OPR-G380-TJ-15Approaches to CharlestonSoutheast Atlantic OceanNOAA Ship THOMAS JEFFERSONH12771610 NM Northeast of Charleston Harbor Channel BuoySouth CarolinaUnited States200002015Shepard M. Smith, CAPT/NOAANavigable Area2015-04-102015-06-042015-06-19Multibeam Echo SounderSide Scan SonarMultibeam Echo Sounder BackscattermetersUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)UTCAtlantic Hydrographic BranchNOAASurvey H12771 was conducted in the southeastern Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the Charleston Harbor Channel Buoy. 32.691866666779.526616666732.709016666779.35965Survey limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the 2015 HSSD. JKCThe survey sheet limits were extended to include H12803. See Project Manager Correspondence in Appendices II. H12771 Survey Layout and Coverage are for OPR-G380-TJ-15, overlayed on RNC 11528file:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Separates/Descriptive_Report/Pictures/H12771_SurveyLayout_CoverageArea.gifThis project is being conducted in support of NOAA's Office of Coast Survey to provide contemporary hydrographic data in support of a new nautical chart in this area and in response to a harbor deepening project in the Port of Charleston, which will better serve deeper draft ships transiting the area. This survey was identified as priority eight in the Project Instructions.The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD.Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the 2015 HSSD.JKCH12771 MBES Coveragefile:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Separates/Descriptive_Report/Pictures/H12771_MBES_Coverage.gifH12771 200% SSS Coveragefile:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Separates/Descriptive_Report/Pictures/HI12771_SSS_Coverage.gifS22201075.6201082.6401082.64063.98001075.6201082.6401082.64063.9805.900000252015-06-042015-06-052015-06-062015-06-072015-06-082015-06-092015-06-102015-06-112015-06-152015-06-162015-06-172015-06-182015-06-19The following table lists the specific dates of data acquisition for this survey.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.S22220815The following data were acquired by NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson: multibeam echosounder, backscatter data, side scan sonar imagery, sound velocity profiles, surface sound velocity readings, and position/attitude data. Refer to Section B.1.2 of this report a detailed list of equipment used during acquisition. ApplanixPOS MV v5Positioning and Attitude SystemTrimbleSPS351Positioning SystemRESON7125 ROVMBESRESON7125 SV2MBESRESONSV 70Sound Speed SystemKlein5000 V2SSSRolls Royce-Brooke Ocean TechnologiesMoving Vessel Profiler (MVP) 100Sound Speed SystemSeabirdSeacat 19Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorS222 collected 63.98 linear nautical miles of MBES crosslines, equating to 5.9% of mainscheme MBES. S222 initially acquired all crosslines for survey H12771 using the Reson 7125 SV2 echosounder system. On day numbers 158 and 159, two crosslines were acquired using the Reson 7125 ROV system. Crosslines were compared to mainscheme using a depth difference surface, created in CARIS HIPS 9.0. A 1m CUBE surface was created using strictly mainscheme lines, while a second 1m CUBE surface was created using only crosslines. The two surfaces were then differenced with reference to depth. The minimum difference value was -0.7 m and the maximum difference value was 0.5 m, the mean was 0 m, and the standard deviation was 0.01 m (Figure 4). 99.93% of 6,551,486 nodes were within 1ft.Survey H12771 Crossline to Mainscheme Depth Comparisonfile:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Separates/Descriptive_Report/Pictures/H12771_MS_XL_comparison.gif0.00.125S222410.2Uncertainty Standards were run through the Pydro64 Contribs "Finalized SCAR QA" script. Results are listed: H12771 has 100% nodes with uncertainty less than IHO error. 100,657,744 nodes passed out of 100,657,781 total nodes (Figure 5). Object Detection Coverage was run through Pydro64 Contribs "Finalized SCAR QA" script. Results are listed: H12771 has 99.42% nodes within object detection standards. 10,0074,322 nodes passed out of 100,657,781 total nodes (Figure 6). Total Propagated Uncertainty values for survey H12771 were derived using a combination of: real time uncertainties for vessel motion; a priori values for equipment and vessel characteristics; assigned values for water level uncertainties; and field assigned values for sound speed uncertainties. The real time uncertainties for vessel motion include roll, pitch, gyro, navigation, and elevation. The uncertainties in these measurements were recorded as part of the POSPac post-processed Precise Point Position (5P) positional solution and were applied to the soundings via an SBET RMS file generated by Applanix POSPac. Uncertainties for sonar mounting and vessel speed were assigned using the a priori values found in Appendix 4, table 4.9 of the NOAA Field Procedures Manual (FPM) (ed 2014), and applied to the data via the CARIS HIPS Hydrographic Vessel File. Uncertainties associated with water level measurements and interpolation were automatically calculated as part of the TCARI water levels, and applied to the data during the Merge process. Finally, the uncertainty associated with sound speed measurements were based on the frequency and location of CTD casts, in accordance with the guidance set by Appendix 4 of the FPM (ed 2014). Total Propagated Uncertainties for the entire survey were evaluated to ensure compliance with section 5.1.3 of NOAA's HSSD (ed 2015). First, the maximum allowable uncertainty for each node was calculated using the equation: -Uncertainty/((0.5^2+((Depth*0.013)^2))^0.5). Second, the ratio between the actual uncertainty and maximum allowed uncertainty was found for each node. Out of 100,657,781 nodes, 0 did not meet IHO order 1 standards (or 100% meet IHO order 1 uncertainty requirements). A custom layer was created for the finalized surface submitted in correlation with survey H12771. 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 the CARIS QC report tool. The resulting statistical analysis identified 100% of nodes within H12771 met the vertical uncertainty standards of Section 5.1.3 of the 2015 Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables.IHO Uncertainty Standardsfile:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Processed/Statistics/CSAR%20QA/H12771_MB_1m_MLLW_Final_TVU_QC.pngObject Detection Standardsfile:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Processed/Statistics/CSAR%20QA/H12771_MB_1m_MLLW_Final_Density.pngOne contemporary survey, H12792 was acquired during the same relative time frame of acquisition as H12771. Depth comparisons were made using a CARIS HIPS generated difference surface as a check that sonar systems and application of correctors were in agreement within 0.3m.H12792200002015NOAA Ship THOMAS JEFFERSONSWThe difference between survey H12771 and the junction survey H12792 ranged from -0.493m to 0.231m. The mean was -0.019m and the standard deviation was 0.058m. When differenced, 99.99% of sounding nodes agree within 0.3m.H12771 and junction survey H12792 statistics.file:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Separates/Descriptive_Report/Report/Images/H12792_H12771_stats.jpgSonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.None ExistThere were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness.None ExistThere were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings.Sound speed profiles were acquired from S222 in accordance with HSSD 2015 standards using a Rolls Royce Brooke Ocean MVP 100 approximately every hour with efforts made to evenly distribute the casts spatially and temporally across the survey area. All MVP casts were concatenated into a vessel master file and applied to multibeam data in CARIS using the parameter of nearest in distance within time (1 hour). All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.A GAMS Calibration was completed on 6/15 after installation of a new GPS Antenna in order to resolve interference between the Iridium causing cycle slips in the processed POSPAC data.GAMS2015-06-15New antennas were installed on S222Raw Backscatter was logged as a 7k file and has been sent to the Processing Branch. Backscatter was not processed by the field unit. One line per vessel, per day was processed aboard the Thomas Jefferson in order to assess and ensure quality. No deficiencies were noted.CarisHIPS/SIPS9.0.142015-06-07ProcessingCarisHIPS/SIPS9.0.162015-07-24ProcessingNOAA profile V 5.3.3H12771_SSS_100SSS Mosaic100N/A100% SSSH12771_SSS_200SSS Mosaic100N/A200% SSSH12771_MB_1m_MLLWCUBE112.9420.17NOAA_1mObject DetectionH12771_MB_1m_MLLW_FinalCUBE112.9420.17NOAA_1mObject DetectionThis survey was processed using the Combined Uncertainty and Bathymetry Estimator (CUBE) algorithm. Per section 5.2.2.1 of NOAA HSSD Manual (2015 ed), MBES surfaces were gridded according to the Project Instructions for OPR-G380-TJ-15 guidelines for 200% side scan sonar with set multibeam line spacing. All SSS data was separated into percentages, with mosaics made in a 1- meter resolution.Multibeam Data FiltersA swath filter was applied to the data to remove sonar side lobe anomalies in th RESON SV2 system. The filter used logic that rejected bathymetric data points beyond 60 degrees on either side of nadir. The filter was only applied to cross lines. All other erroneous data was manually rejected by the hydrographer during normal data processing and editing. Total Vertical Uncertainty AnalysisA custom layer was created for the finalized surface submitted in correlation with survey H12771. 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 the CARIS QC report tool. The resulting statistical analysis identified 100% of nodes within H12771 met the vertical uncertainty standards of Section 5.1.3 of the 2015 Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables. Per section 5.1.2.3 of the FPM (2014 ed), no Horizontal and Vertical Control Report has been generated for Survey H12771.Mean Lower Low WaterVDatum2015_G380_VDatum_NAD83_MLLW_rev2.csarAll soundings submitted as H12771 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) stations serving as datum control for this survey is Charleston, SC (8665530). 2) The submitted water level files (8665530.tid) are the final approved water levels for the period of hydrography. These files have been loaded to all CARIS lines submitted as H12771. 3) The submitted tide corrector (G380TJ2015CORP.zdf) is the preliminary zoning file that was accepted as final per final tide note, submitted in Appendix I. This file has been loaded to all CARIS lines submitted as H12771. 4) A request for final approved tides was sent to COOPS on July 01 2015. The final tide note was received on July 30, 2015 stating that preliminary zoning is accepted as the final zoning for project OPR-G380-TJ-15, H12771, during the time period between June 4, 2015 and June 19, 2015. North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)17 NorthThe projection used for this project is UTM zone 17 north. Additional information discussing the use of 5P for this survey can be found in the accompanying DAPR.Chart comparison procedures were followed as outlined in section 4.5 of the FPM (2014 ed) and section 8.1.4 subsection D.1 of the HSSD (2015 ed). The ENC and RNC versions of the relevant charts were reviewed to ensure that the latest USCG Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) has been applied. Chart comparisons for survey HG12771 were conducted using a selected sounding set generated at chart scale (1:40000) with a radius of 1m. In CARIS BDB, the soundings were then converted into a point cloud, from which a 1m interpolated surface was generated. Contouring was run on the interpolated surface and the results are listed below.115282574000012014-072015-02-172015-02-21In general, survey H12771 is in agreement with chart 11528. The smoothed contours of the chart are in general agreement to surveyed soundings, though perhaps too generalized for the area. Surveyed depths concur with charted depths. Some charted soundings were not surveyed due to the set line spacing of the survey. The Hydrographer recommends updating all contours and soundings with the digital data from survey H12771.US5SC25M4000012014-10-062014-10-06falseA comparison was performed between ENC US5SC25M and survey H12771 via a difference surface between a TIN surface of ENC soundings, against a 1-meter finalized BASE surface. Analysis indicates the current survey to be generally deeper than the charted ENC soundings. Figure 8 denotes areas in which the current survey is deeper than charted soundings. Figure 9 denotes areas in which soundings from the current survey are shoal to the charted soundings. It is recommended that survey H12771 data supersede all charted depths in the survey area. Description of specific feature investigations and shoreline data are included in the Final Feature File.Charted soundings that fall between MBES linesfile:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Separates/Descriptive_Report/Pictures/CH12771_ChartedSoundingsEvaluation.gifSurveyed Soundings Shoal to Charted Soundingsfile:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Separates/Descriptive_Report/Pictures/ShoalerSoundings.jpgH12771 Chart Comparisonfile:///H:/Surveys/OPR-G380-TJ-15/H12771/Separates/Descriptive_Report/Pictures/H12771_Chart_Comparison.gifNo AWOIS items were assigned for this survey.No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.No charted features exist for this survey.No uncharted features exist for this survey.No Danger to Navigation Reports were submitted for this survey.No shoals or potentially hazardous features exist 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.No bottom samples were required for this survey.Shoreline was not assigned in the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions or Statement of Work.Prior survey comparisons exist for this survey, but were not investigated.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 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.Shepard M. Smith, CAPT/NOAAChief of Party2015-08-31Joseph K. Carrier, LT/NOAAField Operations Officer2015-08-31Kaitlyn R. Seberger, ENS/NOAASheet Manager2015-08-31