OPR-P136-RA-14North Coast of Kodiak Island, AKNorth Coast of Kodiak IslandNOAA Ship RAINIERH126903Kupreanof StraitAlaskaUnited States400002014Edward J. Van Den Ameele CDR/NOAANavigable Area2014-04-022014-05-132014-10-16Multibeam Echo SounderMultibeam Echo Sounder BackscattermetersUniversal 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/.NOAAThe project area is referred to as Sheet 3: "Kupreanof Strait". This survey corresponds to Sheet "3" within the Project Instructions. The area is directly north of Kupreanof Peninsula, AK (Figure 1,).58.0653333333153.31657.9338416667153.037019444H12690 survey limits on Chart 16594SupportFiles\Area Surveyed fig.jpgSurvey data were acquired within the limits prescribed in the Project Instructions and the Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD) with the exception of Onion Bay and the adjacent near shore area of Ustia Pt. due to time constraints (Figure 2). H12690 Deviations from Survey Limit RequirementsSupportFiles\Section a1 survey limits.jpgThe purpose of this project is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products, which will support Kodiak's large fishing fleet and increasing levels of passenger vessel traffic. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.Data acquired on survey H12690 met complete multibeam coverage requirements outlined in section 5.2.2.2 of the HSSD, including data density requirements. In order to extract statistics of the data density achieved, the density layer of each finalized surface was queried within Caris then examined in Excel. Overall, the required data density was achieved in 99.95% of nodes.Complete multibeam echosounder (MBES) coverage was achieved within or exceeded the limits of hydrography as specified in the Project Instructions, (Figure 3) with the following minor exceptions: Acoustic shadowing artifacts are present in several areas of the surveyed area (Figures 4 & 5). Holidays were examined to ensure that least depths were obtained over navigationally significant features.H12690 MBES coverage overlaid on Chart 16594.SupportFiles\survey area with scale and legend.jpgH12690 Acoustic Shadowing.SupportFiles\overall acoustic shadow.jpgSubset image example of acoustic shadowingSupportFiles\acoustic shadow 1.jpg2801080.20000004.9802802082.480000013.26028030133.48000000.9402804060.250000000S221097.73000008.7900453.1310000027.96806.17161000024.222014-05-132014-06-152014-06-172014-06-302014-07-012014-08-312014-09-012014-09-022014-09-032014-09-042014-10-132014-10-142014-10-152014-10-16The hydrographer collected 27 direct position (DP) features during survey operations, not zero.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.28018.81.128028.81.128038.81.128048.81.1S22170.414.719055.70.319065.80.3The draft for S221 in Table should not read 14.7 meters. The draft for S221 is 4.7 meters.ApplanixPOS MV v4Positioning and Attitude SystemKongsbergEM710MBESResonSeaBat 7125-BMBESResonSeaBat 7125 SV2MBESResonSVP70Sound Speed SystemResonSVP71Sound Speed SystemSea-Bird ElectronicsSBE 19plus SEACAT ProfilerConductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorOdim Brooke Ocean (Rolls Royce Group)Moving Vessel Profiler 200Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorTable 5 should also include Sea-Bird Electronics Model SBE 19, Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth Sensor, used in operations during survey H12690. Multibeam crosslines were acquired using the Reson 7125 on Launch 2801 (RA-4), 2802 (RA-5), and the EM710 on S221. A 4m CUBE surface was created using only mainscheme lines, a second 4m CUBE surface was created using only crosslines, and a difference surface was generated in Caris at a 4m resolution. This difference surface was compared to the allowable uncertainty values within the HSSD for the observed depths, and statistics were calculated in Excel. In total, 99.7% of the depth differences between H12690 mainscheme and crossline data are within the requirements of the HSSD (Figure 6).Depth-colored MBES overlay of acquired H12690 crossline data.SupportFiles\H12690 crosslines surface.jpgFigure 6 does not provide any information supporting the claim that 99.7% of depth differences between MS and crossline depths are within total uncertainty budgets. However, a review of a subset of the data indicated that this figure may be accurate.00.22S2211.052801, 2802, 2803, 28043.00.15Uncertainty values were measured and applied in accordance with Section B.4 of the DAPR. Uncertainty values of submitted finalized grids were calculated in Caris using the “Greater of the Two” of uncertainty and standard deviation (scaled to 95%). To visualize where uncertainty requirements were met, for each surface a custom “HSSD Compliance” layer was created, based on the difference between the calculated uncertainty of the nodes and the allowable uncertainty defined in the HSSD. To quantify the extent to which requirements were met, the HSSD Compliance layers were queried within Caris and examined in Excel. Overall, 99.3% of the nodes of survey H12690 met the uncertainty requirements specified in the HSSD. These HSSD Compliance layers were retained in the submitted surfaces.A compliance analysis for gridded depth uncertainty was run during review, with results that disagree with the stated compliance rate of 99.3% of nodes. Each finalized surface was reviewed separately for compliance rates, with the minimum compliance rate found to be 99.8%. One junction comparison was completed for H12690 (Figure 7). Survey H12689 was acquired concurrently with this survey. Depth comparisons were performed using the Caris Difference Surface and Caris Subset Editor.H12690/H12689 junction.SupportFiles\H12690 Junctions.jpgH12689789002014NOAA Ship RAINIEREOverlap with survey H12689 was approximately 300 to 600 meters wide, covering an area of 0.59 square nautical miles along the eastern boundary of H12690 (Figure 7). Depths in the junction area range from approximately 4 to 110 meters. For the respective depths, the difference surface was compared to the allowable TVU standards specified in the HSSD. In total, 99.031% of the depth differences between H12690 and junction survey H12689 are within allowable uncertainties.The scale for survey number H12689 is 1:15,000, and not 1:78,900 as stated in Table 8.Figure 7 does not provide any information supporting the claim that 99.7% of depth differences between MS and crossline depths are within total uncertainty budgets. However, a review of a subset of the data indicated that this figure may be accurate.Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.2802 (RA5) Along-Track Horizontal OffsetA depth scaled, along-track horizontal artifact is present in data acquired by launch 2802 (RA5) using both 200kHz and 400kHz. The maximum offset detected in spot checks was 3.01 meters northwest of Dry Spruce Island (Figure 8). No instances were found where artifact results exceeded HSSD horizontal requirements. The survey is adequate to supersede previous data. Based on data examination this artifact developed on this vessel mid-way through the 2014 field season and the cause is currently being evaluated. At present the affects of the artifact may be remedied by changing the pitch value in the Caris HIPS Vessel File (HVF) from -2.86 degrees to 0.0 degrees.2802 (RA5) Along-Track Horizontal Offset.SupportFiles\Horizontal offset.pngVertical OffsetsA relatively dramatic vertical offset of approximately 0.42 - 1.2 meters was observed in the area northeast of Outlet Cape between lines 2802_2014RA2880103 and 0041_20140903_232616_Rainier, DN 287 and 246, respectively (Figure 9). Investigation of the issue with regard to tides yielded an approximate 54% reduction in the vertical offset with the application of GPS tides . The issue is also addressed in Section C.3.3.2.H12690 Vertical Offset AnomalySupportFiles\offset total.jpgLaunch 2802 (RA-5) pitch value in the Caris HVF is -2.603, and not -2.86 as stated. It should further be noted that altering the HVF creates disagreement between 2802 (RA-5) data and data acquired by other platforms on other days. For this reason the patch derived pitch value of -2.603 was retained and used in the HVF when processing this data.All launch sound speed profiles were acquired using the SBE19 and SBE 19Plus SEACAT CTD probes at discrete locations within the survey area at least once every four hours, when significant changes in surface sound speed were observed, or when surveying a new area. A sheet-wide concatenated sound speed file was created and applied to survey lines using the "Nearest in distance within time (4 hours)" profile selection method.All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.Delayed Heave could not be applied to thirteen (13) lines acquired by S-221 DN245 because no POS data were acquired during acquisition: 0000_20140902_172814_Rainier, 0004_20140902_185117_Rainier, 0002_20140902_180020_Rainier, 0006_20140902_192814_Rainier, 0006_20140902_192814_Rainier, 0008_20140902_201327_Rainier, 0003_20140902_182117_Rainier, 0005_20140902_185814_Rainier, 0001_20140902_173019_Rainier, 0010_20140902_205328_Rainier, 0011_20140902_210938_Rainier, 0009_20140902_202328_Rainier, and 0012_20140902_212419. The affected data was examined in Caris Subset Editor. No artifacts are present among overlapping lines. The survey data meet the requirements set forth in the HSSD.It should be clarified that the IMU was running, and positional data was being acquired in real-time but that no files were recorded/logged in this duration, making it not possible to post-process delayed heave and SBETs.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR.Backscatter was not collected for this survey.Backscatter data was acquired, but not formally processed by Rainier personnel. Two backscatter lines per boat, per day were reviewed to ensure quality. Backscatter was logged as .7k and .ALL files and submitted to NGDC, but is not included with the data submitted to the Branch.sjwBackscatter data was collected during this survey, but not processed by the field unit. The data was submitted to NCEI.NOAA Profile V_5_2H12690_MB_1m_MLLWCUBE10140NOAA_1mComplete MBESH12690_MB_2m_MLLWCUBE20140NOAA_2mComplete MBESH12690_MB_4m_MLLWCUBE40140NOAA_4mComplete MBESH12690_MB_8m_MLLWCUBE80140NOAA_8mComplete MBESH12690_MB_1m_MLLW_FinalCUBE1020NOAA_1mComplete MBESH12690_MB_2m_MLLW_FinalCUBE21840NOAA_2mComplete MBESH12690_MB_4m_MLLW_FinalCUBE43680NOAA_8mComplete MBESH12690_MB_8m_MLLW_FinalCUBE872160NOAA_8mComplete MBESAdditional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.Mean Lower Low WaterDiscrete ZoningKodiak Island9457290Seldovia9455500West Raspberry Island9457535SW Terror Bay94574939457493.tidFinal Approved9457535.tidFinal ApprovedH12690CORF.zdfFinal2014-10-162015-01-09A corrected tide was note received on 5/14/2015 after CO-OPS detected a stability issue with 9457535. Correspondence can be found in the Project Correspondence directory, in a document named Re_ Final Tide Note for OPR-P136-RA-2014, H12690.pdf. North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)Smart BaseKOD5KODIAK 5KOD6KODIAK 6AC34OldHarbor_AK2006AC39ShuyaklsAPAK2006AC26Cape_Gull_AK2008AC38Quartz_CrkAK2005AC08CapDouglasAK2007AC67PILLARMTN AK2006Kodiak 313kHzKenai 310kHzLines without SBETsSmooth Best Estimate Trajectories (SBETs) could not be applied to lines: 0000_20140902_172814_Rainier, 0004_20140902_185117_Rainier, 0002_20140902_180020_Rainier, 0006_20140902_192814_Rainier, 0006_20140902_194327_Rainier, 0008_20140902_201327_Rainier, 0003_20140902_182117_Rainier, 0005_20140902_185814_Rainier, 0001_20140902_173019_Rainier, 0010_20140902_205328_Rainier, 0011_20140902_210938_Rainier, 0009_20140902_202328_Rainier and 0012_20140902_212419 acquired by Ship S-221 on DN245 due to the absence of POS data (Figure 10). As a result, all data from the ship acquired for those lines could not have SBETS applied. The survey data meets requirements set forth in the HSSD.H12690 DN245 S221 Lines that do not have Delayed Heave or SBETs appliedSupportFiles\non delayed heave illustration.jpgVertical OffsetSurface artifacts were discovered throughout the survey area, and occurred primarily from vertical offsets where tide data from two separate stations were applied (i.e. DN245 & DN286) (Figures 11 & 12). The affected multibeam data was referenced to the ellipsoid by applying GPS tides in Caris. Once referenced to the ellipsoid, the vertical offset between overlapping lines was reduced (Figures 13& 14). The area referenced in the aforementioned figures represents one of the most dramatic vertical offset discovered in the data from H12690, and was reduced from 1.25m to 0.71m, or 54% after the application of GPS tides. Additional vertical offsets were observed in some areas where data were acquired by different vessels on different days, and in some cases the application of GPS tides data does not eliminate the issue. The source of the offsets is still unknown, but affected MBES data falls within NOAA HSSD standards.Section of H12690 4m surface showing artifacts caused by vertical offset (57-59-23.7N, 153-12-25.9W)SupportFiles\non_ERS vs ERS.jpgFinal tides applied, subset view.SupportFiles\ERS final Tides Subset 17FEB2015.jpgSection of H12690 4m surface showing reduced artifacts after the application of GPS tides.SupportFiles\ERS vs NON ERS.jpgGPS tides applied, subset view.SupportFiles\ERS GPS Tides Subset 17FEB2015.jpgChart comparisons were performed using a Caris sounding layer based on the 1m surface from H12690 and a contour layer based on the 4m surface, which is the most representative of the majority of depths within the sheet limits. The contours and soundings were overlaid on the charts and compared for general agreement and to identify areas of significant change.16594255378900131998-042014-12-162014-11-29The comparison of soundings and contours from Chart 16594 and H12690 showed general agreement within two (2) fathoms, except for the following: Thirty six (36) soundings throughout the survey do not agree within two (2) fathoms, tending to be shoaler than currently charted. Those soundings are shown in green in Figure 15. Contours generated in Caris and overlaid on Chart 16594 revealed several navigationally significant areas where the 10fa contour could stand to be extended (Figures 16 & 17). Chart 16954 soundings with discrepancies greater than 2 fathoms when compared to survey H12690 data.SupportFiles\suonding discrepancies.jpgSouthwest portion of the survey where the 10fa contour can be extended to encompass previously uncharted shoal.SupportFiles\sw contour 10fa.jpgNorthwest portion of the survey where the 10fa contour can be extended to encompass previously uncharted shoal.SupportFiles\nw contour 10fa.jpgUS4AK5PM7980042014-07-082014-12-16falseENC US4K5PM coincides with raster 16594. The depths and contours on the ENC match the raster, and the comparison between survey H12690 and the ENC is equivalent to the preceding comparison with Chart 16594. US4AK5QM7890042015-02-032014-09-08falseENC US4AK5QM coincides with rasters 16594 & 16597 with the exception that of the northeast corner where soundings for the entire portion of the ENC that is within H12690 are excluded (Figure 18). It is recommended that NOS update ENC US4AK5QM to include soundings in this area. Inclusion of these soundings would improve safety and usability for the mariner, particularly if navigating primarily using ENCs. No portion of ENC US4K5QM contains sounding data within the sheet limits of H12690.SupportFiles\ENC Discrepancy pic.jpgNo Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.No charted features exist for this survey.No uncharted features exist for this survey.H12690 Danger to Navigation Report2015-02-04Danger to Navigation Reports are included in Appendix II of this report.DTON report is attached to this report.All shoal and hazardous features were investigated in accordance with the Project Instruction and the HSSD, and are addressed in the Final Feature File submitted with this report.No channels exist for this survey. There are no designated anchorages, precautionary areas, safety fairways, traffic separation schemes, pilot boarding areas, or channel and range lines within the survey limits.There is a pilot boarding area within the survey limits, though no pilotage activity was noted within the survey duration.Seven (7) proposed bottom sample locations were identified in the Project Reference File and nine (9) were collected, including three (3) additional samples in order to obtain representative bottom type throughout the surveyed area (see Appendix V: Supplemental Correspondence) . All samples were collected at the proposed sites. One (1) unassigned sample was not collected after three failed attempts at 57-58-17.9123N, 153-10-19.2967W. One (1) assigned sample was not collected due to time restraints at 58-04-02.53N, 153-15-26.41W. All bottom sample locations that were not sampled are marked as 'no sample' in the Final Feature File.Shoreline verification was conducted near predicted low water in accordance with the applicable sections of the NOAA HSSDM and FPM. There were 76 assigned features for this survey. 75 assigned features were addressed as required with S-57 attribution and recorded in the H12690 Final Features File to best represent the features at chart scale. The single outstanding feature was not addressed during shoreline due to time constraints. It is recommended to retain the feature as charted. During shoreline verification, it was necessary to maneuver around fishing nets in some areas, which did not allow for seamless nearest-to-shore verification of said areas.No prior survey comparisons exist for this survey.Aids to navigation (ATON) were present in the survey area, but were not assigned for investigation. All three ATON observed in the field appeared correctly charted and serve their intended purpose.No overhead features exist for this survey.No submarine features exist for this survey.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.No platforms exist for this survey.No significant features exist for this survey.No present or planned construction or dredging exist 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, 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.Edward J. Van Den Ameele, CDR/NOAACommanding Officer, NOAA Ship RAINIER2015-03-12Adam Pfundt, LTJG/NOAAField Operations Officer, NOAA Ship RAINIER2015-03-12James B. JacobsonChief Survey Technician, NOAA Ship RAINIER2015-03-12Steven J. Wall, ENS/NOAAJunior Officer, NOAA Ship RAINIER2015-03-12