OPR-K370-KR-15 Port Mansfield, TX Port Mansfield, TX eTrac Inc. H12761 1 Approaches to Port Mansfield Texas United States 40000 2015 David Neff, ACSM C.H. Basic Hydrographic Survey 2015-06-23 2015-06-05 2015-08-11 Multibeam Echo Sounder Side Scan Sonar meters Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) UTC Atlantic Hydrographic Branch All times are UTC. The purpose of this survey is to update existing NOS nautical charts. H12761 will cover approximately 27 square nautical miles of survey area in the Approaches to Port Mansfield as designated in NOAA Hydrographic Survey Priorities, 2012 edition. SUBCONSULTANT: Geodynamics LLC, 310A Greenfield Dr., Newport, NC 98570 SUBCONSULTANT: Theory Marine, 777 Viewcrest DR., Ventura, CA 93003 Projections: UTM 14N, NAD 83 Contractor eTrac Inc. conducted hydrographic survey operations in the vicinity of Port Mansfield, TX. H12761 covers approximately 27 square nautical miles of survey area, including the safety fairway approaching Port Mansfield and part of the entrance channel to Port Mansfield, TX. H12761 is generally rectangular in geometry, and is approximately 8 nautical miles wide (E-W) by 3 nautical miles long (N-S). Survey was conducted within these limits between June 5, 2015 (DN156) and August 11, 2015 (DN223). 26.598591 97.289111 26.555019 97.115995 Survey Limits (Black dashed line) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_SURVEYLIMITS.PNG All data were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and specifications set forth in the Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables 2015 Edition (HSSD 2015). The purpose of this survey is to update existing NOS nautical charts. H12761 covers approximately 27 square nautical miles of survey area in Port Mansfield, TX as designated in NOAA Hydrographic Survey Priorities, 2012 edition. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data. Survey H12761 is accurate to IHO Order 1a as required per the HSSD 2015. Survey Coverage was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and HSSD 2015. H12761 was surveyed to 100% SSS with concurrent set line spacing MBES with backscatter standards set forth in the HSSD 2015. The survey area inside the Port Mansfield Channel and around the entrance jetties was surveyed to complete MBES with backscatter standards set forth in HSSD 2015 where possible. Figure 3 details the area covered inshore of the NALL and inside the entrance channel. Multiple holidays are present, however coverage in this area was deemed acceptable through correspondence with the COTR. Reference Email Correspondence in Appendix II of this report. Survey Coverage SUPPORTFILES/H12761_SURVEY_COVERAGE.PNG Entrance Channel Survey Coverage SUPPORTFILES/H12761_CHANNEL_SURVEY_COVERAGE.PNG JAB 0 8 0 0 0 616 0 48 0 Benthos 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 Taku 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 27 2015-06-05 2015-06-06 2015-06-07 2015-06-08 2015-06-09 2015-06-10 2015-06-11 2015-06-12 2015-06-19 2015-06-20 2015-06-22 2015-06-26 2015-06-27 2015-06-28 2015-06-29 2015-07-02 2015-07-03 2015-07-05 2015-07-11 2015-07-12 2015-07-13 2015-07-13 2015-07-29 2015-08-03 2015-08-04 2015-08-08 2015-08-09 2015-08-10 2015-08-11 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 are discussed in the following sections. M/V Jab 13 0.75 R/V Benthos 10 0.6 R/V Taku 10 0.6 The M/V Jab is a 13 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with a multibeam moonpool and an A-frame for towed body operations. The R/V Benthos is a 10 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with a custom over-the-side (port) multibeam hydraulic pole mount, as well as an A-Frame for towed body operations. The R/V Taku is a 10 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with an Universal Sonar Mount (USM) over-the-side (starboard) multibeam mount, as well as an A-Frame for towed body operations. R2Sonic 2024 MBES Applanix POSMV 320 V5 Positioning and Attitude System AML Base.X Sound Speed System AML Minos.X Sound Speed System Trimble SPS461 Positioning System Trimble DSM232 Positioning System Edgetech 4200 SSS Note: The major systems listed above were used on each vessel. The AML Minos.X, AML Base.X, Trimble DSM232 and Edgetech 4200 Sidescan Sonar were utilized on the M/V Jab. R/V Benthos utilized an AML Base.X and Trimble SPS461. R/V Taku utilized an AML Base.X and Trimble DSM232. A comparison of crossline mileage to mainscheme mileage yields a crossline percentage of 8.85%, and is noted to be above the required 8%. A beam-by-beam statistical analysis was performed using the Line QC reporting tool in Caris HIPS and SIPS 9.0. A 1 meter CUBE weighted BASE surface was created incorporating only the mainscheme lines and excluded crosslines. Note: this surface was created for QC only and is not submitted as a surface deliverable. The Line QC reporting tool was used to perform the beam-by-beam comparison of the crossline data to the mainscheme surface. Comparisons showed excellent agreement, well above 95% of the allowable TVU. Note: the statistical analysis excluded the outer 5 beams (beams 1-5 and beams 252-256), as these beams were excluded from both mainsheme and crossline data across the entire project. The beam-to-beam crossline comparison report generated through the Caris QC Reporting tool is included in Separate II. Below is a graph of crossline comparison statistics showing IHO Special Order and Order 1a compliance per beam. H12761 Crossline Comparison SUPPORTFILES/H12761_CROSSLINES.PNG 0.22 0 M/V Jab 4 0 2 R/V Benthos 4 0 2 R/V Taku 4 0 2 Note: Tide TPU value given as 2 sigma. Standard deviation and uncertainty BASE surfaces were utilized during data processing to search for features, water column noise, and systematic errors. A custom layer was created within the BASE surface utilizing the Deep and Shoal layers in the following configuration: Custom Layer = (Deep - Shoal)^2 By viewing this custom layer, seafloor features, water column noise, and systematic errors are graphically exaggerated and can easily be identified for further examination. A TVU QC layer was created within the BASE surface utilizing the Uncertainty and Depth layers in the following configuration: -Uncertainty/((0.5^2 +((Depth*0.013)^2))^0.5) By viewing the TVU QC layer, nodes that exceed the IHO Order 1a uncertainty standards can be identified and further analyzed. Standard deviation and uncertainty were quantified using the QC Reporting tool within Caris HIPS and SIPS 9.0. The option "Greater of the two" was selected in the reporting tool in order to generate statistics quantifying the maximum error occurring within the data. IHO Order 1a uncertainty specification was met by 100% of the nodes. H12762 40000 2015 eTrac Inc. E H12761 junctions with H12762 to the east. The junction comparison was performed using approximately 250m of overlapping data between H12761 and H12762. Depths were compared in Caris HIPS and SIPS 9.0 by creating a 2 meter difference surface between the junctioning datasets. Note: the 2 meter difference surface was created for comparison efforts only and is not submitted as a surface deliverable. The comparison showed excellent agreement between H12761 and H12762. Depth differences generally were within 30cm or less, with a majority of depth differences being less than 10 cm. Junction comparison statistics are included in Separate II. Juction Comparison (H12761 to H12762) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_H12762_2M_DIFFERENCE.PNG Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR. 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. SVP casts were generally taken every 2 hours. Ocassionally casts would exceed a 2 hour frequency, however would never exceed a 4 hour frequency. Casts were applied in QPS QINSy acquisition software at the time of the cast. Surface SVP measured at 1Hz was compared to surface speed from the current profile in realtime. If the surface velocity comparison was in excess of 2m/s at any time during survey operations, a new cast was taken. SVP surface velocities were compared in realtime and profile to profile for each cast on the vessel. Additionally, profiles were compared day-to-day in the field office using the SVPTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac Inc., to better understand trends for efficient acquisition planning. Example of Daily SVP Data Plot (DN159) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_DAILYSVPTRAC.JPG Example of Day to Day SVP Comparison (DN159 and DN160) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_DAYTODAYSVPTRAC.JPG All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR. Data Density Evaluation In order to determine if the density of the data met the specified 5 soundings per node, data density was evaluated using the DensityTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac Inc. Each BASE surface's nodes were exported to an ASCII CSV file where the fields were (Easting, Northing, Denisty) for each node. The CSV file was then loaded into the DensityTrac program and density statistics were computed. For H12761 the following percentages represent the results of the density testing: Concurrent MBES/SSS ( 1m CUBE weighted BASE Surface ) = 98.09% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Concurrent MBES/SSS ( 2m CUBE weighted BASE Surface ) = 99.12% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. H12761 1m MBES/SSS Density Distribution Statistics SUPPORTFILES/H12761_MB_1M_MLLW_DENSITY.PNG H12761 2m MBES/SSS Density Distribution Statistics SUPPORTFILES/H12761_MB_2M_MLLW_DENSITY.PNG All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR. All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR. Backscatter data were collected throughout the survey and are retained in the raw XTF files. Every effort was made in the field to collect quality backscatter data while maintaining the primary mandate of high quality bathymetric data. While no processing or analysis of backscatter was required, eTrac Inc. engaged in a minimal effort to verify coverage and general quality of the backscatter data collected. Raw backscatter data were viewed in Caris HIPS and SIPS 9.0 to ensure collection criteria had been met. Shown below is an example of the unprocessed backscatter mosaic from H12761 DN163. Raw Backscatter From M/V Jab (DN163) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_DN163_BACKSCATTER.PNG NOAA Profile V_5_3_2 H12761_MB_ 1m_MLLW CUBE 1 1.42 20 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H12761_MB_2m_MLLW CUBE 2 18 24.42 NOAA_2m Complete MBES H12761_MB_1m_Parent CUBE 1 1.42 24.42 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H12761_MB_2m_Parent CUBE 2 1.43 24.42 NOAA_2m Complete MBES H12761_SSS_1m_100Percent_Mosaic SSS Mosaic 1 0 0 N/A 100% SSS H12761_SSS_1m_200Perecnt_Mosaic SSS Mosaic 1 0 0 N/A 200% SSS In areas shoaler than 20 meters, a 1 meter surface is provided meeting 100% SSS with concurrent set line spacing MBES with backscatter specifications. In areas deeper than 18 meters, a 2 meter surface is provided meeting 100% SSS with concurrent set line spacing MBES with backscatter specifications. Parent surfaces of the 1 meter and 2 meter surfaces are provided, both covering the entire survey area of H12761. A sidescan sonar mosaic is provided for the 100% SSS survey performed. A sidescan sonar mosaic is provided for the 200% SSS survey performed. Note: The 200% SSS survey includes 2 areas, each covering a 100 meter radius circle for the purpose of feature disproval. H12761 Delivered BASE Surface Coverage Graphic SUPPORTFILES/H12761_SURFACES_COVERAGE.PNG Mean Lower Low Water Discrete Zoning Corpus Christi TX 877-5870 8775870.tid Verified Observed K370KR2015CORP.zdf Final 1904-01-01 1904-01-01 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) UTM Zone 14N Aransas Pass, 304kHz, ID: 816 DGPS correctors were monitored realtime during data collection for dropouts. No dropouts were witnessed during data collection. In addition to the realtime monitoring of DGPS corrections, position data were analyzed in the office during post-processing. The attitude editor within Caris HIPS and SIPS 9.0 was utilized to identify any position data that may be insufficient for final delivery. A chart comparison was conducted for H12761 using Caris HIPS and SIPS 9.0. Contours, as well as soundings, were compared against the largest scale RNC 11306 and ENC US5TX14M to accomplish the chart comparison. RNC 11306 and ENC US5TX14M do not cover the eastern region of H12761 and therefore RNC 11304 and ENC US4TX15M were included to complete the chart comparison. The methods and results of the comparison are detailed below. Contour Comparison Method: Using the 2 meter CUBE weighted BASE surface, the 12 foot, 18 foot, 30 foot, and 60 foot contours were generated and displayed against the charted contours. Additionally, the 2 meter CUBE weighted BASE surface was viewed by a custom color band range based on the contour intervals (12ft, 18ft, 30ft, 60ft, 90ft, 120ft, 180ft). The results of the comparison are described below. Sounding Comparison Method: Using the same 2 meter CUBE weighted BASE surface used for the contour comparison, spot soundings were generated in Caris HIPS and SIPS 9.0 for H12761. Soundings were displayed against the charted soundings and a visual comparison was made. The results are described below. 11306 0 40000 22 2012-10 2015-09-01 2015-09-12 Contour Comparison Results: The 12 foot contour has receeded shoreward, on average, approximately 20 meters from the charted contour. The 18 foot contour has receeded shoreward, on average, approximately 100 meters from the charted contour. The 30 foot contour has receeded shoreward, on average, approximately 250 meters from the charted contour. Sounding Comparison Results: With exception to the differences identified through the contour comparison, in general, the soundings are in excellent agreement, with no major discrepancies. Soundings are generally within 1 foot (0.3m) of each other. Occasionally soundings differ by 2 to 3 feet, however generally depth differences appear to be minimal. Depth differences are not biased in any particular direction to support a systematic error. 11304 0 80000 14 2012-04 2015-09-01 2015-09-12 Contour Comparison Results: The results of the 12 foot, 18 foot, and 30 foot contour comparison with RNC 11304 match those of the RNC 11306 contour comparison. The 60 foot contour has receeded shoreward, on average, approximately 650 meters from the charted contour. Sounding Comparison Results: Results of the sounding comparison with RNC 11304 match those of the RNC 11306 sounding comparison. H12761 Contour Comparison (Overview) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_CONTOURCOMPARISONOVERVIEW.JPG H12761 Contour Comparison (12ft, 18ft, and 30ft Contour) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_CONTOURS_12_18_30.JPG H12761 Contour Comparison (60ft Contour) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_CONTOUR_60.JPG Sounding Comparison (RNC 11306) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_11306_SOUNDINGCOMPARISON.JPG Sounding Comparison (RNC 11304) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_11304_SOUNDINGCOMPARISON.JPG US5TX14M 40000 2 2013-12-16 2015-06-10 false The results of the chart comparison with ENC US5TX14M match those of the chart comparison with RNC 11306. US4TX15M 80000 10 2014-02-07 2015-06-10 false The results of the chart comparison with ENC US4TX15M match those of the chart comparison with RNC 11304. No AWOIS Items were assigned for this survey. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. There were 5 charted features assigned to H12761. Each assigned feature is retained in the Final Feature File (FFF). Each feature in the FFF has been given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format H12761_XXX). Of the (5) assigned features the following determinations and recommendations were made: DELETE: (4) assigned features were not found. A DELETE action is recommended. NOT ADDRESSED: (1) assigned feature was inshore of NALL. Not safe to address. One new feature was found in H12761 and is included in the Final Feature File (FFF). The feature was given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format H12761_XXX). There were no DTONs found in H12761. Bathymetric splits were acquired between set line spacing to adequately define shoals. Figure 17 displays a shoal where bathymetric splits were run. There are dynamic shoals around both the northern and southern jetty of the the Port Mansfield Channel. The shoal areas changed dramatically throughout the survey. Figure 18 and 19 detail the area of the dynamic shoal around the northen jetty . Figure 20 and 21 detail the area of the dynamic shoal around the southern jetty. Multiple depth changes are visible in the surface, however coverage in this area was deemed acceptable through correspondence with the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR). Reference Email Correspondence in Appendix II of this report. Bathymetric Splits Acquired to Define Shoal SUPPORTFILES/H12761_BATHYMETRICSHOALSPLITS.PNG Cross Section of Dynamic Shoal Area (Northern Jetty) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_NORTHERN_SHOAL_CROSSECTION.PNG Plan View of Dynamic Shoal (Northern Jetty) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_NORTHERNDYNAMICSHOAL_OVERVIEW.PNG Cross Section of Dynamic Shoal Area (Southern Jetty) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_SOUTHERN_SHOAL_CROSS_SECTION_CARIS.PNG Plan View of Dynamic Shoal (Southern Jetty) SUPPORTFILES/H12761_SOUTHERNDYNAMICSHOAL_OVERVIEW.PNG A safety fairway runs east-west through H12761. The surveyed depths within the safety fairway are in general agreement with the charted depths as detailed in the chart comparison section of this report. 5 bottom samples were obtained in accordance with sections 7.1 and 8.2 of the HSSD 2015 in areas designated by the feature object class springs (SPRING) in the Project Reference File (PRF). A brief description of the results is listed below. H12761_A001: fine brown sand with soft grey mud H12761_A002: fine brown sand with soft grey mud and broken shells H12761_A003: fine brown sand with soft grey mud and broken shells H12761_A004: fine brown sand with sticky grey mud and broken shells H12761_A005: fine brown sand with sticky grey mud and broken shells Detailed information and images of the bottom samples listed above are located in the Final Feature File (FFF). Each bottom sample has been given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format H12761_AXXX). A limited shoreline verification was preformed using the composite source file (CSF) provided with the project instructions. All assigned shoreline features were investigated except for 1 that was inshore of the NALL and unsafe to address. One new shoreline feature was found in H12761. All assigned and new shoreline features are encoded in the Final Feature File (FFF) and have been given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format H12761_XXX). No prior survey comparisons exist for this survey. No Aids to navigation (ATONs) exist for this survey. 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 BASE surfaces, 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. David R. Neff, C.H. VP of Survey, eTrac Inc. 2015-11-30