OPR-P183-FA-15Shumagin IslandsShumagin IslandsNOAA Ship FAIRWEATHERH127826N/A12 NM South of Simeonof IslandAlaskaUnited States400002015CDR David J. Zezula, NOAANavigable Area2015-04-062015-05-292015-06-14Multibeam 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. Any revisions to the Descriptive Report (DR) generated during office processing are shown in bold, red italic text. The processing branch maintains the DR as a field unit product, therefore, all information and recommendations within the body of the DR are considered preliminary unless otherwise noted. The final disposition of surveyed features is represented in the OCS nautical chart update products. All pertinent records for this survey, including the DR, are archived at the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) and can be retrieved via http:// www.ngdc.noaa.gov/.NOAAThe survey area is located in the Shumagin Islands, with in the sub-locality of 12 NM South of Simeonof Island.54.7368727222159.40784777854.6063628889159.09824425Survey limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the National Ocean Service Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD) dated approved April 2014.The purpose of this project is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. This area is considered navigationally significant and of critical survey priority. In addition, soundings will support a new, larger scale navigation chart. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.All watersComplete MBES with backscatter OR 100% SSS with concurrent set line spacing MBES with backscatter.Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD.H12782 Survey OutlineSupportFiles\A.4_Survey_Coverage.jpgS2200660.5580000039.22902805029.8230000000280604.65200000000695.0330000039.22905.65100079.572015-05-292015-05-302015-06-112015-06-122015-06-132015-06-14Refer 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.S22070.44.728058.641.1228068.641.12KongsbergEM710MBESReson7125MBESRESONSVP70Sound Speed SystemRESONSVP71Sound Speed SystemRolls-Royce/Brooke Ocean Technology, Canada Ltd.MVP 200Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorSea-BirdSBE 19plusConductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorApplanixPOS/MV V4Positioning and Attitude SystemCrosslines were collected, processed and compared in accordance with section 5.2.4.3 of the HSSD. Surface differencing in CARIS HIPS and SIPS was used to assess crossline agreement with main scheme lines. Differences in crosslines to mainscheme lines are believed to be caused by abrupt changes in slopes in rocky areas. See figure 2, for statistical representation of crossline difference, which shows 95% of all nodes to have a maximum deviation of +/- 0.26 meters. The difference surface is submitted digitally in the Separates II folder.Statistical information for difference between crossline to mainschemeSupportFiles\B.2.1_X_Line_Analysis.pngGraphical representation of difference between crossline and mainscheme surfacesSupportFiles\B.2.1_X_Line_Graphical_Combined.jpg0.010.08ERZTS220210.5280520.5280620.5The following tidal ERZT uncertainty values were applied to the submitted data: Measured: 0.0, Zoning 0.03464.The areas of overlap between surveys were reviewed in CARIS HIPS and SIPS by surfacing differencing eight meter and four meter combined surfaces to asses surface agreement. The junction agreement is generally within the total allowable vertical uncertainty in their common areas and depths for all surfaces. Data overlap between all surveys was achieved. See figure 4 for planned areas of overlap.Junctions between H12594, H12595, H12781, and H12782SupportFiles\B2.3_Junction_Outline_Overview.jpgH12595400002013NOAA Ship RAINIERNWSurface differencing in CARIS HIPS and SIPS was used to assess junction agreement between H12782_MB_8m_MLLW_Combined surface and H12595_MB_4m_MLLW_Combined surface. The difference between surfaces was generally -0.5m and 0.5m and the few areas of larger differences are believed to be caused by the rocky seafloor. See figure 5 for a graphical representation and figure 6 for statistical information of the surface differencing.Graphical representation of difference between junction H12782 and H12595SupportFiles\B2.3_Junction_H12595_Combined.jpgStatistical information for junction comparison between sheet H12782 and H12595SupportFiles\H12782_H12595_Junction _Dif.pngH12594400002013NOAA Ship RAINIERNDue to insufficient overlap in the data, a proper junction comparison could not be performed. See figure 7 for a graphical representation and figure 8 for statistical information of the surface differencing.Graphical representation of difference between junction H12782 and H12594SupportFiles\B2.3_Junction_H12594_Combined.jpgStatistical information for junction comparison between sheet H12782 and H12594SupportFiles\H12782_H12594_Junction _Dif.pngH12781400002015NOAA Ship RAINIERESurface differencing in CARIS HIPS and SIPS was used to assess junction agreement between H12782_MB_8m_MLLW_Combined surface and H12781_MB_4m_MLLW_Combined surface. The difference between surfaces was generally -0.4m and 0.4m and the few areas of larger differences are believed to be caused by the rocky seafloor. See figure 9 for a graphical representation and figure 10 for statistical information of the surface differencing.Graphical representation of difference between junction H12782 and H12781SupportFiles\B2.3_Junction_H12781_Overview.jpgStatistical information for junction comparison between sheet H12782 and H12781SupportFiles\H12782_H12781_Junction _Dif.pngSonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.SVP Profile SpikesNumerous SVP casts were determined to be bad, spikes in the profiles are believed to be from the kelp affecting the sensors. Due to the number of bad casts the sensor was replaced with a new one. All bad casts were removed and near by casts were applied, using "Nearest in distance within time (2 hr)" instead of "Nearest in time". All of the data meets NOAA specs and deliverables. See figure 12: Example of bad SVP cast removed and not used.Area affected by bad SVP castsSupportFiles\B2.3_Equipment_Effectiveness_SVP_Combined.jpgExample of bad SVP cast removed and not usedSupportFiles\BadSVPCast.jpgSea StateDuring cleaning and data review processes of sheet H12782, it was found that due to sea conditions in the project area, S220 experienced hard pitching when surveying into seas and swell. As a result, numerous blowouts due to dynamic ship's attitude are present throughout H12782. The MBES data was reviewed in CARIS HIPS and SIPS subset editor with appropriate reference surfaces. The bathymetry accurately depicts the sea floor and none of the data gaps due to blowouts meet holiday specs. See figure 13 for a graphical representation. H12782 attitude and blowout artifacts observed in MBESSupportFiles\B2.3_Factors_Affecting_Soundings_Combined.jpgCasts were conducted every 15-30 minutes while towing the Moving Vessel Profiler during ship acquisition, except for the last four lines at the south end of the sheet where stationary CTD cast were conducted every hour due to technical issues with the MVP. During launch acquisition casts were conducted about every two hours.All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.IHO UncertaintyIt was found that 99.93% of nodes in the H12782_MB_4m_MLLW_Final.csar and 99.99% of nodes in the H12782_MB_8m_MLLW_Final.csar meet or exceed IHO Order 1 specifications for all survey soundings of survey H12782, see figures 15, 16 and Standards Compliance Review in Appendix II. To assess vertical accuracy standards, a child layer titled "IHO1" was created for each of the four meter and eight meter and "IHO2" for eight meter finalized surface using the equations as stated in section C.2.1 of the DAPR.Graphical representation of IHO UncertaintySupportFiles\B2.10_IHO_Uncertainty_Overviewview.jpgStatistical information for H12782_MB_4m_MLLW_Final.csar uncertaintySupportFiles\H12782_MB_4m_MLLW_Final_TVU_QC.pngStatistical information for H12782_MB_8m_MLLW_Final.csar uncertaintySupportFiles\H12782_MB_8m_MLLW_Final_TVU_QC.pngDensityDensity requirements for H12782 were achieved with at least 99.97% of finalized surface nodes containing five or more soundings, see figures 18, 19 and Standard Compliance Review in Appendix II.Graphical representation of densitySupportFiles\B2.11_Density_Overviewview.jpgStatistical information for H12782_MB_4m_MLLW_Final.csar densitySupportFiles\H12782_MB_4m_MLLW_Final_Density.pngStatistical information for H12782_MB_8m_MLLW_Final.csar densitySupportFiles\H12782_MB_8m_MLLW_Final_Density.pngHoliday AssesmentComplete multibeam coverage was obtained with in the limits of H12782 as defined per the project instructions. No holidays the size of three surface grid nodes by three surface grid nodes or larger were found. Blowouts throughout H12782 are not considered holidays per the May 2015 HSSD Section 5.2.2.2 Complete Coverage. Per email correspondence from HSD OPS the May 2015 HSSD was used when assessing H12782 for holidays. A copy of the email is located in the project correspondence folder. All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR.Raw Backscatter was logged as .7k file for Reson 7125 data. Kongsberg EM710 stores the backscatter data in the .all file. The data was submitted directly to NGDC to be archived and to PHB where the data will be processed. One line per day of backscatter was processed in the field by the field unit.CarisHIPS/SIPS9.0.17NOAA Profile V_5_3_3H12782_MB_4m_MLLWCUBE4NOAA_4mComplete MBESH12782_MB_8m_MLLWCUBE8NOAA_8mComplete MBESH12782_MB_4m_MLLW_FinalCUBE43680NOAA_4mComplete MBESH12782_MB_8m_MLLW_FinalCUBE872160NOAA_8mComplete MBESH12782_MB_8m_MLLW_CombinedCUBE8NOAA_8mComplete MBESThe NOAA CUBE parameters mandated in HSSD were used for the creation of all CUBE Base surfaces in survey H12782. The surfaces have been reviewed for noisy data or "fliers" and these spurious soundings have been removed when they caused the surface to be shoaler or deeper than the reliably measured seabed by a distance greater than the maximum allowable Total Vertical Uncertainty at depth. After rejecting noisy data "fliers," surfaces were recomputed to accurately represent the sea floor.Data LogsData acquisition and processing notes are included in the acquisition and processing logs, and additional processing such as final tide and sound velocity application is noted in the H12782 Data Log spreadsheet. All data logs are submitted digitally in the Separates I folder.Critical SoundingsDesignation of soundings followed procedures as outlined in section 5.2.1.2 of the HSSD. Survey H12782 contained 32 soundings which were designated in CARIS HIPS. These designated soundings were used to draw the CUBE surface to the sounding which most accurately represented the sea floor in cases where the surface deviated from the sounding more than the vertical IHO requirements allowed. In general all designated soundings were found to be located in the rocky areas.Total of 32 designated soundingsSupportFiles\B5_Designated_Soundings_Overview.jpg30 designated soundings (not 32) were noted in the submitted data.Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.Mean Lower Low WaterERZTSand Point, AK94594509459450.tidFinal ApprovedP183FA2015CORP_Reg.zdfFinal2015-06-182015-06-23Preliminary zoning was accepted as final.Tide file is appended to this report.Constant SeparationOPR-P183-FA-15_ERZT_Seperation_ModelThe Constant separation model file was applied in accordance with the FPM. Separation model was used for the vertical transformation of ellipsoid-referenced data to MLLW and is applied for data submission. Soundings were merged in CARIS HIPS and SIPS using the Apply GPS Tide function, and TPU was computed with the new separation model uncertainty value. See correspondence in Appendix II for additional information on separation model use and approval.A Constant Separation model was not used for reduction to chart datum. ERZT and the associated separation model were used.North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)UTM Zone 4 NorthSingle Base9677ForsmanVessel Kinematic data was post processed using the Applanix POSPac processing software and the Single Base method was used as described in the DAPR. Smoothed Best Estimates of Trajectory (SBET) and associated error (RMS) data were applied to all MBES data in CARIS HIPS. For further details regarding the processing and quality control checks performed see the H12782 POSPAC Processing Logs spreadsheet located in the SBET folder with the GNSS data. See also the OPR-P183-FA-15 Horizontal and Vertical Control report, submitted under separate cover.Cold Bay, AK (289kHz)Differential correctors from the US Coast Guard beacon at Cold Bay (289kHz) were used during real time acquisition.A comparison was made between survey H12782 and chart 16540 and US3AK50M using CARIS HIPS and SIPS soundings and contours layers derived from the eight meter combined surface. The contours and soundings were overlaid on the chart to assess differences. All data from H12782 should supersede charted data.165402528300000132010-102015-03-032015-02-14Contours generated in CARIS HIPS and SIPS consist of 30, 40, and 50 fathoms. The 30 and 40 fathom contours are new and are not charted on 16540. The new 50 fathom contour runs parallel with the charted one and is approximately 1200 meters Northwest of the charted contour. See figure 21 The six soundings from survey H12782 generally agreed within zero to four fathoms with charted depths on chart 16540. See figures 23-26. The notable exception to this general agreement is the 47 fathom sounding on the eastern half of the sheet. The disagreement is approximately 9-15 fathoms between the charted depth 47 fathom and the surveyed depths with MBES at 32-38 fathoms. See figure 26Discrepancy in contoursSupportFiles\Contour_Difference.jpgOverview of chart comparisonSupportFiles\Chart_Comparison_Overview.jpgDiscrepancy in charted depth vs surveyed depth (2-3 fathoms)SupportFiles\Chart_Comparison_Sounding3.jpgDiscrepancy in charted depth vs surveyed depth (2-4fathoms)SupportFiles\Chart_Comparison_Sounding4.jpgDiscrepancy in charted depth vs surveyed depth (3-4 fathoms)SupportFiles\Chart_Comparison_Sounding5.jpgDiscrepancy in charted depth vs surveyed depth (9-15 fathoms)SupportFiles\Chart_Comparison_Sounding6.jpgUS3AK50M300000172014-04-092014-04-09falseSoundings from survey H12782 generally agree within zero to four fathoms of the soundings on chart US3AK50M. Contours in CARIS HIPS closely approximated the charted contours. See comments from Raster Chart 16540 for more information.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.One bottom sample was assigned and investigated. The bottom sample is included in the H12782 Final Feature File.Shoreline was not assigned in the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions or Statement of Work.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 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.CDR David J. ZezulaChief of Party2015-08-25LT Ryan A. WartickField Operations Officer2015-08-25LT Matthew M. ForneyField Operations Officer2015-08-25HCST Douglas A. BravoChief Survey Technician2015-08-25ENS Daniel R. HelmricksSheet Manager2015-08-25Data Acquisition and Processing Report2015-08-27Coast Pilot Report2015-09-01Horizontal and Vertical Control Report2015-09-01