OPR-C308-KR-13
New Jersey Coast and Vicinity, NJ
New Jersey Coast and Vicinity, NJ
David Evans & Associates, Inc.
H12687
5
Hereford Inlet
New Jersey
United States
20000
2014
Jonathan L. Dasler, PE, PLS, CH
Basic Hydrographic Survey
2014-03-12
2014-03-27
2014-05-08
ODOM CV-100 and RESON 8101
EdgeTech 4200-HF
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 Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey. Survey H12687 was conducted in accordance with the Statement of Work (June 20, 2013) and Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions, Change 1 (March 12, 2014).
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.
39.095151
74.801857
38.984542
74.699864
1
OPR-C308-KR-13 Assigned Survey Areas
SupportFiles/H12687_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
H12687 Survey Outline
SupportFiles/H12687_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 H12687, this polygon encompassed Hereford Inlet and its approaches. 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 set line spacing for each 100% coverage (50-meter side scan sonar range) with additional lines added 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 5.3 square nautical miles using a combination of side scan, single beam and multibeam survey methods. The M_COVR area included in the H12687 Final Feature File (FFF) has been revised since it was submitted in the final survey outline.
2014-03-27
2014-03-29
2014-04-01
2014-04-02
2014-04-03
2014-04-05
2014-04-06
2014-04-07
2014-04-09
2014-04-10
2014-04-12
2014-04-19
2014-04-22
2014-04-24
2014-04-25
2014-05-06
2014-05-07
2014-05-08
13
1
0
0
0
5.3
R/V Chinook
0
0
0
0
0
261.4
0
30.2
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
261.4
0.0
30.2
0.0
11.6
The OPR-C308-KR-13 Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) submitted under a separate cover, 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/RV Chinook.png
ODOM
CV 100
SBES
RESON
8101
MBES
Edgetech
4200-HF
SSS
AML
SV Plus V2
Primary Sound Speed Profiler
Sea-Bird
SEACAT SBE-19 CTD Profiler
Secondary Sound Speed Profiler
AML
SV Plus V2
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 2,800 node comparisons with an average difference of -0.01 meters and standard deviation of 0.146 meters. Maximum deviations appear in areas adjacent to steep slopes where resolving depth differences using a 4-meter CUBE surface can be problematic.
0
0.133
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 0.295 meters to 0.743 meters with a standard deviation of 0.014 meters.
The uncertainty values of all nodes in the finalized 1 meter Complete Coverage multibeam surface range from 0.286 meters to 1.485 meters with a standard deviation of 0.033 meters.
The uncertainty values of all nodes in the finalized 50-centimeter Object Detection multibeam surfaces range from 0.287 meters to 2.073 meters with a standard deviation of 0.051 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 56% to 145%. The mean allowable uncertainty for the surface is 59% with a standard deviation of 0.026. In total 246 nodes out of 187,955 fail to meet specification.
For the 1 meter Complete Coverage multibeam surface the allowable uncertainty utilized ranges from 54% to 279%. The mean allowable uncertainty for the surface is 57% with a standard deviation of 0.063. In total 996 nodes out of 163,993 fail to meet specification.
For the 50-centimeter Object Detection multibeam surface the allowable uncertainty utilized ranges from 55% to 408%. The mean allowable uncertainty for the surface is 57% with a standard deviation of 0.099. In total 1,137 nodes out of 200,598 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 with steep or vertical side slopes. 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.
Survey H12687 junctions with H12599 from project OPR-C308-KR-13 also performed by DEA.
The 4-meter finalized H12687 surface was compared to the junction survey by generating a difference surface with CARIS Bathy DataBASE.
H12599
40000
2014
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
N
In total, 480 overlapping nodes were compared with differences ranging from -0.232 meters (H12687 shoaler than H12599) to 0.135 meters (H12687 deeper than H12599). The mean difference was 0.00 meters with a standard deviation of 0.061 meters.
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 99% of all the CUBE surface nodes of the 1 meter Complete Coverage multibeam surface contained five or more soundings. Three of the seven individual investigation surfaces, which use Object Detection requirements failed to meet the sounding density requirement. The investigation surfaces which failed to meet density requirements did so because the surface footprints extended beyond the location of investigated features where variables such as swath width and depth impacted the 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 H12687 are detailed in the DAPR. The multibeam and single beam summary processing logs are included Separate I Acquisition and Processing Logs of this report.
The H12687 survey was still active at time of DAPR submission. Additional routine calibration tests not reported in the DAPR were performed on March 11, 2014 (DN070), March 14, 2014 (DN073), March 24, 2014 (DN083), April 2, 2014 (DN092), April 19, 2014 (109), May 7, 2014 (127) and May 08, 2014 (DN128). A revision to DAPR Appendix II, which includes these additional calibration tests and results from new weekly bar checks, was submitted with the H12597 survey deliverables. A copy of this revision has also been included with the H12687 deliverables.
MBES
2014-03-11
Routine calibration test
MBES
2014-03-14
Routine calibration test
MBES
2014-03-24
Routine calibration test
MBES
2014-04-02
Routine calibration test
MBES
2014-04-19
Routine calibration test
MBES
2014-05-07
Routine calibration test
MBES
2014-05-08
Project close out test
Multibeam backscatter was logged during side scan contact investigations in Hypack 81X format and is included with the H12687 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
H12687_SB_4m_MLLW
CUBE
4.0
0.13
16.96
NOAA_4m
Set Line Spacing Coverage
H12687_SB_4m_MLLW_Final
CUBE
4.0
0.13
16.96
NOAA_4m
Set Line Spacing Coverage
H12687_MB_1m_MLLW
CUBE
1.0
2.24
17.48
NOAA_1m
Complete Multibeam Coverage
H12687_MB_1m_MLLW_Final
CUBE
1.0
2.24
17.48
NOAA_1m
Complete Multibeam Coverage
H12687_MB_50cm_MLLW_combined
CUBE
0.5
4.38
12.49
NOAA_0.5m
Object Detection Coverage
H12687_MB_50cm_MLLW_combined_Final
CUBE
0.5
4.14
12.49
NOAA_0.5m
Object Detection Coverage
H12687_100Percent
Mosaic
1.0
N/A
First 100-percent coverage
H12687_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 H12687 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_rev2.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 H12687 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 Single Beam Echo Sounder (SBES) CUBE surfaces. The chart comparison was conducted by creating and reviewing the resultant difference surface. The chart comparison also included a review of all assigned charted features within the survey area.
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 H12687 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.
12316
674
40000
35
2012-10
2014-05-20
2014-05-31
Small Craft Route Chart 12316 was compared to US5NJ24M within the H12687 survey area. No differences between the RNC and ENC were observed. Charted differences determined by comparing surveyed depths to a digital surface of US5NJ24M are discussed in Section D.1.2.
12318
680
80000
45
2010-04
2014-05-20
2014-05-31
Coastal Chart 12318 was compared to US4NJ22M and US4DE11M within the H12687 survey area. No differences between the RNC and ENC were observed. Charted differences determined by comparing surveyed depths to a digital surface of US4NJ22M and US4DE11M are discussed in Section D.1.2.
US5NJ24M
40000
11
2013-12-27
2014-04-25
false
In general, depths are between 2 feet shoaler to 5 feet deeper than charted, though considerable change has occurred within the survey area since it was last surveyed. The maximum deviation of 24 feet deeper occurred at the entrance to Hereford Islet, noted on the chart as a Changeable Area.
4
Depth Difference between H12687 and charts US5NJ24M
SupportFiles/H12687_ChartComp_US5.png
US4NJ22M
80000
14
2013-01-10
2014-04-03
false
In general, depths are between 2 feet shoaler to 5 feet deeper than charted. Shoaling of up to 5 feet is apparent when comparing the H12687 surveyed depths to US4NJ22M in the vicinity of Seven Mile Beach.
US4DE11M
80000
27
2013-01-10
2014-05-28
false
Chart comparison with US4DE11M shows similar results to the comparison with US5NJ24M.
5
Depth Difference between H12687 and chart US4NJ22M and US4DE11M
SupportFiles/H12687_ChartComp_US4.png
One (1) AWOIS items was assigned for investigation within the survey H12687 area.
11192
AWOIS item #11192 was reported in Local Notice to Mariners 2/58. This feature is currently charted as an obstruction, reported (1957), Existence Doubtful (ED). More than half of the search area is inshore of the surveyed 4-meter limit and beyond the limit of safe navigation. The obstruction representing this feature as depicted in the CSF is included in the FFF with the description of ‘Retain.’
No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.
The charted Obstruction Reported (rep) feature is AWOIS Items 11192, which have been discussed in Section 1.3.
A Wreck Position Approximate (PA), charted only on RNC 12316 (at the entrance to Hereford Inlet) has been disproved by this survey . The wreck feature was not included in the CSF but has been included in the FFF with a description of ‘Delete’.
The survey area does not contain any charted features labeled as Position Doubtful (PD). Charted features assigned in the CSF are portrayed in the H12687 FFF as surveyed and denoted with the Assignment Flag of ‘Assigned’.
All uncharted features are portrayed in the FFF as surveyed and attributed with the description of ‘New’.
0
No Dangers to Navigation (DtoNs) were reported for this survey.
Soundings and contours are not charted within the majority of Hereford Inlet and over the charted shoal at its entrance. The charts include a note identifying this as a changeable area. It is recommended to use the H12687 survey data to update the charts in this area. Breakers were noted in the vicinity of this shoal during survey operations.
The H12687 survey area encompasses Hereford Inlet. As noted on the charts, buoys are not charted within the inlets because they are frequently relocated or removed when shoaling prohibits navigation within the inlet.
Thirteen (13) bottom samples were acquired on April 22 and April 24, 2014 (DN 112 and 114). 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. There were no assigned shoreline features included in the CSF for H12687.
In some instances baring features shoreward of the inshore limit were captured in the side scan data. HSD and Atlantic Hydrographic Branch (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”. This includes the ends of several charted, groins and a ruined pier, which extend into the survey area. Side scan contacts depicting the submerged end point at the base of these features are included in the Side Scan Sonar Contact File.
No comparisons with prior surveys were conducted.
Notes on the charts covering the area indicate that additional aids to navigation located within inlets are frequently moved and therefore not included on the charts. All public aids to navigation were found to be serving their intended purpose.
Two uncharted private “No Wake” buoys located within Hereford Inlet have been included in the FFF with the description of ‘New’.
H12687 contains two overhead bridges in Hereford Inlet. There are no cables or other structures which would impact overhead clearance in the survey area.
The termini of numerous charted groins extend into the H12687 survey area. It is recommended that all charted jetties and groins be retained as charted.
There were no ferry routes or terminals within the survey area.
No platforms were charted or located within the H12687 survey area.
A water turbulence feature denoting the location of breakers observed during survey operations has been included in the FFF.
Sediment migration is apparent when comparing data acquired over multiple days in the vicinity of Hereford Inlet. As noted on the charts, areas adjacent to inlets such are subject to frequent change.
No construction or dredging 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
2014-09-03
Jason Creech, CH
NSPS/THSOA Certified Hydrographer, Lead Hydrographer
2014-09-03
Data Acquisition and Processing Report
2014-03-21
Horizontal and Vertical Control Report
2014-09-03