All vertical and horizontal control activities conducted during the course of this survey are fully addressed in the following sections. Therefore, no separate HVCR is submitted.Mean Lower Low WaterOPR-A321-FH-15_VDatum_NAD83Elip_MLLW_EXTENSION.csarVDatumAs required by the Project Instructions, the hydrographer evaluated VDatum for the survey area prior to H12726 final processing. Based on this evaluation, the hydrographer recommended VDatum for final datum reduction. The Chief, Hydrographic Surveys Division, concurred with this recommendation. See Appendix II for the VDatum evaluation report and correspondence associated with the decision. All soundings submitted as H12726 are reduced to MLLW using documented VDatum techniques. If it is deemed necessary to change the water level reduction method to discrete zoning the following additional information will be useful. 1) The National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) station serving as datum control for this survey is Portland (848150). 2) The submitted water level file (8418150.tid) is the final approved water levels for the period of hydrography. This file has been loaded to all CARIS lines submitted as H12726. 3) The submitted tide corrector (A321FH2015CORP.zdf) is the preliminary zoning file that was accepted as final per final tide note, submitted in Appendix I of this report. The file has been loaded to all CARIS lines submitted as H12726. 4) A request for final approved tides was sent to N/OPS1 on 02/26/2015. The final tide note was received on 03/12/2015 stating that preliminary zoning is accepted as the final zoning for survey project OPR-A321-FH-2015, Registry No. H12726, during the time period between January 7 - February 5, 2015.UTM Zone 19NBrunswick NAS, ME (316 kHz)DGPS was used as a backup for real-time positioning during acquisition. DGPS positions were utilized when either the MarineStar PPP or MTS RTK systems were down. All lines submitted are corrected using post-processed solutions.Smart BaseAll stations listed under the user installed table were obtained from a private network run and maintained by Maine Technical Source (MTS). Positions for these stations were added to the POSPac database using the average obtained from one week of observations (seven 24-hour files) submitted to the National Geodetic Surveys (NGS) Online Positioning User Service (OPUS).BARTLETT, Bartlett, NHBARNBRUNSWICK 7, Brunswick, MEBRU7SALISBURY, Salisbury, MAMASATRURO, Truro, MAMATUGORHAM, Gorham, MEMEGOAUGUSTA, Augusta, MEMEOWSOUTH PARIS, South Paris, MEMESPNHDOT CONCORD, Concord, NHNHCOU NEW HAMPSHIRE, Durham, NHNHUNPENOBSCOT 5, Penobscot, MEPNB5MTS S. BERWICK, South Berwick, MEBMTSMTS HANOVER, Hanover, MAHMTSMTS KENNEBUNK, Kennebunk, MEKENNMTS YARMOUTH, Yarmouth, MEYMTSNorth American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)Real-time Kinematic correctors were obtained during acquisition and fed to the POS M/V via a computer connected to the internet and running NTRIP client software for all data collected post DN019. The RTK network utilized was a private subscription network run by MTS. When in use, real-time accuracies far exceed the requirements stated in the HSSD.Real-time PPP correctors were obtained during acquisition via the POS M/V V5 for all data collected prior to DN019. The Satellite based PPP service utilized was a private subscription service run by MarineStar. When in use, real-time accuracies exceed the standard operating procedure relying solely on the use of DGPS and the requirements stated in the HSSD. A few small holidays exist in the coverage for this survey. Analyses of surrounding data show that the least depths over features have been achieved and holidays do not compromise data integrity. Additional discussion can be found in section B.2.9.The purpose of project is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. The survey area receives significant traffic from commercial and recreational fishing vessels.000078.871619.154.87000000078.871619.15000S250Due to equipment issues, the starboard Reson 7125 MBES was not utilized for the entirety of H12726. All data surveyed in H12726 was collected exclusively by the port 7125 MBES .2015-01-062015-01-072015-01-082015-01-092015-01-102015-01-112015-01-122015-01-132015-01-142015-01-152015-01-162015-01-232015-01-242015-01-252015-01-292015-02-05078.10000The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.Survey layout for OPR-A321-FH-15, plotted over RNC 13286SupportFiles\H12726_Project_Limits.JPGGeneral locality of survey H12726SupportFiles\H12726_General_locality.JPGSurvey H12726 was conducted in the Gulf of Maine, with a sublocality of Taylor Reef to Woody Island as shown in Figure 1.70.056897222243.398936111170.380097222243.5655583333Complete multibeam coverage is not achieved to the assigned sheet limits due to the lack of an appropriate near shore vessel. Additional work still needs to be completed at a future date utilizing a vessel that is capable of collecting data near shore. FERDINAND R. HASSLER personnel decided unsafe survey conditions exist inshore of the 30-foot contour.metersMultibeam Echo SounderMultibeam Echo Sounder BackscatterUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)2014-12-19CDR Marc S. Moser, NOAA2015-01-062015-02-05Navigable Area2015UTCAtlantic Hydrographic BranchNOAAUnited StatesTaylor Reef to Woody Island400001 MaineH12726OPR-A321-FH-15Gulf of MaineGulf of MaineNOAA Ship FERDINAND R. HASSLER2015-09-25Chief of PartyCDR Marc S. Moser, NOAA2015-09-25Field Operations OfficerLT Jon D. Andvick, NOAAOPR-A321-FH-15 Data Acquisition and Processing Report2015-09-252014 Hydrographic Systems Readiness Review Memo2014-05-06All 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.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.No uncharted features exist for this survey.1The Danger to Navigation Report is included in Appendix II of this report.2015-02-10H12726_DToNs Shoals exist within the survey area, but the depths considered safe for survey did not allow bathymetric measures on these areas. Soundings leading up to any hazardous shoals appear in good general agreement with charted shoals and the hydrographer did not observe any great discrepancies which require changes to navigational charts.No AWOIS items were assigned for this survey.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.Bottom samples were not obtained during acquisition due to safety concerns related to below freezing temperatures and deploying/recovering equipment over the side when decks were covered in ice.Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey, but were not addressed due to the lack of a good time on project where tides and weather were agreeable.Contour comparisonSupportFiles\US5ME02M_Contour_Comparison.JPG7US5ME02M200002013-09-18false2015-03-10Good general agreement, though the complexity of the bathymetry is high, creating many contours which have been generalized for charting purposes. Sounding depths generally disagree with charted soundings by two to four feet across all depth ranges.Contour ComparisonSupportFiles\US5ME10M_Contour_Comparison.JPG21US5ME10M200002013-03-07false2015-02-17Good general agreement, though the complexity of the bathymetry is high, creating many contours which have been generalized for charting purposes. Sounding depths generally disagree with charted soundings by two to four feet across all depth ranges.Contour ComparisonSupportFiles\US5ME12M_Contour_Comparison.JPG15US5ME12M400002013-03-11false2014-07-09Good general agreement, though the complexity of the bathymetry is high, creating many contours which have been generalized for charting purposes. Sounding depths generally disagree with charted soundings by two to four feet across all depth ranges.Contour comparisonSupportFiles\US4ME01M_Contour_Comparison.JPG11US4ME01M800002014-04-28false2015-03-09Good general agreement, though the complexity of the bathymetry is high, creating many contours which have been generalized for charting purposes. Sounding depths generally disagree with charted soundings by two to four feet across all depth ranges.Contour comparisonSupportFiles\US4ME03M_Contour_Comparison.JPG12US4ME03M800002013-03-11false2015-02-18Good general agreement, though the complexity of the bathymetry is high, creating many contours which have been generalized for charting purposes. Sounding depths generally disagree with charted soundings by two to four feet across all depth ranges.Contour comparisonSupportFiles\13286_Contour_Comparison.JPG322015-05-022015-05-0220552013-128000013286Surveyed depths have good overall agreement with charted contours, individual soundings may disagree at any given place.Contour and sounding comparison reveals differences.SupportFiles\13287_Contour comparison.JPG132015-05-022015-05-0220542013-062000013287The scale of this chart is large enough that the contours and soundings begin to disagree greatly in location and area, though not necessarily greatly in depth. The complexity of seabed depths in this area drive contour complexityContour comparison.SupportFiles\13288_Contour comparison.JPG432015-05-022015-05-0220532010-078000013288Surveyed depths have good overall agreement with charted contours, individual soundings may disagree at any given place.Contour comparison.SupportFiles\13290_Contour comparison.JPG392015-05-022015-05-0220522010-074000013290Surveyed depths have good overall agreement with charted contours, individual soundings may disagree at any given place.Contour comparisonSupportFiles\13292_Contour comparison.JPG412015-05-022015-05-0220512014-072000013292Surveyed depths have good overall agreement with charted contours, individual soundings may disagree at any given place.The hydrographer has compared a sounding plot and derived depth contours from the surveyed area to the charted soundings and contours. In general, there are many disagreements with both soundings and contours, as the topography is characterized by undersea canyons and steep rocky slopes.One charted PA wreck is located in the vicinity of H12726. See final feature file for more information.No platforms exist for this survey.Per the Project Instructions, two crosslines were completed and submitted to the IOCM Center. Correspondence has been provided in Appendix II. State of Maine JunctionNo significant features exist for this survey.Prior survey comparisons exist for this survey, but were not investigated.No new insets are recommended for this area.The near shore areas were surveyed to the safe navigable limit achievable by FERDINAND R. HASSLER without the use of a survey launch. Inshore work will require a survey launch due to the high density of lobster fishing gear and proximity to hazards. The hydrographer recommends these areas be addressed in a later survey by a platform suited for near shore work.Shoreline was assigned in the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions or Statement of Work, but was not investigated. Without availability of a survey launch, FERDINAND R. HASSLER acquired data within the safe navigable limit for the ship.No present or planned construction or dredging exist within the survey limits.No overhead features exist for this survey.No submarine features exist for this survey.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.All aids to navigation that are within the surveyed limits of H12726 were visually confirmed to be on station and serving intended purposes.Sources of error data applied during CARIS processingSupportFiles\UncertaintySources.PNGTwo tidal models were available for water level corrections associated with survey H12726. A discrete tide zone file, produced by CO-OPS for project OPR-A321-FH-15, was provided to the field unit. Additionally, a vertical datum transformation (VDatum) model was delivered to the field unit in the project instructions. All data for survey H12726 were reduced to MLLW via VDatum. This model functioned as a gridded separation model for GPS tide computations with a 0.081 meter uncertainty. Final TPU calculations are derived from the following sources: VDatum separation model, sound velocity (MVP and surface sound velocimeter), HVF uncertainties, and SBET post processed uncertainty. Error data sources applied through CARIS processing software are listed in Figure 7.0.0810.010.160.011.00.5S2501.0There were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings.None ExistLocation of crosslines, shown in purple and mainscheme data for H12726SupportFiles\H12726_XL_Locations.JPGH12726 crossline difference statistics: mainscheme minus crosslineSupportFiles\H12726_MS-XL_stats.tifMainscheme minus crossline differenced surface shown overlaid on mainscheme data. The color range scale shown is for the differenced surface. Large differences (red and blue) appear to be greatest in areas of high relief.SupportFiles\H12726_MS-XL-surface.JPGA geographic plot of crosslines is shown in Figure 4. Crosslines were filtered to remove soundings greater than 40 degrees from nadir. To evaluate crossline agreement, two 4-meter surfaces were created: one from crossline soundings, the other from mainscheme soundings. These two surfaces were differenced using CARIS HIPS and SIPS. The statistical analysis of the differences between the mainscheme and crossline surfaces is shown in Figure 5. The average difference between the surfaces is 0.06 meters with a standard deviation of 0.20 meters; 95% of all differences were less than 0.27 meters from the mean. The high standard deviation is thought to result from high relief in particular areas of the survey shown in Figure 6.Junctioning area between surveys H12726 and H12725.SupportFiles\H12726_Junction.JPGDifferenced surface statistics - H12726 minus H12725.SupportFiles\H12726-H12725_Differenced_stats.tifThe area of overlap between sheet H12726 and its junction sheet, H12725, shown in Figure 8, was reviewed in CARIS Subset Editor. The junctioning surface was subtracted from the surface of H12726 to assess sounding consistency. Survey H12725 was conducted by NOAA Ship FERDINAND R. HASSLER in 2015 during the course of project OPR-A321-FH-15. A difference surface analysis between the H12726 and H12725 2-meter resolution surfaces, which included over 1 million nodes, showed H12726 to be on average 0.02 meters shallower than H12725, with a standard deviation of 0.17 meters. 95% of all differences are less than 0.27 meters from the mean. 40000SNOAA Ship FERDINAND R. HASSLER2015H12725A total of 131 sound speed measurements were taken within the boundaries of survey H12726. Due to extreme winter weather, the time between SVP casts was extended from typical operating procedures. These sound speed measurements were collected using the MVP-200 approximately every 3-4 hours. Comparisons were made by the survey watch to try and account for variations present in the water column.H12726 sound speed profile locations - lines colored by SV profile.SupportFiles\H12726_SVP_Locations.JPGSound speed error creating refraction which exceeds allowable error budget.SupportFiles\SV_Error5a.PNG43-27-58.52N 70-18-25.63W; Location of sound speed error bust.SupportFiles\SV_Error5b.PNGSound speed corrections were applied in CARIS using Nearest in Distance Within Time (NIDWT) of 4 hours for the entire survey (Figure 10). One SVP cast was taken south of the project on the first day of acquisition and is included in the submitted SVP file but not shown in Figure 10. Sound speed errors exist throughout the area, in most cases they fall within the acceptable sound velocity error budget, defined as 0.3m +0.05% of sounding depth. In one area, sound velocity profile errors exceed error budgets (Figures 11 and 12). While the data exceeds error thresholds, it should be noted that there there is a nearby rocky area containing shallower surveyed depths which do not contain errors, and a review of the data shows that no navigationally significant features exist in the affected region.There were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness.None ExistAll equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.Data Gap 1SupportFiles\Holiday1a.PNG43-32-42.022N 70-15-17.725W; Data Gap 2SupportFiles\Holiday1b.PNGData Gap 3SupportFiles\Holiday2a.PNG43-24-54.938N 70-22-18.074W; Data Gap 4SupportFiles\Holiday2b.PNGTwo notable data gaps exist in the data, caused by insufficient overlap between coverage lines. In both instances, most-reliable least depth soundings exist directly adjacent to the data gaps and a review of the data in CARIS Subset Editor reveals a very low likelihood of there being a shallower least depth at these locations.Data GapsA density analysis was run to calculate the number of soundings per surface node. The results determined that over 99% of all nodes in each finalized surface contain five or more soundings. The density analysis was executed on nodes which are populated by a least one sounding and did not account for holidays located within the surface. For additional information see the Standards Compliance Report in Appendix II.Data DensityTotal vertical uncertainty analysis was performed using the Finalized CSAR QA tool provided within Pydro. The resulting statistical analysis found 99.98% of all nodes within survey H12726 meet the vertical uncertainty standards of section 5.1.3 of the 2014 Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables. For additional information see the Standards Compliance Report in Appendix II.Total Vertical Uncertainty AnalysisSonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.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.7125RESONMBESPOS M/V 320 V5ApplanixPositioning and Attitude SystemMBX-4HemispherePositioning SystemMVP-200Brooke OceanSound Speed SystemMicroCTDAMLConductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorSVP-70RESONSound Speed SystemNOAA Ship FERDINAND R. HASSLERSupportFiles\Hassler_stern_bow_clean.png37.7S2503.77NOAA Ship FERDINAND R. HASSLER (S250), shown in Figure 3, acquired all surveyed soundings during operation for H12726.All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR.Backscatter was logged in RESON datagram 7008 snippets record in the raw .s7k files. The .s7k file also holds the navigation record and bottom detections for all lines of Survey H12726. The files were paired with the CARIS HDCS data, imported, and processed using Fledermaus Geocoder Toolbox (FMGT). The FMGT project and backscatter mosaic imagery is included in the field submission. The processed mosaic is formatted as a geo-tiff image per specifications.The 4m surfaces deviate from the required depth ranges, extending beyond 80m to 110m. There is adequate data density to do this, and the fidelity of the 4m grid in representing skin of the earth is superior to that of the 8m grid and should be considered to have exceeded requirements.NOAA_4mH12726_MB_4m_MLLWComplete MBESCUBE11004NOAA_2mH12726_MB_2m_MLLWComplete MBESCUBE11002NOAA_1mH12726_MB_1m_MLLWComplete MBESCUBE11001NOAA_4mH12726_MB_4m_MLLW_FinalComplete MBESCUBE110364NOAA_2mH12726_MB_2m_MLLW_FinalComplete MBESCUBE40182NOAA_1mH12726_MB_1m_MLLW_FinalComplete MBESCUBE2041N/AH12726_MB_4m_MLLW_CombinedComplete MBESCUBE11044NOAA Profile V_5_3_2H12726 1m TVU meets sounding per node standardsSupportFiles\H12726_MB_1m_MLLW_Final_TVU_QC.pngH12726 2m TVU meets sounding per node standardsSupportFiles\H12726_MB_2m_MLLW_Final_TVU_QC.pngH12726 4m TVU meets sounding per node standardsSupportFiles\H12726_MB_4m_MLLW_Final_TVU_QC.pngA custom layer was created for the finalized surfaces submitted with survey H12726. The layer was derived from the difference between the calculated uncertainties of individual nodes and the allowable uncertainty at the coupled node. This layer was examined using a custom Python script. The resulting statistical analysis identified that over 95% of nodes within each finalized surface of survey H12726 met the vertical uncertainty standards of Section 5.1.3 of the 2014 Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables. For additional information see the Standards Compliance Report in Appendix II.Total Vertical Uncertainty AnalysisWithin the limits of H12726, seven soundings are submitted flagged as designated. Five of these soundings are designated for the surface to honor the least depth of the data and two are for feature validation.Designated Soundings