,210 nodes out of 636,250 fail to meet specification. Nodes that were reported out of specification were coincident with areas of high depth standard deviation such as steep terrain, areas of overlap where the bottom had significantly changed, or over features. All uncertainty values were within allowable specification prior to surface finalization when standard deviation was incorporated into the solution when it was greater than the node uncertainty. Quality control is discussed in detail in Section B of the DAPR. Results from weekly position checks and weekly multibeam and single beam bar checks are included in Separate I Acquisition and Processing Logs. The weekly sound speed checks can be found in Separate II Sound Speed Data Summary of this report. Sounding data were reviewed at multiple levels of data processing including: CARIS HIPS conversion, single beam editing, subset editing, and analysis of anomalies revealed in CUBE surfaces. Submerged significant features identified during survey operations were noted in the acquisition logs, saved to Isis cursor log files, and then displayed during HIPS editing to act as a check during feature compilation. In addition to the field interpretation of side scan contacts, two independent post-processing reviews of the side scan data were conducted, and all significant contacts or potentially significant contacts tracked in a custom database. None Exist There were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness. None Exist There were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings. Approximately 90-minute intervals. An AML Oceanographic SV Plus V2 was the primary instrument used to acquire sound speed readings during the survey. Sound speed readings were measured at approximately 90-minute intervals during survey single beam operations and at each investigation site during multibeam acquisition. Additional discussion of sound speed methods can be found in the DAPR. Survey speeds were maintained to meet or exceed along track coverage requirements throughout the survey. Where 200% side scan coverage was required, demonstration of 200% coverage was achieved by producing two separate 100% 1 meter resolution mosaics. Mosaics were thoroughly reviewed for holidays and areas of poor quality coverage due to biomass, vessel wakes, or other factors. A fill plan was created in order to acquire side scan data where holidays and significant poor quality coverage existed. Significant side scan sonar contacts were developed with multibeam sonar to obtain a least depth of the contact using multibeam Object Detection coverage requirements. Density The requirement that 95% of all Complete Coverage and Object Detection surface nodes must be populated with at least five soundings was verified by exporting the density child layer of each CUBE surface to an ASCII text file and compiling statistics on the density values. More than 98% of all the CUBE surface nodes of the 1 meter Complete Coverage multibeam surface contained five or more soundings. More than 96% of all the 50-centimeter individual item investigation surfaces using Object Detection requirements contained five or more soundings. Some individual field sheets fail to meet the density requirement for all nodes due to the pattern the investigation plans were run which resulted in a large percentage of edge. Nodes along these edges were only populated with beams from the outer swath which yielded a low node density. All nodes over features exceed density requirements and least depths of all features have been determined with designated soundings from reliable data. Data reduction procedures for survey H12596 are detailed in the DAPR. The multibeam and single beam summary processing logs are included Separate I Acquisition and Processing Logs of this report. No additional calibration tests were conducted beyond those discussed in the DAPR. Multibeam backscatter was logged during side scan contact investigations in Hypack 81X format and is included with the H12596 digital deliverables. Data were processed periodically in CARIS HIPS to evaluate backscatter quality but the processed data is not included with the deliverables. 5.3.2 H12596_SB_4m_MLLW CUBE 4.0 0 22 NOAA_4m Set Line Spacing Coverage H12596_MB_1m_MLLW CUBE 1 1 22 NOAA_1m Complete Multibeam Coverage H12596_MB_50cm_MLLW_combined CUBE 0.5 1 22 NOAA_0.5m Object Detection Coverage H12596_100Percent Mosaic 1.0 N/A First 100-percent coverage H12596_200Percent Mosaic 1.0 N/A Second 100-percent coverage Bathymetric grids were created relative to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) in CUBE format using Set Line Spacing, Complete Coverage and Object Detection resolution requirements as described in the National Ocean Surveys (NOS) HSSD (April 2013). A 1 meter resolution surface using the Complete Multibeam Coverage requirement was created for all multibeam data. This surface was created as a repository for ancillary multibeam data acquired in support of the survey, or multibeam data acquired during investigations that do not fall within the individual field sheets which surround significant features. The 50-centimeter combined surface includes investigation data at Object Detection resolution over significant features. In addition, field sheets and surfaces were submitted for all significant individual investigations. The name of the investigation field sheets correspond to the primary side scan sonar contact name. Least depths for all significant contact investigations were added to the final surface with a designated sounding. Additional designated soundings were added to depth surfaces as necessary in order to accurately represent the seafloor in accordance with the NOS HSSD. A bug in HIPS 7.1.1 Service Pack 1 Hotfix 1 caused incorrect survey line names to be listed in the combined surface metadata. A complete description of the horizontal and vertical control for survey H12596 can be found in the OPR-C308-KR-13 Horizontal and Vertical Control Report (HVCR), submitted under a separate cover. A summary of horizontal and vertical control for this survey follows. Mean Lower Low Water Discrete Zoning Atlantic City, NJ 8534720 8534720.tid Verified Observed C308KR2013CORP_rev.zdf Final North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) NAD83 UTM Zone 18 North Sandy Hook, NJ (286 kHz) Moriches, NY (293 kHz) During survey operations, some Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) outages from the primary beacon (286 kHz) occurred. The system was set up to automatically switch to the secondary beacon (293 kHz) when the primary signal was lost. The majority of the chart comparison was performed by comparing H12596 depths to a digital surface generated from electronic navigational charts (ENCs) covering the survey area. A 50-meter product surface was then generated from a triangular irregular network (TIN) created from the soundings, depth contours, and depth features for each ENC scale. An additional 50-meter HIPS product surface of the entire survey area was generated from the finalized Multibeam Echo Sounder (MBES) and SBES CUBE surfaces. The chart comparison was conducted by creating and reviewing the resultant difference surface. The raster chart comparison was performed by comparing the raster navigational charts (RNCs) covering the survey area to the corresponding ENCs which were subsequently compared to H12596 using difference surface techniques. The electronic and raster versions of the relevant charts used during the comparison were reviewed to ensure that all US Coast Guard (USCG) Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) issued during survey acquisition, impacting the survey area, were applied and addressed by this survey. 12324 687 40000 35 2012-03 2014-01-28 2014-02-08 Chart 12324 was compared to US5NJ30M within the H12596 survey area. ENC US5NJ30M includes five soundings that were added as part of the H12596 Danger to Navigation (DtoN) 1 update process, but only four of these soundings were included on Chart 12324. All four of these soundings are missing either the 6-foot or 12-foot depth contours which should surround them. No other differences between the RNC and ENC were observed. Charted differences determined by comparing surveyed depths to a digital surface of US5NJ30M are discussed in Section D.1.2. 12323 682 80000 26 2012-12 2014-01-21 2014-02-01 Chart 12323 was compared to US4NJ23M within the H12596 survey area. There are two 3-foot soundings that are charted south of Barnegat Inlet South Breakwater Light 7 on US4NJ23M that are not included on chart 12323. No other differences between the RNC and ENC were observed. Charted differences determined by comparing surveyed depths to a digital surface of US4NJ23M are discussed in Section D.1.2. US5NJ30M 20000 17 2013-12-31 2014-01-27 false Considerable change has occurred within the survey area since it was last charted, specifically in the vicinity of Barnegat Shoal and Barnegat Bay. Shoaling of as much as 18 feet has occurred as Barnegat Shoal has migrated offshore. Areas in the vicinity of the USCG Station in Barnegat Bay are up to 28 feet deeper than charted. Depths seaward of Barnegat Shoal are generally 5 feet shoaler to 5 feet deeper than charted with extremes ranging from 10 feet shoaler or 10 feet deeper than charted. H12596 DtoN 1, which is discussed in Section D.1.7, was submitted to address these discrepancies with the chart in the vicinity of Barnegat Shoal. Sounding and contours are not charted within Barnegat Inlet; therefore it was excluded from the chart comparison. 4 Depth Difference between H12596 and chart US5NJ30M SupportFiles/H12596_ChartComp_US5NJ30M.png US4NJ23M 80000 11 2013-01-22 2013-09-20 false Chart comparison with US4NJ23M shows similar results to the comparison with US5NJ30M with significant changes apparent over the majority of the survey area. Differences of up to 17 feet deeper than charted occur near Barnegat Inlet South Breakwater Light 7 and north of Barnegat Inlet North Jetty Danger Buoy A. 5 Depth Difference between H12596 and chart US4NJ23M SupportFiles/H12596_ChartComp_US4NJ23M.png Three (3) AWOIS items were assigned for investigation within the survey H12596 area. 12902 AWOIS Item #12902 is listed in the AWOIS database as a reported 17-foot wreck with a 500-meter search radius and was first charted in 1973. The search radius was surveyed with 200% side scan sonar coverage and followed by multibeam investigations performed on six contacts located within the radius. The multibeam investigations disproved two of the contacts and located two wrecks, one obstruction, and one insignificant contact. One of the investigated wrecks is believed to be AWOIS Item #12902 and was found to be located approximately 5 meters from a charted 16-foot wreck. The charted wreck as depicted in the Composite Source File (CSF) has been included in the Final Feature File with a description of ‘Delete’. A wreck depicting this feature (AWOIS #12902) as surveyed is included in the Final Feature File with a description of ‘New’. A feature depicting the new uncharted obstruction found within the AWOIS #12902 search radius has been included in the Final Feature File with a description of ‘New’. The other surveyed wreck which is believed to be AWOIS #12903 and falls within both the AWOIS #12902 and #12903 search radii is discussed below. 12903 AWOIS Item #12903 is listed in the AWOIS database as a submerged dangerous wreck with a 200-meter search radius. The search radius was surveyed with 200% side scan sonar coverage and followed by one multibeam investigation that was previously mentioned in the AWOIS #12902 discussion. The multibeam investigation located an 11 meter long wreck approximately 6 meters from a charted 22-foot obstruction. According to the Descriptive Report for prior survey H11456 the charted 22-foot obstruction was located during survey H11456 and determined to be AWOIS Item #12903. H11456 also disproved a charted dangerous sunken wreck which was previously charted at the AWOIS database location for #12903. It is the hydrographer’s opinion that the charted obstruction and surveyed wreck are one in the same. The charted obstruction as depicted in the CSF has been included in the Final Feature File with a description of ‘Delete’. A wreck depicting AWOIS Item #12903 as surveyed is included in the Final Feature File with a description of ‘New’. 12905 AWOIS Item #12905 is listed in the AWOIS database as a submerged dangerous wreck. This item is not currently charted. Two multibeam investigations disproved insignificant side scan sonar contacts within the 200-meter search radius. Survey H12596 has disproved this item with 200% side scan coverage. It is recommended that the AWOIS database be updated with findings from the H12596 survey. A cartographic symbol object representing this uncharted AWOIS item has been included in the Final Feature File with a description of ‘Delete’. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. The survey area does not contain any charted features labeled as Position Doubtful (PD), Existence Doubtful (ED), or Reported. Charted features assigned in the CSF are portrayed in the H12596 File Feature File as surveyed and denoted with the Assignment Flag of ‘Assigned’ One assigned wreck Position Approximate (PA) fell shoreward of the inshore limit and was not addressed by the survey. This feature is included in the Final Feature File with the Description ‘Not Addressed’. All uncharted features are portrayed in the Final Feature File as surveyed and attributed with the description of ‘New’. 1 One (1) DtoN was reported for this survey. H12596 DtoN 1 was originally submitted to the Atlantic Hydrographic Branch (AHB) as a CARIS .hob file containing selected soundings in the vicinity of Barnegat Inlet where significant discrepancies exist between charted and surveys soundings. AHB staff produced a non-standard DtoN submission from this .hob file for the Nautical Data Branch (NDB) that included soundings and contours. The shoaling and significant changes depicted in DtoN 1 were not fully addressed by the subsequent chart update (LNM 39/13, 5th District / RNC posted 9/18/2013). This update induced the addition of five soundings from DtoN 1 and removal of three charted soundings. As previously mentioned in Section 1.1, only four of the five new soundings were added to Chart 12324. DtoN reports for this survey are included in Appendix II - Supplemental Survey Records and Correspondence. The current depiction of DtoN 1 on the charts does not adequately describe this danger to the mariner. As previously mentioned, there have been significant changes in the vicinity of Barnegat Inlet and Barnegat Shoal. The application of H12596 DtoN 1 did not fully address these changes. Barnegat Inlet is located within the H12596 survey area. As noted on the charts, soundings and buoys are not charted within the inlet due to its shifting nature and the frequent relocation of the buoys. Six (6) bottom samples were acquired on August 18, 2013 (DN 230). The final sampling plan followed suggested sample locations included in the PRF provided by the Hydrographic Surveys Division. A limited shoreline investigation was assigned in the OPR-C308-KR-13 Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions. None of the assigned shoreline features included in the CSF are charted within the H12596 survey area. Uncharted shoreline features located during the survey are included in the Final Feature file with the description of ‘New’. In some instances baring features shoreward of the inshore limit were captured in the side scan data. HSD and AHB staff provided guidance on how to handle these features during data processing and reporting. If contacts were created on these features they have been classified as insignificant in the Side Scan Sonar Contact File and denoted with the comment, “Target is a baring feature outside the limits of survey and will be further resolved by forthcoming RSD imagery”. No comparisons with prior surveys were conducted. Numerous public and private aids to navigation are charted within the H12596 survey area. Notes on the charts covering the area indicate that additional aids to navigation located with the Barnegat Inlet Channel are frequently moved and therefore not included on the charts. Uncharted private aids and private mooring buoys located within the Barnegat Inlet Channel have been included in the Final Feature file with the description of ‘New’. All charted public aids to navigation were found to be serving their intended purpose. There were no overhead bridges, cables, or other structures which would impact overhead clearance in the survey area. Jetties are charted on the northern and southern sides of Barnegat Inlet. A section of submerged ruined jetty is charted on the northern side of Barnegat Inlet. It is recommended that all charted jetties be retained as charted. There were no ferry routes or terminals within the survey area. No platforms were charted or located within the H12596 survey area. Water turbulence features denoting the location of breakers observed during survey operations in Barnegat Inlet and the vicinity of Barnegat Shoal have been included in the Final Feature File. Sediment migration is apparent when comparing single beam and multibeam data acquired over multiple days in the vicinity of Barnegat Inlet and Barnegat Shoal. As noted on the charts, sounding data is not included within Barnegat Inlet due to its continually shifting nature. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Dredge Currituck began dredging Barnegat Inlet on July 23, 2013. The dredge was periodically observed working in the area until August 1, 2013. No construction activities were observed during survey operations. 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, Statement of Work, and Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions. 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. Jonathan L. Dasler, PE, PLS, CH NSPS/THSOA Certified Hydrographer, Chief of Party 2014-03-21 Jason Creech Lead Hydrographer 2014-03-21 Data Acquisition and Processing Report 2014-03-21