OPR-C331-KR-13Vicinity of Southern Long IslandVicinity of Southern Long IslandWilliamson & Associates, Inc., M/V Nooit VolmaaktH126001Vicinity of North of Fire IslandNew YorkUnited States200002013Ransom C. White IIINavigable Area2013-06-272013-09-302014-01-13Multibeam Echo SounderSide Scan SonarmetersMean Lower Low WatermetersMean Lower Low WaterUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)UTCPacific Hydrographic BranchThe purpose of this survey is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charts. All separates are filed with the hydrographic data. Any revisions to the Descriptive Report (DR) generated during office processing are shown in bold, red italic text. The processing branch maintains the DR as a field unit product, therefore, all information and recommendations within the body of the DR are considered preliminary unless otherwise noted. The final disposition of surveyed features is represented in the OCS nautical chart update products. All pertinent records for this survey, including the DR, are archived at the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) and can be retrieved via http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/.Williamson & Associates, Inc. conducted a hydrographic survey in the southern waters off of Long Island, NY. The sub-locality of this survey is described as Vicinity of North of Fire Island, NY. The survey encompassed an area of approximately 5 square nautical miles and was assigned registry number H12600. Project instructions required object detection coverage in 2-4 meters of water with 100% SSS and concurrent set line spacing SBES or MBES and backscatter. Object detection coverage was required as well in 4-20 meters of water with 200% SSS and concurrent MBES and backscatter. Complete MBES and backscatter were the only requirements in water depths greater than 20 meters. It should be noted that the appendices and separates for this report were created using the XML Schema format from XMLDR v13.1 released in June 2013 and will not follow the format outlined by the HSSD 2012. This was approved through email correspondence with our COTR on 4/10/2013, see correspondence in Appendix II. 40.6664562573.129509722240.625734388973.31264502781H12600 Sheet Boundaries Overlaid on Chart 12352file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_OverviewChart.JPGAs per the field crew email confirmation (review correspondence folder) with the COTR on Oct 28th, sheet H12600 was surveyed on the 2m contour inshore of the inlet, and to the 4m contour offshore of the inlet within the bounds of vessel safety. The 2m navigable area limit line (NALL) was frequently unachievable due to shoal waters, breaking seas and inshore man made obstructions. Vessel and crew safety was a priority concern. As per the project instructions: The purpose of this project is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. This project is 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.Survey quality was reviewed mainly by utilizing daily checks for data matchup, swath density, and motion/refraction artifacts. Sounding density was found to meet or exceed the object detection and single line spacing requirements out to roughly 40-45 degrees from nadir. Given our requirements called for skunk stripe MBES as a gap filler for 100% (2-4m) and 200% (4-20m) SSS this was deemed acceptable as a full MBES coverage plan would include at least a 20% swath overlap. Motion artifacts, when found, were due to excessive weather conditions. Latency values were checked and the motion artifacts were measured. The majority of motion artifacts found fell under our IHO Order 1a error budget and were located well offshore in easily navigable waters. Considering the consistently poor working conditions during the winter months, motion artifacts became somewhat frequent, however they posed little threat to the usefulness of the data as expected vessel traffic in the area consists of no vessels that draw more than 2-3 meters. In-depth crossline comparisons were also completed. The results of the crossline comparison can be found in section B.2.1 of this report. The crossline comparisons consisted of analyzing each individual crossline with the finalized CUBE surface using the CARIS surface report tool. Once a CARIS surface report was generated, the results were inserted into a spreadsheet for total calculations of the survey area. The surface report informs the user of the percentage of soundings across the swath in increments set by the user that fall within the desired IHO specifications, in our case 10 degree increments, within IHO Order 1a. Areas that did not pass the IHO order 1a specification were due to shifting bathy near the inlets and can be reviewed in section B.2.6 of this report. Survey quality is acceptable to supersede previous bathymetric, shoreline, overhead and submerged feature data.While various artifacts can be found in the data, all have been reviewed for compliance with specification and none have been found to exceed NOAA complete coverage error budgets. The data is adequate for charting.Survey Limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD.2H12600 SSS Mosaic of all Data Acquired Overlaid on Chart 12352file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_SSS_Mosaic.JPG3H12600 SSS Coverage Depicting percent of coverage: Yellow = 100%, Cyan = 200%file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_SSS_Coverage.JPG4H12600 MBES Coverage Overlaid on Chart 12352file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_MBES_Coverage.JPGDue to changing morphology and a combination of shoal and swell, coverage gaps are present in some SSS data. Vessel and crew safety is a priority and was always taken into consideration. There are five coverage gaps on this sheet. There is a large coverage gap north of Democrat Point, which is a direct result of a shoal area and shallow waters. The coverage gaps west and east of the channel to Captree Island, as well as the area directly north of Fire Island were caused by shoals and inaccessible water depths. A large shoal area is present south of West Fire Island which reduced the survey in that area and resulted in a coverage gap. Please refer to section D.1.3 "AWOIS Items" for information on survey coverage gaps. It should be noted that during initial acquisition the survey line plan used was designed to obtain full multibeam coverage in shoal water depths. A new survey line plan was set in place on October 23rd containing line spacing to result in 200% SSS coverage with skunk stripe MBES. The line plan was implemented on October 25th and was confirmed by the COTR via email on October30th. Please refer to Appendix II of this report for email communications. Certain sections associated with the NALL were not fully covered due to the extent of changes in seabed. Please refer to section D.2.1 "Shoreline" for NALL information. 2013-09-302013-10-022013-10-062013-10-072013-10-082013-10-092013-10-182013-10-202013-10-272013-11-032013-11-042013-11-082013-11-102013-11-112013-11-132013-11-152013-11-172013-11-222013-11-252013-11-262013-12-052013-12-062013-12-072013-12-292013-12-312014-01-138004.56HEW46077J70800000352.6409.92000000352.6409.9200The previously uncharted private aids mentioned in Section D.2.3 were not reported in Table 2 as DPs. The number of DP's reported should be 7.Sheet H12600 contains areas where the NALL requirements were not achieved. The bottom and water depths were changed drastically in many areas, which is the primary reason NALL requirements were not always met. In some areas, however, survey was conducted inside of the NALL because water depths were deeper than previously charted. Please refer to section D.2.1 "Shoreline" for more information. There were 8 required bottom samples in this sheet. We successfully collected grab samples at each location with the exception of one. This bottom sample location was shifted south to be located in water depths that are navigable. One extra bottom sample was collected in an anchorage area near AWOIS Item 15113.5Overhead view of H12600 boundaries in Red showing also the Grab Sample alteration area in Greenfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_Added_GS_OH.JPG6Close up of H12600 showing the area outlined by the green box in figure 5. Note the shifted and added grab samples in Green. Also showing are the CSF sample location as an S-57 "springs" icon and the AWOIS Item 15113 and the associated search radius.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_Added_GS_Close.JPGThere were only 8 submitted bottom samples. There are no charted anchorage areas within limits of this survey.Refer to the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) for a complete description of data acquisition and processing systems, survey vessels, quality control procedures and data processing methods. Additional information to supplement sounding and survey data, and any deviations from the DAPR are discussed in the following sections.HEW46077J7087.321.27M/V Nooit Volmaakt from the port side. The pole mount on the bow for the Edge Tech SSS can be seen.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/NV_2.jpg8M/V Nooit Volmaakt from the starboard bow. The pole mount on the bow for the Edge Tech SSS can be seen.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/NV_1.jpgThe M/V Nooit Voolmakt acquired all multibeam data with a pole mounted R2Sonic 2024 at 400kHz and a pole mounted EdgeTech 4600 at 540 kHz using a POSMV for position, orientation and motion corrections. For more detailed information on equipment and vessel please refer to OPR-C331-KR-13 DAPR submitted under a different cover.R2Sonic2024MBESEdgeTech4600SSSApplanixPOS MV 320Positioning and Attitude SystemValeportMiniSVSSound Speed SystemSeaBirdSBE19Conductivity, Temperature and Depth SensorSeaBirdSBE19+Conductivity, Temperature and Depth SensorQuality control crosslines were planned so that most main scheme lines would intersect with at least one crossline, they were well distributed geographically, and that total crossline nautical miles ran would total more than 4 % of the main scheme nautical miles (a specification set forth by the HSSD 2012). Our quantification of required crossline distance in this sheet was complicated by a change in our line plan to a set line spacing from full MBES coverage, causing skunk striping in the shallower areas. Survey that had taken place prior to the line plan change caused there to be far more line miles of data than what the new line plan called for. The quantification for line miles of crosslines was based on the new line plan, which had fewer lines. Therefore, the percentage of crosslines to total main line mileage will appear to be less than what was required, however, the true percentage should be determined as described above. Total crossline length surveyed for task order OPR-C331-KR-13 sheet H12600 was 9.92 nautical miles or 4.32% of the total main scheme distance (352.64 nautical miles). All crosslines were compared to the main scheme line CUBE, using the CARIS HIPS QC Report process for individual lines. The swath was split by swath angles in 10 degree increments for the crossline analysis. The seabed located mid-channel was so dynamic, being current driven, that it changed significantly from day to day. Ten crosslines obtained across the main channel independently failed to meet the standards set forth by the HSSD (more information can be found in section B.2.6, Factors Affecting Soundings). With these ten failed lines included the vast majority of beams passed within the IHO Order 1a specifications at a 95% confidence level or better with an overall average of 95.08%, however without the outliers a confidence level of 99.53% and a standard deviation of 1.05% was calculated. (See Separate IV). Lines that covered both the 50cm (0-20m water depth) and the 2m (18-40m water depth) surfaces were analyzed independently for each surface. The actual total crossline percentage is 2.813%, which does not meet specifications. The data is adequate to supersede charted data despite not meeting the crossline requirements. The crossline analysis spreadsheet was submitted stand-alone and not as Separate, therefore the reference to Separate IV is in error.0.418HEW46077J7081.50.2Refer to the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) for a complete description of the uncertainty values used for processing sheet H12600. According to the confidence interval values reported by JOA Surveys, our tidal uncertainty value at the 95% confidence level was 0.228m from zone GB11, which has the highest uncertainty value of the zones that encompass sheet H12600. This uncertainty value is higher than expected due to the omission of one of the subordinate gauges from the zoning (refer to section C.1 Vertical Control). This value includes the estimated gauge measurement error, tidal datum computation error and tidal zoning error. The reported error value was then divided by 1.96 since CARIS assumes TPU values to be 1 sigma (Field Procedures Manual April 2013) resulting in a value of 0.116m. The tidal uncertainty field labeled in CARIS as “measured” was left at zero as the reported error value of 0.228m included the estimated gauge measurement error and the tidal datum computation error as well as the tidal zoning error. Any max standard deviation measurements exceeding IHO Order 1a specifications are due to shifting sand bars and seabed morphology and are explained in section B.2.6 (Factor Affecting Soundings).The TPU value for tide zoning uncertainty reported in Table 6 (0.418m) is incorrect. The value reported in the paragraph above (0.116m) was the tide zoning uncertainty value applied to the data.There are no contemporary surveys that junction with this survey.No junctioning surveys were assigned in the Project Instructions, but survey H12603 from the same project junctions with this survey. A difference surface comparison was conducted at the Processing Branch. The depths in this area range from 3 - 17m and the overlap width between the two surveys is approximately 50m. The difference surface analysis showed that H12600 is shoaler by an average of 0.55m, with a standard deviation of 0.87m, a minimum value of -3.22 (where H12603 is shoaler) and a maximum value of 5.30m (where H12600 is shoaler). Differences in depth between the two surveys is most likely attributed to the highly dynamic environment resulting in sediment deposition and erosion over the span of the two surveys. The data is adequate to supersede charted data in the common area. Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.Grounding of MBES systemIn shallow waters and during periods of high tidal-current influence the survey vessel occasionally grounded the MBES unit on sand bars. Patch tests were immediately performed afterwards. No groundings occurred within the same survey day. The patch test lines were calibrated within 12 hours and any changed offsets were input into the HIPS Vessel File and applied to all data acquired after the grounding occurred. See DAPR C.6.The data is adequate for charting despite the need for multiple patch tests throughout the survey.POS MV 320The POS MV 320 functioned adequately throughout considering the frequent higher sea state. The average sea state offshore during the high majority of survey days was a 1m swell. Depending on the direction of the swell some attitude artifacting resulted, mostly in deeper areas of the survey. These lines were not rejected as no latency was found to exist and QC showed the lines to still be within spec using crossline analysis. This was concluded to be the result of a small survey vessel in large enough seas to challenge the accuracy of the IMU. The data is adequate for charting despite the sea state pushing the limits of the IMU.Shifting Sand Waves / Bars / FeaturesSand features in water depths less than 10 meters are constantly shifting, as much as 25cm per day in some areas. Areas concentrated around the inlet and the central channel are subject to the strongest and most rapid tidal currents, as a result these areas experience the most morphological shifting. Large sand waves can be seen in the majority of H12600. These sand waves were very dynamic and constantly shifting. This resulted in poor data alignment, even if overlapping acquisition was separated by only 5-10 days. Due to this effect on the data overlapping, the timing of acquisition was strongly considered in planning.16Overhead view of the western area of H12600 showing chart 12352. The area of shifting bathy shown in the following figures is highlighted by the green box.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_ShiftingBathy_OH_Far.JPG17Overhead view showing the area within the green box highlighted in the previous figure with the MBES data overlaid with chart 12352. The area shown in the following figures is highlighted by the red box.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_ShiftingBathy_OH_Close.JPG183D view of shifting sand features, the red line was acquired on Julian Day 308 while the blue line was acquired on Julian Day 330, a 22 day separation.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_ShiftingBathy_day.JPG193D view of shifting sand features, showing the depths for each line. This image has been 5x vertically exaggerated.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_ShiftingBathy_depth.JPGMuch of the survey area is known to be dynamic. The data acquired during this survey is adequate for charting as it is an accurate snapshot of the seafloor at the time of survey.A Sea-Bird CTD was taken every 2-4 hours depending on the surface sound velocity variation. As per the HSSD, casts were taken if the surface sound velocity changed by more than 2 m/s. Two Sea-Bird CTDs were used aboard the survey vessel, a SBE 19 and SBE 19+.Sound Velocity was close to homogeneous from day to day. No significant sound velocity errors were encountered.All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.Multiple calibration patch tests were conducted for the MBES system after the initial calibration. These were conducted to account for small shifts in the mounting flange. No resulting issues were found to adversely affect the data.MBES2013-10-02Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand BarMBES2013-10-06Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand BarMBES2013-10-15Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand BarMBES2013-10-18Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand BarMBES2013-11-05Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand BarMBES2013-11-11Vessel ran sensor hard aground on Sand BarMBES2014-01-04Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand BarBackscatter was converted to HDCS file format and is included with the data submitted to the Branch.The hydrographer has not submitted backscatter files for processing into a mosaic. The R2Sonic unit used for the survey area is not supported by the software platform used to mosaic backscatter data.5.2No Software updates have been implemented that differ from the DAPR.H12600_East_MB_50cm_MLLW_FinalCUBE0.5020NOAA_0.5mObject DetectionH12600_Central_MB_50cm_MLLW_FinalCUBE0.5020NOAA_0.5mObject DetectionH12600_West_MB_50cm_MLLW_FinalCUBE0.5020NOAA_0.5mObject DetectionH12600_West_MB_2m_MLLW_FinalCUBE21840NOAA_2mComplete MBESH12600_SSS_1m_100%_ASSS Mosaic1040N/A100% SSSH12600_SSS_1m_100%_BSSS Mosaic1040N/A100% SSSAs per the project instructions a 1m SSS mosaic resolution was used. The 200% SSS coverage was split into 100% coverage mosaics. The MBES data was gridded at 0.5 meters in water depths ranging between 0 and 20 meters, and gridded at 2 meters in water depths of 18-40m. Multiple 50cm surfaces were created in lieu of one large surface to reduce the file size and allow for quicker localized surface loading.Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.Mean Lower Low WaterDiscrete ZoningSeaview Ferry Dock8514779Fire Island Coast Guard Station85151868515186.tidFinal ApprovedJOA-C331KR2013-GREAT SOUTH BAY - 20140506.zdfFinal2014-02-142014-04-16Stations 8514779 and 8515186 were both installed and functioning during the same period of time, however during its deployment gauge 8514779 (Seaview Ferry Dock) shifted 1.3cm down. This vertical shift prohibited its use to correct soundings. It was used to aid in the creation of the zoning file, however was not used to directly affect any soundings in sheet H12600. The shift itself has no effect on the phase delay of the tide wave, and small effect on the range of the tide. The three months of collected data at Seaview were analyzed using a series of JOA created Python scripts, based on CO-OPS "Computational Techniques for Tidal Datums Handbook - NOAA Special Publication NOS CO-OPS 2". The method of Monthly Means was used for October through December, 2013. The Monthly Means were then corrected to the 1983-2001 tidal epoch by comparing with the published values for the NWLON at Sandy Hook, NJ. The Seaview gauge was reinstalled and operated from 7/31/14 to 9/8/14 in order to provide vertical datum and fulfill other NOAA objectives. The HWI and LWI were averaged at Sandy Hook, Fire Island and Seaview, and were converted from decimal hours to minutes. By differencing the stations, Fire Island to Seaview was shown to be 150 minutes apart, which when divided by 6 minutes resulted in 25 zones. The range at Seaview is 60% the range at Fire Island, or 0.25m less. Each zone was then reduced 98-99% of the range from the previous zone. More information can be found in Appendix I.See attached Validation of Zoning Note dated July 16, 2014North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)Moriches, Broadcast Site ID: 803Data were acquired in WGS84, as shown in the HVF, but were converted to NAD83 for processing and delivery, See DAPR A.3 and B.1.DGPS DOP associated with Overhead FeaturesDGPS position suffered slightly under the Robert Moses Bridge. Small positional discrepancies are focused around the bridge supports where satellite coverage is partially blocked. Many passes were made in this area, however horizontal matchup of the data directly under the bridge could not be resolved to the positional standard as the rest of the data set. The positions are however still within the allowable DGPS horizontal uncertainty. The largest horizontal offset measured beneath the bridge was 80cm.20This overhead image shows the soundings in CARIS from 3 separate passes by a bridge support. The positional discrepancy can be seen within the red circle. Red soundings are shoal while blue soundings are deeper.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_BridgeOffset.JPG21Overhead view of chart 12352. The red circle highlights the area of discussion for the horizontal offset beneath Robert Moses Bridge.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_BridgeOffset_OH.JPGThe data is adequate for charting despite positional offsets under the Robert Moses Bridge.12352340000342012-092014-04-162014-04-16H12600 survey data were compared to Raster Chart 12352. In general the vertical agreement between the acquired bathymetry and the western charted area of the survey sheet is poor. Large areas of the seabed just inshore of the inlet have shoaled or deepened. The seabed surrounding the western most fish haven in this sheet has shoaled significantly with one charted 24 feet having a surveyed least depth of 6 feet. The southeastern portion of an area charted as foul has deepened to roughly 20 feet at the southernmost boarder. The central channel under Robert Moses Bridge has shoaled significantly on the southern edge. The charted 12 feet located central of channel just west of Robert Moses Bridge has a surveyed least depth of roughly 6 feet. The fish haven east of Robert Moses Bridge has deepened and shoaled in areas as well however the channel has retained a safe navigable depth. The portion of the survey sheet east of longitude 73-13.00W has generally retained the charted depths with an overall slight deepening. The charted shoals in the eastern portion have generally retained their boundaries and depths.22Chart 12352 overlaid with the western sheet boundaries for H12600. The green and red circles show areas of shoaling or deepening. The red circle shows areas of shoaling while green shows areas of deepening. The largest of the red circles highlights an area where shoal depths did not allow the survey vessel to operate.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_Chart%20Comparison%20West.JPGThe KAPP number for the chart panel used in the comparison is 698.US5NY52M40000102012-12-272013-03-12falseH12600 survey data was compared to Electronic Chart US5NY52M. Results were very similar to the above comparisons with Raster Chart 12352. See discussion for Chart 12352 for chart comparison. 20Two AWOIS items were investigated, items 15113 and 15114. The search radius for item 15113 contained 3 wrecks within sheet H12600. A portion of this search radius extended into sheet H12603 and will be reported on during H12603 sheet submittal under a separate cover. The dimensions for the wreck associated with AWOIS 15113 are roughly 7 x 2.5 meters and there is a small snag/mast protruding from the bow/stern (the vessel is also rectangular). The other contacts/wrecks in this area are both at least double the distance away from the central AWOIS location and resemble a barge and a wreck. Item 15114 and the associated search radius contained only one feature, a small insignificant rock. This feature had recently been dredged over and did not resemble AWOIS item 15114. Nearly half of the associated search radius was not surveyable due to the limiting depth of the area. No visual signs of a stump or snag were seen from the vessel. The dredged area covered almost exactly half of the search radius and may have been the cause for the disappearance of this AWOIS item. One other SSS target was found within the search radius however it is a buoy mooring for State Boat Channel Buoy 88 Red. As discussed in section A.4 regarding shoal and swell conditions degrading survey data, there were some AWOIS items with nodes containing less than the required number of soundings. There were three features that did not receive adequate coverage density, including FISH HAVEN 3846, FEATURE 5111 and WRECK 5125. Seas did not always allow many passes over location. We did achieve 200% SSS coverage in these areas and operated under the assumption that this would make up for small discrepancies of this nature. 23Overhead view showing western H12600 with the AWOIS search radius for Item # 15113 overlaid on chart 12352. The position of the wreck associated with AWOIS 15113 is also shown as a "Wreck" icon and labeled with red text.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_AWOIS_15113_OH_Chart.JPG24Multibeam image showing target H12600_308_001. This 7.2 meter long wreck is believed to be AWOIS Item # 15113.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_AWOIS_15113_OH.JPGSee attached Feature Report for the disposition of each AWOIS item.Thirteen charted features were assigned for investigation in sheet H12600. These features were not AWOIS items but were investigated with MBES and 200% SSS coverage. All features assigned for investigation are addressed in the Final Feature S-57 File. The source for all features were the United States NOS with the exception of the abandoned advertising sign near Captree Island which was received from and assigned by NOAA with an unknown source. 25Picture taken on site of the abandoned advertisement sign near Captree Island, this feature was assigned to verify.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/P1000745.JPGH12600 contained a large amount of uncharted wreckage and debris. Twenty-eight wrecks are located throughout the survey sheet with only one of those being in a fish haven. The remaining 27 wrecks range from large 30m vessels to small 2m craft. The survey area also contained multiple significant features that were not categorized as wrecks, but rather as debris or rock. Seventeen significant features were found outside of the charted fish havens. All features are addressed in the attached Final Feature S-57 File. There were 27 wrecks submitted in the Final Feature File. An additional wreck was identified and attributed during office review, bringing the total to 28 wrecks.7Danger to Navigation Reports are included in Appendix I of this report. Twenty features submitted as DTONs between the beginning of the survey on October 2nd and November 7th were rejected as DTONs by the PHB. Only those features carried through as DTONs by the PHB, five in total, were attributed as DTONs in the Final Feature file. All DTONs have been applied to the current chart. A total of 6 DTONs were included in the submitted Final Feature File. A seventh DTON was submitted to report a missing ATON. All 7 DTONs have been applied to the latest charts. The DTON reports were included in Appendix II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence. See DTON section of attached Feature Report. In order to investigate shoaling areas and compare to charted depths a grid was overlaid on raster chart 12352. This allowed the area to be compared visually and easily obtain depth values differences with a high level of accuracy. The Western portion of sheet H12600 contains most of the discrepancies between the survey data and the charted depths. The eastern portion contains no dangerous shoaling that has not been already charted previously. The only significant shoaling occurs centrally in the channel just west of Robert Moses Bridge. The shoaling area extends west from the bridge to an area between State Boat Channel green marker 13 and green marker 11, charted as “Shoaling 1979” on raster chart 12352. The surveyed depths beneath “Shoaling 1979” are as shallow as 8 feet, while the corresponding charted depths are 16 – 24 feet. The shoal deepens but the feature continues east with many large sand waves. The shoaling increases close to the bridge if you approach from the west with a surveyed depth of 6 feet atop charted 12 feet. The current natural channels run to the north and south of this central shoal area. The majority of boat traffic in this area do not draft enough for this shoal to be problematic however the channel should reflect the shoaling morphologies near the bridge. 26Image showing the shoaling area west of Robert Moses Bridge. The red circle highlights the general shoaling area while the yellow circles highlight the two most shoal areas, one of which was surveyed at 6 feet depth atop a charted 12 feet.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_BridgeShoal.JPG A high majority of the channels have either deepened or remain at charted depths. State Boat Channel extends from the inlet east under the Robert Moses Bridge. The portion of this channel just to the west of the bridge has shoaled considerably and needs dredge maintenance. The shoaling behavior of this area was discussed in the previous sections labeled Shoal and Hazardous Features. The channel leading into Captree Boat Basin has been dredged to a controlling depth of at least 12 feet. The dredged channel into Captree is mainly used by charter fishing boats and ferries, however the dredged portion of the channel is far narrower than the marked channel. 27Image showing the MBES data overlaid on Chart 12352. The dredged portion of the channel can be seen leading into the Captree Boat Basin.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_Captree_Channel.JPG28Overhead image of Chart 12352. The green box highlights the extents of the channel discussed in this section.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_Captree_Channel_OH.JPGNumerous natural channels exist throughout the survey area. While some may occasionally be maintained via dredging operations, none of the channels within the survey area are charted with fixed extents or controlling depths.A limited shoreline investigation was completed as per the project instructions following the procedures discussed in the DAPR. The majority of the shoreline associated with the survey sheet remained as charted with three exceptions. Two of these are located at the western most side of the survey sheet near the inlet. Just inshore of the inlet to the south side of the entry channel 1.6 km of the shore line has been eroded roughly 170 meters inland at the most. North of the inlet channel in a small anchorage basin the surrounding shoreline has undergone aggredation in some areas and extends out slightly more than previously charted. The third noticeable shoreline change near Fair Harbor and Clam Pond. Where once a small peninsula extended out towards the Fair Harbor Channel, now lie shallow sand bars. The last two shoreline shifts mentioned do not affect navigation. The first shoreline shift mentioned south of the inlet channel increases the navigable area to the south of the channel. Sheet H12600 contains areas where the NALL requirements were not achieved. Any areas that were not satisfied were due to safety concerns with swell or sand bar impacts on the vessel. The sonar was grounded several times, so the crew was more cautious of shallow water as the survey continued. In some areas, however, survey coverage exceeded NALL because water depths were deeper than previously charted due to Sandy. The survey area located north of Fire Island was drastically changed and proved to contain a number of new sand bars and shoal areas. The area located north of Fire Island proved to contain a number of new sand bars and shoal areas. A large NALL area exists on the western edge of the survey area, as well as south of both West and East Fire Island. 29Image showing the MBES data overlaid on Chart US5NY52M. The yellow circle highlights the two areas of shoreline shifting near the inlet channel. The southern area can clearly be seen as the most drastic shift.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_West_Shorline.JPG30Image showing the MBES data overlaid on Chart US5NY52M. The yellow circle highlights the charted peninsula of land that no longer exists above water.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_FairHarbor_Shorline.JPGNo prior survey comparisons exist for this survey.One channel marker was not found on location, or found to exist at all. This ATON, State Boat Channel Buoy 86, was reported as a DTON on 11/21/2013. Please refer to Appendix 1 for DTON reports. All other ATONS are as charted. Seven private channel markers near Fair Harbor are included in the Final Feature File. 31Image showing ENC chart US5NY52M with RNC chart 12352 insert. Both charts highlight the position of the missing ATON.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_State%20Boat%20Channel%20Buoy%2086_DTON_Chartlet.JPGState Boat Channel Buoy 86 is positioned correctly on the latest charts. The DTON reports were included in Appendix II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence. See special DTON report for this feature. The four Atlantique Entrance lateral buoys are maintained from May 1 to November 15. The positions and characteristics are up-to-date in the USCG Light List, with the exception of the buoy numbers, which were found to be reversed moving from offshore to inshore. Fair Harbor Light 1 is maintained from May 1 to November 25 and was found to be 56 meters off the Light List position. Dunewood Light 2 is maintained from May 1 to November 15 and was found to be 113 meters of the Light List position. The final ATON is at the head of Dunewood channel and is not charted or included in the USCG Light List. All ATON discrepancies have been reported to the USCG.The Robert Moses Bridge is the only overhead feature within the H12600 survey bounds. The minimal clearance of the bridge is charted at 65 feet for the middle 464 feet of center span. The survey vessel used a laser sight to shoot directly up at the underside of the bridge. The laser sight altitude was reduced to the water level on the vessel which was then reduced to Mean High Water using preliminary tidal zoning supplied by COOPs and Sandy Hook Tide Station # 8531680. The bridge was measured from the vessel while holding position at 40° 37' 51.6821" N, 73° 15' 44.8725" W. The clearance was calculated to be 66.26 feet from Mean High Water. 32Table showing values obtained and used to calculate the surveyed clearance of Robert Moses Bridge.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/RobertMosesBridge_Table.jpg33Picture showing central span of Robert Moses Bridge.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/RobertMosesBridge.jpgSubmarine cables/pipes were seen in the data but were not investigated at each landing site. Four exposed pipe features were discovered in the MBES and SSS data. Only one of the four submarine pipes/cables was located near a charted cable crossing area. This exposed portion of pipe was beneath the Robert Moses Bridge to the west side of the southern bridge supports. There is a significant scour suspending a portion of the pipe by approximately 0.4 meters near the bridge support. All located pipe/cable features are fully attributed in the Final Feature File with the acronym PIPSOL. In two cases multiple features were created to portray the extent of exposure. Please refer to the attached Final Feature File for the targeted PIPSOL features. 34Image showing soundings in CARIS. The pipe can be seen highlighted by the red circle and is suspended above the seabed and extending away from the bridge support. Red soundings are the most shoal while purple soundings are the deepest.file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_280_005_3D_2.PNGNo ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.No platforms exist for this survey.Features that were identified as significant and not pre-existing were investigated and the LEAST depth sounding was used as the designating sounding. Additionally, see previous section D.1.4 "Charted Features" and D.1.5 "Uncharted Features."Several features had soundings designated that were not the actual least depth. The soundings were re-designated with the proper least depth during office review and the corresponding features were updated accordingly.Dredging is currently occurring in the mouth of the Fire Island Inlet, however the dredging so far has taken place just outside of the H12600 survey bounds. The Robert Moses Bridge was undergoing scaffolding construction for painting purposes. No other dredging or construction of significance was taking place within the sheet bounds during survey acquisition. 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, Standing and Letter Instructions, and all HSD Technical Directives. These data are adequate to supersede charted data in their common areas. This survey is complete and no additional work is required with the exception of deficiencies noted in the Descriptive Report.Ransom C. White IIIChief of Party2014-11-20Curtis ClementProject Manager2014-11-20file:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/I%20-%20DTON%20Reports/H12600_275_011_DTON_I.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/I%20-%20DTON%20Reports/H12600_JD279_280_281_DTON_II.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/I%20-%20DTON%20Reports/OPR-C331-KR-13_H12600_DTONs_III.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/I%20-%20DTON%20Reports/OPR-C331-KR-13_H12600_DTONs_IV.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/I%20-%20DTON%20Reports/OPR-C331-KR-13_H12600_DTONs_V.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/I%20-%20DTON%20Reports/OPR-C331-KR-13_H12600_DTONs_V_b.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/I%20-%20DTON%20Reports/OPR-C331-KR-13_H12600_DTONs_VI.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/I%20-%20DTON%20Reports/OPR-C331-KR-13_H12600_DTONs_VII.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/I_Tides_&_Water_Levels/8514779%20Seaview%20Ferry%20Dock%2020140214.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/I_Tides_&_Water_Levels/8515186%20Fire%20Island%20USCG%2020140214.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/I_Tides_&_Water_Levels/OPR-C331-KR-13_H12600_Abstract_of_Time_of_Hydrography.xlsxfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/AtoN%20Discrepancy.pdffile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/LinePlan.pdffile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/Response%20to%20Questions%20from%20Site%20Visit.pdffile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/SSS%20Deliverables.pdffile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/Xlines.pdffile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/H12600_Survey_Outline.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/Appendices/II_Supplemental_Survey_Records_&_Correspondence/OPR-C331-KR-13_ProgressReport_February.zipfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_Acquisition%20Log.xlsxfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_MBES_log.xlsxfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_SSS_Proc_Log.xlsxfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/OPR-C331-KR-13_Position_Check_Log.xlsxfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/OPR-C331-KR-13_Bar_Check_Log.xlsxfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/OPR-C331-KR-13_Comparison_Casts.xlsxfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/OPR-C331-KR-13_H12600_Master_SVP.svpfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/OPR-C331-KR-13%20SOW.pdffile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/OPR-C331-KR-13_Final_ProjectInstructions.pdffile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_XLine%20Analysis.xlsxfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600_Side_Scan_Sonar_Contacts_List.xlsxfile:///M:/OPRC331KR13/Surveys/H12600/Compilation/Report/Components/SupportFiles/H12600.zip