OPR-C331-KR-13 Vicinity of Southern Long IslandVicinity of Southern Long IslandWilliamson & Associates, Inc.H126023Vicinity of Moriches InletNew YorkUnited States200002013Ransom C. White IIINavigable Area2013-06-272013-10-222013-12-31Multibeam Echo SounderSide Scan SonarmetersUniversal 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. Notes in red were generated during office processing. The processing branch concurs with all information and recommendations in the DR unless otherwise noted. Page numbering may be interrupted or non-sequential. All pertinent records for this survey, including the Descriptive Report, are archived at the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) and can be retrieved via http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/. ContractorWilliamson & 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 Moriches Inlet, NY. The survey encompassed an area of approximately 13 square nautical miles and was assigned registry number H12602. 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 layout described in HSSD 2012. This was approved through email correspondence with our COTR on 4/10/2013, see correspondence in Appendix II. 40.782288027872.69710140.701679777872.8073808056H12602 Sheet Boundaries Overlaid on Chart 12352SupportFiles\H12602_OverviewChart.JPGAs per the field crew's email confirmation (review Appendix II) with the COTR on Oct 28th, sheet H12602 was surveyed to 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.The correspondence is attached.As per the field crews email confirmation (review correspondence folder) with the COTR on Oct 28th, sheet H12602 was surveyed to the 2m contour inshore of the inlet, and to the 4m contour offshore of the inlet within the bounds of vessel safety.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, which was deemed acceptable given that our requirements called for skunk strip MBES as a gap filler for 100% and 200% SSS. A full MBES coverage plan would include at least a 20% swath overlap, which is not possible with a set line spacing. 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 water. 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 performed. 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 within the project bounds. The motion artifacts were determined to be within NOAA specifications during office review. The multibeam coverage and sounding density over several features was found to be inadequate during office review.Due to changing morphology and a combination of shoal and swell conditions, coverage gaps are present in SSS data. Vessel and crew safety was a priority and was always taken into consideration. There are four coverage gaps located on this sheet. Two coverage gaps are located southwest of Moriches Inlet, both of which occurred because of shoal conditions and a large swell that made the area inaccessible. Another shoal-caused gap is located southeast of the inlet. The fourth gap on this sheet is located inside the inlet east of Fire Island National Seashore. 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 strip MBES. The line plan was implemented on October 25th and was confirmed by the COTR via email on October 30th. Please refer to Appendix II of this report for email communications. Certain sections associated with the NALL areas were not fully covered due to the extent of changes in seabed. Please refer to section D.2.1 "Shoreline" for NALL information and shoreline changes. Please refer to section D.1.3 AWOIS" Items" for information on survey coverage gaps.The correspondence is attached.H12602 SSS Mosaic of all Data Acquired Overlaid on Chart 12352SupportFiles\H12602_SSS_Mosaic.JPGH12600 SSS Coverage Depicting percent of coverage: Yellow = 100%, Cyan = 200%SupportFiles\H12602_SSS_Coverage.JPGH12600 MBES Coverage OverlaidSupportFiles\H12602_MBES_Coverage.JPGHEW46077J7080159.57000339.46021.57000000499.03021.57007300013.392013-10-222013-10-252013-10-262013-10-282013-10-292013-10-302013-10-312013-11-052013-11-062013-11-162013-11-192013-11-202013-11-212013-11-302013-12-012013-12-022013-12-032013-12-042013-12-122013-12-31Refer 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.HEW46077J7087.321.2M/V Nooit Volmaakt from the port side. The pole mount on the bow for the Edge Tech SSS can be seen.SupportFiles\NV_2.jpgM/V Nooit Volmaakt from the starboard bow. The pole mount on the bow for the Edge Tech SSS can be seen.SupportFiles\NV_1.jpgThe M/V Nooit Volmaakt 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 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. Additionally, line miles across fouled areas were removed from the calculation. Therefore, the percentage of crosslines to total mainline mileage will appear to be less than what was required, however, the true percentage should be determined as described above. Total cross-line length surveyed for task order OPR-C331-KR-13 sheet H12602 was 21.57 nautical miles or 4.6% of the total main scheme distance (469.42 nautical miles). All crosslines were compared to the main scheme line BASE, 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 near the inlet was so dynamic, being current driven, that it changed significantly from day to day. Three crosslines obtained in the inlet failed to meet the standards set forth by the HSSD. The “outlier” lines only account for 0.1% of the main scheme nautical line mileage, however, the seabed shifting was so significant in the areas surrounding the inlet that with the outlier crosslines included the overall average only passed the 93.93% confidence level. These lines were deemed unacceptable due to seabed shift and not used resulting in a crossline mileage of 4.49% of the main scheme lines. The outlier lines are included in with the data delivered however they were not included in the final surface. Without these outlier lines the vast majority of beams passed within the IHO Order 1a specifications at a 95% confidence level or better with an overall confidence level average of 99.9% and a standard deviation of 0.18%. (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. MBES data overlaid on Chart 12352. The cross-lines that were flagged as outliers and not used due to shifts over time in the seabed are highlighted in Blue.SupportFiles\H12602_Outlier_Xlines.JPGThe crossline calculation method described by the hydrographer was acknowledged and approved by NOAA Operations Branch. See attached correspondence.00.204HEW46077J7081.50.2Refer to the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) for a complete description of the uncertainty values used for processing sheet H12602. According to the confidence interval values reported by JOA Surveys, our tidal uncertainty value at 95% confidence level was 0.399m and includes the estimated gage 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 0.204m. The tidal uncertainty field labeled in CARIS as “measured” was left at zero as the reported error value of 0.399m included the estimated gage measurement error and the tidal datum computation error as well as the tidal zoning error. Any max uncertainty measurements exceeding IHO Order 1a specifications are due to shifting sand bars and seabed morphology and are explained in section B.2.6 (Factors Affecting Soundings).Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.Motion Correction SystemB.2.5.1 POS MV 320 functioned adequately throughout the survey 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 the 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. Shifting Sand Waves / Bars / FeaturesSand features in waters shallower than 10 meters are constantly shifting, as much as 25cm per day in some areas. Areas concentrated around the inlet are subject to the strongest and most rapid tidal currents. As a result these areas experience the most morphological shifting resulting in poor data alignment, especially if overlapping acquisition was separated by 5-10 days. Due to this effect on the data overlapping the timing of acquisition was strongly considered in planning.MBES soundings showing depths for 4 lines, two acquired on JD 302 and two on JD 337. The separation in seabed morphologies can be seen well here as the sand has shifted due to currents and other environmental factors.SupportFiles\H12602_ShiftingBathy_3D_Bathy.JPGImage to be associated with the previous figure. The colors signify days of acquisition. Light green for JD 302 and dark green for JD 337.SupportFiles\H12602_ShiftingBathy_3D_Day.JPGChart 12352 overlain with a green box highlighting the area of shifting seabed shown in the previous two figures.SupportFiles\H12602_ShiftingBathy_Chart.JPG4 hoursA Sea-Bird CTD was used every 2-4 hours depending on variation in the surface sound velocity. 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.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 Bar.MBES2013-10-06Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand Bar.MBES2013-10-15Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand Bar.MBES2013-10-18Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand Bar.MBES2013-11-05Vessel ran sensor aground on Sand Bar.MBES2013-11-11Vessel ran sensor hard aground on Sand Bar.Backscatter was converted to HDCS file and is included with the data submitted to the Branch.R2Sonic backscatter data is not supported by NOAA's current backscatter processing software. Backscatter products were not created during office processing.5.2No software updates were implemented since the DAPR.H12602_West_MB_50cm_MLLW_FinalCUBE0.5020NOAA_0.5mObject DetectionH12602_Central_MB_50cm_MLLW_FinalCUBE0.5020NOAA_0.5mObject DetectionH12602_East_MB_50cm_MLLW_FinalCUBE0.5020NOAA_0.5mObject DetectionH12602_MB_2m_MLLW_FinalCUBE21828.28NOAA_2mComplete MBESH12601_SSS_1m_100%_ASSS Mosaic1022.5N/A100% SSSH12601_SSS_1m_100%_BSSS Mosaic1022.5N/A100% SSSH12602_AWOIS_15112_MB_50cm_MLLW_FinalCUBE0.510.623.61NOAA_0.5mObject DetectionH12602_AWOIS_15111_MB_50cm_MLLW_FinalCUBE0.516.2520.03NOAA_0.5mObject DetectionAs 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 for water depths ranging between 0-20 meters, and gridded at 2 meters in water depths between 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. Separate surfaces were created for the AWOIS areas that extended into water depths greater than 20m, as the required resolution for data at depths greater than 20m (2m resolution) differ from that required for AWOIS coverage (50cm resolution).Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.Mean Lower Low WaterDiscrete ZoningMoriches Coast Guard Station8513388Moriches Inlet Open Coast8513398Z:\CARIS\Tide\8513388.tidFinal ApprovedZ:\CARIS\Tide\8513398.tidFinal ApprovedZ:\CARIS\Tide\JOA-C331KR2013-MORICHES BAY 20140419.zdfFinal2014-03-172014-03-25Two subordinate tide gauges, 8513388 and 8513398 were installed for final use in sheet H12602. An auxiliary pressure gauge was used just offshore of the inlet to aid in finalized zoning procedures. Staff observations were performed for gauge 8513398 once per week for a 2 hour period weather permitting. Refer to Appendix I for tide notes.North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). Date were acquired in WGS84, as shown in the HVF, but were converted to NAD83 for processing and delivery. See DAPR A.3 and B.1UTM 18NMoriches, Broadcast Site ID: 8031235269440000342012-092014-04-182014-04-18Refer to the discussion for chart 12353.Raster chart 12352_11235269540000342012-092014-04-172014-04-17Refer to the discussion for chart 12353.Raster chart 12352_21235370180000192011-112014-04-182014-04-18H12602 survey data was compared to Raster Chart 12352 and 12353. In general chart and survey depths match well. The areas that have shoaled or are constantly shifting are discussed in the section labeled Shoal and Hazardous Features.ENC US4NY53M8000092012-11-302012-11-30falseH12602 survey data was compared to Electronic Chart US4NY53N. Results were very similar to the above comparisons with Raster Chart 12352 and 12353. See discussion for chart 12353 for Chart comparison.ENC US5NY52M40000102012-12-272013-03-12falseH12602 survey data was compared to Electronic Chart US5NY52M. Results were very similar to the above comparisons with Raster Chart 12352 and 12353. See discussion for Chart 12353 for chart comparison.Three AWOIS items were investigated, items 1685, 15111 and 15112. We investigated the three AWOIS items listed above. The search radius for items1685 contained three contacts: two small rocks and the third was an 80m long ship. This wreck associated with AWOIS item 1685 was in very shallow water near the coastline and has retained the shape of its hull as it is sitting flat on the seabed. The housing structures of the vessel have been heavily corroded and worn down. The search radius for both items 15111 and 15112 contained no contacts or features, significant or otherwise. 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. Feature UWTROC 4925 contains less than the required density of soundings. Seas did not always allow many passes over certain locations. 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. SSS imagery showing the central portion of the wreck associated with AWOIS 1685.SupportFiles\H12602_324_001.JPGThe multibeam coverage over UWTROC 4925 was determined to meet requirements for object detection sounding density during office review.The AWOIS Report is attached.No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.One charted feature was investigated that was not assigned as an AWOIS. An offshore fish haven was found to be charted correctly with at least 11 associated significant wrecks.Do not concur, multiple wrecks and obstructions were found outside the charted fish haven. The extents of the fish haven were recommended to be expanded to include these new features. H12602 did not contain a large number of uncharted features. Only 4 significant features were found that were not associated with either an AWOIS radius or a fish haven, two of which were wreckage. These two wrecks were both located near to shore and not far from AWOIS item 1685, one looks to be a barge while the other appears to be a mast of sorts. MBES image showing the mast-like wreckage.SupportFiles\H12602_303_009_3D.PNGSSS Imagery showing significant barge feature.SupportFiles\H12602_299_002.JPG2Danger to Navigation Reports are included in Appendix II of this report. The DTON Report is attached.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 value differences with a high level of accuracy. The only significant shoaling differing from the chart is occurring inshore of the inlet along the eastern channel. The shoal just offshore and surrounding the inlet is significant and can be very perilous during a strong southern sea. Breaking seas can often be seen focused over the offshore east portion of the inlet where the sand bar is the most shoal. The chart accurately reflects this. Overhead image of the Moriches Inlet in sheet H12602. The area circled in green highlights the shoaling area inshore. The area circled in yellow highlights the area of dangerous shoals and breaking seas offshore of the inlet.SupportFiles\H12602_Shoals.JPGThere are no prominent channels in sheet H12602 besides the channel into the inlet. The inlet is as charted. Channel buoys do exist in the inshore area however it should be noted the Moriches Coast Guard Station monitor and move them to adapt with the shifting sand bars just inshore of the inlet. No channel markers are charted. Seven bottom samples were acquired for this survey. A limited shoreline investigation was completed as per the project instructions. The majority of the shoreline associated with the survey sheet remained as charted. A small portion of shoreline was assigned to investigate. This was the northern coast of the barrier island just to the east of the inshore side of the inlet. The shore line had been eroded shore-ward roughly 35 meters at the most extreme point. More information concerning the verified shoreline can be found in the Final Feature File. Sheet H12602 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 became 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 area located near Moriches Inlet contained several new sand bars and shoal areas. The largest of unsatisfied NALL areas are located south of the inlet and run parallel to the shoreline. Another NALL area not surveyed is located northeast of the inlet. No prior survey comparisons exist for this survey.All ATONS were found in place and serving their intended purpose.Overhead features do not exist for this survey.Sheet H12602 contained one feature that appeared to be a submerged exposed pipe or cable. This feature was found near the western inshore edge of the inlet and is not associated with a charted cable area. Details for this feature can be found in the H12602 Final Feature File.MBES Image showing the exposed portion of the long linear feature that was classified as a submerged pipe/cable.SupportFiles\H12602_298_001_3D.JPGNo ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.No platforms exist for this survey.Features that we identified as significant and not pre-existing were investigated and the LEAST depth sounding was used as the designated sounding. Additionally, see previous sections D.1.4 "Charted Features" and D.1.5 "Uncharted Features."There is no present or planned construction or dredging within the survey limits. 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 IIICheif of Party2014-11-20Curtis ClementProject Manager2014-11-20