A comparison of soundings was accomplished by overlaying the latest edition of the largest scale NOS charts and ENCs onto the final BASE surfaces in CARIS HIPS. An additional check was conducted by gridding the ENC sounding data and differencing the ENC *.csar files against the H12885 *.csar files. The general agreement between the charted soundings and H12885 soundings is noted in the Charts section. A more detailed comparison was undertaken for any charted shoals or other dangerous features and is discussed in the Shoals and Hazardous Features section. There were seven charted features within the limits of H12885. A list of the charted features are as follows: Wreck with label “Wk PA” charted in the general vicinity of 43-59-15N 069-11-25W on charts 13301, and 13302. This item was assigned in the Composite Source File (CSF) with the following SORIND: US,US,graph,Chart 13301; refer to the Final Feature File (FFF) for more information on the results and S57 encoding. Rock with label “Rk 1 Ft rep” charted in the general vicinity of 43-58-21N 069-11-31W on chart 13301. This item was assigned in the CSF with the following SORIND: US,US,graph,Chart 13301; refer to the FFF for more information on the results and S57 encoding. Wreck with label “Wk” charted in the general vicinity of 43-58-36N 069-11-14W on chart 13301. This item was assigned in the CSF with the following SORIND: US,US,graph,Chart 13301; refer to the FFF for more information on the results and S57 encoding. Rock with label “Rep PA Rk” charted in the general vicinity of 43-59-40N 069-07-35W on charts 13301, 13302, 13303, and 13305. This item was assigned in the CSF with the following SORIND: US,US,graph,Chart 13305; refer to the FFF for more information on the results and S57 encoding. Wreck with label “Wk” charted in the general vicinity of 43-59-28N 069-04-20W on charts 13303, and 13305. This item was assigned in the CSF with the following SORIND: US,US,graph,Chart 13305; refer to the FFF for more information on the results and S57 encoding. Rock with label “PD Rk” charted in the general vicinity of 43-59-40N 069-03-38W on charts 13303, and 13305. This item was assigned in the CSF with the following SORIND: US,US,graph,Chart 13305; refer to the FFF for more information on the results and S57 encoding. Rock with label “Rep Rk” charted in the general vicinity of 44-00-59N 069-03-57W on charts 13302, 13303, and 13305. This item was assigned in the CSF with the following SORIND: US,US,graph,Chart 13305; refer to the FFF for more information on the results and S57 encoding. Sample of difference surface of H12885 and ENCSupport Files\Sample of difference surface of H12885 and ENC.pngA comparison of soundings was accomplished by overlaying the latest edition of the largest scale NOS charts and ENCs onto the final BASE surfaces in CARIS HIPS. An additional check was conducted by gridding the ENC sounding data and differencing the ENC *.csar files against the H12885 *.csar files. The results from this method highlight areas that differed and warranted extra attention. A unique color range pallet was developed to highlight these areas, for example, if the agreement was +/- 5 feet, the difference surface was colored green. Areas greater than +/- 5 feet were colored orange. Red was used for extreme differences. The following are shoal features that differed, but did not warrant a danger to navigation submittal. Other Shoals and Hazardous Features exist in the survey area and were submitted as dangers to navigation; a total of 22 dangers were submitted to AHB and PHB. The item is a charted, 28-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-22 N) (069-03-52 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 19 feet in that general location. Due to its location, no danger to navigation was submitted. Survey H12885 revealed a new shoal with a survey depth of 13 feet in the general vicinity of (43-59-24 N) (069-05-18 W). Due to its location, no danger to navigation was submitted. The item is a charted, 10-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-33 N) (069-04-08 W). Survey H12885 revealed a survey depth of 3 feet in that general location. Due to its location, no danger to navigation was submitted. The item is a charted, 14-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-35 N) (069-04-26 W). Survey H12885 revealed a survey depth of 10 feet in that general location. Due to its location, no danger to navigation was submitted. The item is a charted, 15-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-24 N) (069-07-11 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 25.9 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 16 feet, 66 meters to the south. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 16-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-49 N) (069-07-19 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 50 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 18 feet, 75 meters to the southeast. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 22-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-56 N) (069-06-58 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 53 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 22 feet, 96 meters to the south. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 8-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-27 N) (069-05-58 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 6 feet in that general location. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 15-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-32 N) (069-05-49 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 12 feet in that general location. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 27-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-48 N) (069-04-01 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 56 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 24 feet, 74 meters to the southwest. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 21-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-01-01 N) (069-02-25 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 45 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 22 feet, 105 meters to the southwest. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 27-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-11 N) (069-05-45 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 43 feet in that general location but revealed a depth of 27 feet, 119 meters to the southwest. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 21-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-31 N) (069-10-04 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 17 feet in that general location. The item is a charted, 46-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-02 N) (069-06-04 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 37 feet in that general location. The item is a charted, 7-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-58 N) (069-02-07 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 3 feet in that general location. The item is a charted, 28-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-56 N) (069-03-41 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 45.6 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 24 feet, 102 meters to the southeast. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. Survey H12885 revealed a survey depth of 7 feet in the general vicinity of (43-58-49 N) (069-05-05 W). Due to its location and proximity to the shoreline, no danger to navigation was submitted. The item is a charted, 19-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-52 N) (069-05-09 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 12 feet in that general location. Due to its location, no danger to navigation was submitted. The item is a charted, 11-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-15 N) (069-05-49 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 37.4 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 20 feet, 58 meters to the south. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 10-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-10 N) (069-05-56 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 6 feet in that general location. Due to its location, no danger to navigation was submitted. The item is a charted, 13-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-36 N) (069-05-31 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 11 feet in that general location. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 22-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-23 N) (069-06-23 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 47 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 24 feet, 96 meters to the north. The Hydrographer recommends a repositioning of the shoal. The item is a charted, 11-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-52 N) (069-02-22 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 24 feet in that general location. The item is a charted, 25-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-54 N) (069-05-13 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 40 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 17 feet, 69 meters to the west. No uncharted features exist for this survey.6US5ME19400002016-01-19false2016-02-06Chart information displayed is based on OPR-A366-KR-16 Project Instructions, however the charts used for final comparison were downloaded on 8 December 2016. Given that the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies were discovered between the charted and surveyed depths. Sounding agreement between the H12885 BASE surface depths (surveyed depths) and the charted soundings for all applicable ENC charts was within (+/-) 1 meter. Since the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies between charted and surveyed depths were discovered; special attention was given to charted and surveyed depths with a difference greater than 2 meters. Contours in the area were adequate, but the 100% multibeam coverage established discrepancies between charted and observed contours and require revision from the high-resolution data. The item is a charted, 29.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-54-58 N) (069-11-11 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 46.0 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 28.1 meters, 120 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 14.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-15 N) (069-12-07 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 22.6 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 7.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-18 N) (069-12-23 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 10.9 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 10-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-30 N) (069-11-57 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 16.2 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 33-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-00 N) (069-09-34 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 39 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 2.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-57 N) (069-11-39 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 6.5 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 17.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-04 N) (069-11-11 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 22 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 31-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-01 N) (069-09-16 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 34 meters in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 33-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-47 N) (069-09-00 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 36 meters in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 29.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-18 N) (069-09-13 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 32 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 28.6 meters, 205 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 9.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-29 N) (069-11-19 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 13.9 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 14.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-21 N) (069-11-16 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 17.6 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 20.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-19 N) (069-11-00 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 24.4 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 13.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-15 N) (069-10-41 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 15.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.1 meters, 73 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 27.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-37 N) (069-09-17 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 30.9 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 10.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-55 N) (069-11-18 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 13.6 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 16.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-01 N) (069-10-32 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 19.9 meters in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 21-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-57 N) (069-10-02 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 24.6 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 21-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-04 N) (069-09-47 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 24.4 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 16.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-10 N) (069-09-37 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 24.8 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 9.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-26 N) (069-10-31 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 14.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 9.1 meters, 95 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 10.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-26 N) (069-10-19 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 15.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 9.3 meters, 191 meters to the northeast. The LiDAR item is a charted, 0.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-81 N) (069-12-01 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 3.0 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.4 meters, 15 meters to the southeast. The Hydrographer recommends that soundings within the survey limits of H12885 supersede all prior survey and charted depths.11US5ME21400002016-01-26false2016-02-06Chart information displayed is based on OPR-A366-KR-16 Project Instructions, however the charts used for final comparison were downloaded on 8 December 2016. Given that the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies were discovered between the charted and surveyed depths. Sounding agreement between the H12885 BASE surface depths (surveyed depths) and the charted soundings for all applicable ENC charts was within (+/-) 1 meter. Since the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies between charted and surveyed depths were discovered; special attention was given to charted and surveyed depths with a difference greater than 2 meters. Contours in the area were adequate, but the 100% multibeam coverage established discrepancies between charted and observed contours and require revision from the high-resolution data. The item is a charted, 35-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-32 N) (069-07-14 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 40 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 36 meters, 81 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 36-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-40 N) (069-06-51 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 42 meters in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the east of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 11.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-19 N) (069-08-49 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 17.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 12.9 meters, 44 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 24.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-10 N) (069-08-34 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 27.7 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 24.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-07 N) (069-07-49 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 32.6 meters in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the northwest of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 21.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-14 N) (069-07-35 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 40.2 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 11.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-11 N) (069-07-22 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 19.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 9.6 meters, 90 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 4.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-24 N) (069-07-12 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 7.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.8 meters, 63 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 21-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-10 N) (069-07-01 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 29.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 19.3 meters, 123 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 15.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-27 N) (069-07-42 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 20.2 meters in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the northwest of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 10.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-02 N) (069-06-40 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 17.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 13.9 meters, 55 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 10.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-37 N) (069-06-36 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 18.7 meters in that general location, b but revealed shoaling to the south of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 10.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-50 N) (069-05-26 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 17.9 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 10.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-30 N) (069-04-56 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 16.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 7.2 meters, 100 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 18.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-20 N) (069-04-33 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 11.9 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 27.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-36 N) (069-06-13 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 38.5 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 7.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-54 N) (069-05-13 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 12.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 5.2 meters, 68 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 6.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-24 N) (069-08-35 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 11.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 5.1 meters, 109 meters to the northeast. The Hydrographer recommends that soundings within the survey limits of H12885 supersede all prior survey and charted depths.12US5ME22400002016-01-26false2016-02-06Chart information displayed is based on OPR-A366-KR-16 Project Instructions, however the charts used for final comparison were downloaded on 8 December 2016. Given that the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies were discovered between the charted and surveyed depths. Sounding agreement between the H12885 BASE surface depths (surveyed depths) and the charted soundings for all applicable ENC charts was within (+/-) 1 meter. Since the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies between charted and surveyed depths were discovered; special attention was given to charted and surveyed depths with a difference greater than 2 meters. Contours in the area were adequate, but the 100% multibeam coverage established discrepancies between charted and observed contours and require revision from the high-resolution data. The item is a charted, 4.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-59 N) (069-09-44 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 8.9 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 0.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-01 N) (069-09-39 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 5.9 meters in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the north of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 2.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-06 N) (069-10-07 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 5.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.8 meters, 20 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 22.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-53 N) (069-07-08 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 31.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 17.9 meters, 117 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 24.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-02 N) (069-07-00 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 30.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 17.3 meters, 72 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 20.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-58 N) (069-06-08 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 28.9 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 11.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-22 N) (069-06-46 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 16.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 11.5 meters, 112 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 27.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-45 N) (069-03-13 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 34.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 16 meters, 98 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 11.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-56 N) (069-01-52 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 23.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 11.4 meters, 63 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 16.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-00 N) (069-05-55 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 20.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 17.6 meters, 120 meters to the southeast. The item is a charted, 17.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-51 N) (069-06-00 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 19.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 17.4 meters, 141 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 10-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-58 N) (069-05-20 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 14.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 10.6 meters, 62 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 24.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-16 N) (069-06-55 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 29.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 22.1 meters, 74 meters to the southeast. The item is a charted, 17.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-01-08 N) (069-01-43 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 25.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 16.6 meters, 103 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 18.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-29 N) (069-05-54 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 35 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 9.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-00 N) (069-05-55 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 19.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 10.8 meters, 85 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 2.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-47 N) (069-06-45 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 12.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 7.9 meters, 15 meters to the southeast. The item is a charted, 5.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-59 N) (069-05-01 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 8.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.8 meters, 26 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 7.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-37 N) (069-02-22 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 15.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 8.4 meters, 62 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 12.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-30 N) (069-02-24 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 17.1 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 17-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-39 N) (069-01-55 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 21.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.4 meters, 46 meters to the northeast. The item is a charted, 23.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-04 N) (069-01-44 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 36.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 24.4 meters, 90 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 9.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-13 N) (069-02-47 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 17.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.6 meters, 33 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 21.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-45 N) (069-03-37 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 24.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 17.6 meters, 134 meters to the east. The LiDAR item is a charted, 1.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-47 N) (069-08-28 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 7.2 meters in that general location. The LiDAR item is a charted, 0.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-30 N) (069-04-22 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 3.3 meters in that general location. The LiDAR item is a charted, 0.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-24 N) (069-04-41 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 3.6 meters in that general location. The Hydrographer recommends that soundings within the survey limits of H12885 supersede all prior survey and charted depths.212016-02-022016-02-2020332015-044000013301Chart information displayed is based on OPR-A366-KR-16 Project Instructions, however the charts used for final comparison were downloaded on 8 December 2016. Given that the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies were discovered between the charted and surveyed depths. Sounding agreement between the H12885 BASE surface depths (surveyed depths) and the charted soundings for all applicable Raster charts was within (+/-) 3 feet. Since the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies between charted and surveyed depths were discovered and special attention was given to charted and surveyed depths with a difference greater than 5 feet. Contours in the area were adequate, but the 100% multibeam coverage established discrepancies between charted and observed contours and require revision from the high-resolution data. The item is a charted, 98-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-54-58 N) (069-11-11 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 150 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 92 feet, 118 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 48-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-15 N) (069-12-07 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 74 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 48 feet, 131 meters to the northeast. The item is a charted, 25-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-18 N) (069-12-23 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 36 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 25 feet, 160 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 33-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-30 N) (069-11-57 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 53 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 33 feet, 94 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 107 foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-00 N) (069-09-34 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 127 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 95 feet 153 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 8-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-57 N) (069-11-39 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 21 feet in that general location. The item is a charted, 57-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-04 N) (069-11-11 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 72 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 57 feet, 124 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 101-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-01 N) (069-09-16 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 112 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 107-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-47 N) (069-09-00 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 117 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 104-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-01 N) (069-08-57 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 114 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 97-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-18 N) (069-09-13 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 104 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 94 feet, 206 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 108-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-03 N) (069-08-32 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 116 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 114-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-31 N) (069-07-14 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 130 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 117 feet, 76 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 31-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-29 N) (069-11-19 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 45 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 48-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-21 N) (069-11-16 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 58 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 48 feet, 169 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 67-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-19 N) (069-11-00 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 80 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 62 feet, 168 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 44-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-15 N) (069-10-41 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 53 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 46 feet, 75 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 90-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-37 N) (069-09-16 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 101 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 76 feet, 176 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 34-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-55 N) (069-11-17 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 44 feet in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the north of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 60-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-50 N) (069-10-32 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 69 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 64 feet, 98 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 54-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-01 N) (069-10-32 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 65 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 69-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-57 N) (069-10-02 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 81 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 69-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-04 N) (069-09-47 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 79 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 54-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-10 N) (069-09-37 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 81 feet in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the north of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 31-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-26 N) (069-10-31 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 47 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 27 feet, 100 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 34-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-26 N) (069-10-19 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 50 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 30 feet, 191 meters to the northeast. The item is a charted, 11-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-30 N) (069-09-26 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 41 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 7 feet, 54 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 15-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-58 N) (069-09-43 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 33 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 15 feet, 85 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 2-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-01 N) (069-09-39 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 12 feet in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the north of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 7-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-06 N) (069-10-07 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 13 feet in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the northwest of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 21-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-23 N) (069-08-36 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 40 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 23 feet, 111 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 39-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-18 N) (069-08-50 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 60 feet in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the north of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 81-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-10 N) (069-08-35 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 91 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 81-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-07 N) (069-07-49 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 107 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 39-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-11 N) (069-07-22 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 65 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 26 feet, 81 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 69-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-09 N) (069-07-03 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 96 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 63 feet, 92 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 51-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-27 N) (069-07-42 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 68 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 45 feet, 64 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 75-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-53 N) (069-07-08 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 102 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 58 feet, 124 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 81-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-03 N) (069-07-01 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 100 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 56 feet, 104 meters to the east. The LiDAR item is a charted, 2-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-47 N) (069-12-01 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 8 feet in that general location. The Hydrographer recommends that soundings within the survey limits of H12885 supersede all prior survey and charted depths.142016-02-022016-02-2021562015-044000013303Chart information displayed is based on OPR-A366-KR-16 Project Instructions, however the charts used for final comparison were downloaded on 8 December 2016. Given that the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies were discovered between the charted and surveyed depths. Sounding agreement between the H12885 BASE surface depths (surveyed depths) and the charted soundings for all applicable Raster charts was within (+/-) 3 feet. Since the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies between charted and surveyed depths were discovered; special attention was given to charted and surveyed depths with a difference greater than 5 feet. Contours in the area were adequate, but the 100% multibeam coverage established discrepancies between charted and observed contours and require revision from the high-resolution data. The item is a charted, 108-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-03 N) (069-08-32 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 116 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 114-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-31 N) (069-07-14 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 130 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 117 feet, 86 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 118-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-56-40 N) (069-06-51 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 139 feet in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the east of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 80-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-45 N) (069-08-38 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 99 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 84 feet, 64 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 66-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-26 N) (069-08-38 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 86 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 66 feet, 79 meters to the west. It should be noted that the position of the sounding on the overlapping chart 13301 is positioned correctly. The item is a charted, 21-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-24 N) (069-08-35 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 38 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 23 feet, 107 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 81-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-10 N) (069-08-35 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 91 feet in that general location, but revealed no shoaling near the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 81-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-07 N) (069-07-49 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 107 feet in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the north of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 72-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-14 N) (069-07-34 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 132 feet in that general location, but revealed shoaling to the east of the charted sounding. The item is a charted, 39-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-11 N) (069-07-22 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 64 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 26 feet, 80 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 69-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-10 N) (069-07-01 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 96 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 63 feet, 116 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 51-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-27 N) (069-07-42 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 69 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 45 feet, 70 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 31-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-46 N) (069-07-00 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 41 feet in that general location. The item is a charted, 75-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-54 N) (069-07-07 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 105 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 58 feet, 152 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 81-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-04 N) (069-06-59 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 99 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 56 feet, 59 meters to the southeast. The item is a charted, 34-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-03 N) (069-06-39 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 59 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 45 feet, 49 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 35-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-38 N) (069-06-36 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 62 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 35 feet, 63 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 21-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-43 N) (069-06-55 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 46 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 27 feet, 41 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 67-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-00 N) (069-06-07 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 95 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 62 feet, 132 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 39-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-23 N) (069-06-44 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 66 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 38 feet, 86 meters to the northwest. The item is a charted, 34-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-57-50 N) (069-05-25 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 59 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 36 feet, 163 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 61-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-20 N) (069-04-32 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 39 feet in that general location. The item is a charted, 91-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-46 N) (069-03-12 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 115 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 52 feet, 108 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 38-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-57 N) (069-01-50 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 94 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 32 feet, 150 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 55-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-00 N) (069-05-54 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 66 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 58 feet, 111 meters to the southeast. The item is a charted, 58-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-51 N) (069-05-58 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 65 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 57 feet, 157 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 33-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-57 N) (069-05-19 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 46 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 34 feet, 80 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 81-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-17 N) (069-06-54 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 98 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 72 feet, 95 meters to the southeast. The item is a charted, 91-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-36 N) (069-06-12 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 127 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 92 feet, 169 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 57-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-01-10 N) (069-01-42 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 90 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 54 feet, 96 meters to the southeast. The item is a charted, 31-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-01 N) (069-05-53 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 47 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 35 feet, 97 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 9-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-48 N) (069-06-45 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 43 feet in that general location, but shoaling to either side. The item is a charted, 19-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-59 N) (069-05-00 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 28 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 16 feet, 49 meters to the southwest. The item is a charted, 56-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-40 N) (069-01-55 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 47 feet in that general location. The item is a charted, 44-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (44-00-18 N) (069-01-46 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 35 feet in that general location. The item is a charted, 78-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-06 N) (069-01-43 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 115 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 80 feet, 90 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 32-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-14 N) (069-02-45 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 54 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 48 feet, 62 meters to the west. The LiDAR item is a charted, 4-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-58-47 N) (069-08-27 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 21 feet in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4 feet, 57 meters to the southeast. It should be noted that the charted sounding is correct on chart 13301. The LiDAR item is a charted, 1-foot sounding in the general vicinity of (43-59-30 N) (069-04-20 W). Survey H12885 had a survey depth of 8 feet in that general location. The Hydrographer recommends that soundings within the survey limits of H12885 supersede all prior survey and charted depths.Samples were taken with a Van Veen grab sampler and positions and information were recorded with WinFrog Multibeam and CARIS Notebook 3.1. Samples retrieved were analyzed and then encoded with the appropriate S-57 attributes. Positions and descriptions of bottom samples for survey H12885 are found in the “H12885_FFF.000” file. No SBDARE items were in the CSF, therefore were not investigated during field operations. Bottom samples were conducted in accordance with the project instructions and HSSD 2016. All 18 samples were discarded after the sample information was recorded.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.2016-09-12H12885_DTON_Report_12016-09-12H12885_DTON_Report_22016-09-12H12885_DTON_Report_32017-01-30H12885_DTON_Report_422Dangers to Navigation are included in the Final Features File and have images associated with them. The Dangers to Navigation files listed above were submitted to MCD via AHB and PHB are included in Appendix II.No maritime boundary exists for this survey.Limited shoreline verification was conducted using the composite source file (CSF) . All features with the attribute ‘asgnmt’ were address and can be found in the final feature file (FFF).No significant features exist for this survey.AIS Traffic Ferry Routes Running from Rockland to VinalhavenSupport Files\AIS Traffic Ferry Routes Run from Rockland to Vinalhaven.pngThe Rockland Ferry Terminal services the islands of Matinicus, North Haven, and Vinalhaven. H12885 encompassed part of the routes out of Rockland and vicinity for these island ferry runs, and was surveyed with 100% MB coverage. H12885 had numerous dangers to navigation and shoal features, but none hinder the existing ferry routes. There were no Aids to Navigation (ATONs) specifically assigned for this project, but all ATONs within the survey limits were verified and serve their intended purpose.No prior survey comparisons exist for this survey.Fugro conducted limited shoreline verification using the CSF. All features with the Assigned attribute were addressed in accordance with the HSSD 2016. There were a total of 386 assigned features (which included the Charted Features) in the CSF provided by NOAA. All features were addressed as required with S-57 attribution and recorded in the H12885 FFF to best represent the features at chart scale. FFF features that do not exist or were determined to be a duplicate were given a “delete”value in the “descrp” attribute. Features that were positioned incorrectly were also given the “delete” value in the “descrp” attribute, and a new feature with a “new” value in the “descrp” attribute was added in its correct location. The “primsec” field was used to distinguish deleted features from newly positioned features. For survey H12885, most of the assigned features were verified or identified in the LiDAR bathy data or ortho-mosaic. These items were labelled with “LiDAR investigations” in the “Special Feature Type” attribute. The TECSOU field was populated with the “found by multi-beam attribute” for any feature verified by multibeam. If an assigned feature was not submerged and within 2 mm at survey scale, the position of that assigned feature was retained and only the VALSOU or ELEVAT attributes were updated. To determine the VALSOU or ELEVAT for features investigated by LiDAR, the National VDatum software developed by NOAA was used to reduce LiDAR data to MLLW. LiDAR data was then clipped to the extents of each of the survey priorities and overlaid with Fugro-acquired ortho-imagery and assigned CSF features. The LiDAR grid was then used to determine the VALSOU attribute using the height or depth on the actual features and not the height or depth of the corresponding assigned CSF features. In order to determine which features should be considered islets, a difference surface corresponding to mean high water (MHW) was created for all survey priorities. Islet elevations were derived by taking the difference between the highest SHOALS topo point and the MHW grid. See the NOS HSSD 2016, Appendix F. WATLEV Attribution encoding guidelines were used for determining points above and below MHW. To the reviewer: some automated routines that check grid agreement to a feature file (such as HydrOffice QC Tools VALSOU Check) may reveal flags suggesting a positional error; this is because some of the charted features in this survey have depths with little or no height off the bottom, and so automated routines may not be able to distinguish the node-match from the surrounding seafloor. The final S-57 file for this project is called “H12885_FFF.000”. This file contains the object and metadata S-57 objects as required in the HSSD 2016. Final Feature FileNo platforms exist for this survey.There is no present or planned construction or dredging within the survey limits.Existing Cable Area in H12885Support Files\Existing Cable Area in H12885.pngCoverage of Cable Area in H12885Support Files\Data of Cable Area in H12885.pngThe only submarine feature within the limits of H12885 was an existing cable area, which was located within the charted Cable Area. The majority of the charted Cable Area within the limits of H12885 were surveyed with 100% MB coverage. A cable trench cannot be seen in the final surfaces. Refer to the following graphics.Overhead features do not exist for this survey.No new insets are recommended for this area.No new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area.OPR-A366-KR-16Penobscot BayPenobscot Bay, MEFugro Pelagos, Inc.Navigable Area2016UTCPacific 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 Centers for Envitronmental Information (NCEI) and can be retrieved via http://www.ncei.noaa.gov/.metersMultibeam Echo SounderLiDAR SHOALS-1000TMultibeam Echo Sounder BackscatterProsilica GX3300UTM2016-05-06Dean Moyles2016-07-112016-09-29ContractorUnited StatesSpaulding Island to Mosquito Island200001MaineH12885Mean Lower Low WaterInterp_ITRF00_to_MLLWInterp_ITRF00_to_MHWERS via VDATUMAdditional information discussing the vertical control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.Portland, ME8418150Bar Harbor, ME8413320FinalA366KR2016_FINAL.tcVerified Observed8418150_Portland_VerifiedVerified Observed8413320_Bar Harbor_Verified2016-12-122016-11-16Additional information discussing the vertical control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.TCARIUTM (Zone 19N)Real-time corrections for both the vessels and aircraft, the POS M/V and A/V were configured to accept Fugro’s Marinestar G2 corrections. Marinestar G2 service is a real-time GPS and GLObal Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) Precise Point Positioning (PPP) service providing refined satellite ‘clock and orbit’ data to any GNSS receiver with a valid subscription. Signals on the L-band with corrections are broadcasted by geo-stationary satellites and are received by the integrated GNSS/L-band antenna. The unit outputs corrected positions at 1 Hz to the POS units where they are integrated with inertial data, and a position for the top-center of the IMU is generated, providing a horizontal accuracy of 10 cm and a vertical accuracy of 15 cm. This position was logged concurrently with the bathymetry from WinFrog and the POS file using Fugro Pelagos PosMvLogger for the Westerly. For the multibeam data, the real-time solution was used for the final positioning and no post-processing was required. Processed LiDAR point positions for the SHOALS and VQ-820-G LiDAR sensors were derived relative to the ITRF00 ellipsoid using a Post Processed Kinematic (PPK) solution during GNSS post-processing, which used aircraft positioning data and final LiDAR point positions. These positions were then reduced to MLLW using a VDatum model created for the survey area by Fugro. For each flight, a Kinematic GPS (KGPS) navigation solution was processed in Applanix POSPac software. GPS data from the airplane and ground control base stations were input into a POSPac project and post-processed to obtain an optimal inertially-aided KGPS navigation solution. Fugro’s installed base station in Rockland was only intended to be a backup and was not used in the smartbase network. Refer to the OPR-A366-KR-16 DAPR for additional details.Smart BaseAugusta, MEMEOWWaldo, ME MEWAPenobscot, MEPNB6Bar Harbor, MEBARHTruro, MAMATUU New Hampshire, NHNHUNRockland, MERKD16PITRF2000 (WGS84: G1150)Multibeam vertical control for OPR-A366-KR-16 was provided by way of a Tidal Constituent And Residual Interpolation (TCARI) grid based on verified tide data from Portland (8418150), and Bar Harbor (8413320), ME. During field operations, all sounding data were initially reduced to MLLW using a combination of preliminary and verified tidal data along with a zone definition file (ZDF) that was based on tidal data from the Portland, ME station. This station is owned and operated by NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS) through the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). Preliminary and verified tidal data was assembled by CO-OPS and accessed through NOAA’s Tides&Currents website (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/). A cumulative file for the gauge in use was updated daily by appending the new data as it became available. It should be noted that these unverified tides were used in the field for preliminary processing only. On December 12, 2016, the final TCARI grid was acquired from CO-OPS and applied to all sounding data using the TCARI GUI (version 16.8) and merged in CARIS HIPS. Verified tidal data were used for all final CUBE Surfaces, soundings, and S-57 Feature files. LiDAR vertical control for OPR-A366-KR-16 was GPS-derived. POS files logged during data acquisition on each flight were post-processed using Applanix POSPac SmartBase routine to create a smoothed best estimate of trajectory (SBET) file. Following creation, the SmartBase SBETs were then applied to the data in SHOALS GCS, replacing the real-time GPS navigation position with a post-processed GPS position. The separation model was created with NOAA’s VDatum v3.6. This model also allowed for topographic data to be referenced to MLLW through the use of DTM-derived interpolation. Data was initially referenced to the ITRF00 (WGS84) ellipsoid using the Applanix Smart Base routine. An SBET solution was processed using a network of CORS stations, with MEOW, as control. It should be noted that the LiDAR data was maintained on the ellipsoid during processing. All depth soundings were eventually reduced to MLLW in CARIS using this Fugro-created VDatum model. Topographic heights detected by LiDAR were also related to MLLW through the same method. The model was applied to the data, using the compute GPS tides utility, and then merged. Additional information discussing the vertical and horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.The purpose of this project is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. This project area is located in a highly trafficked area and will cover approximately 96 SNM of priority 1 area, 9 SNM of priority 2 area, 2 SNM of priority 3 area, and 1 SNM of priority 4 area as identified in the 2012 NOAA Hydrographic Survey Priorities. This project is located in Penobscot Bay, ME and encompasses approximately 108 SNM of survey area.000045.51871.845.200119.49000045.51871.8400012319910000001984.370119.49N87QThe area was not divided into separate surveys for LiDAR acquisition, but three smaller blocks for data management purposes. For this reason, the LiDAR survey statistics are for the entire project and not just for H12885. The LiDAR program was proposed and planned for 100% of the area to be flown with a five by five (or better) spot spacing. A reconnaissance coverage survey would be used from the inshore limit (4-meter) to the 8-meter water depth. The actual line spacing was based on 200% coverage to try to provide maximum coverage and data density; this resulted in doubling the anticipated mainscheme linear nautical miles. In addition to this, the LiDAR area extends to the original survey limits and not to the revised survey limits as outlined in the project instructions (the area was reduced due to the allocated and available budget). For these reasons, the percentage of LiDAR mainscheme lines to LiDAR crosslines are not within the HSSD 2016 specification. 2016-08-032016-08-042016-08-072016-08-082016-08-092016-08-102016-08-112016-08-122016-08-152016-08-162016-08-182016-08-192016-08-202016-08-212016-08-222016-08-232016-08-242016-09-022016-09-032016-09-042016-09-052016-09-062016-09-072016-09-082016-09-152016-09-162016-09-172016-09-202016-09-212016-09-242016-09-252016-09-262016-09-292016-07-112016-07-122016-07-132016-07-142016-07-152016-07-162016-07-172016-07-18The following LiDAR linear mileage was calculated for this survey during office processing: LiDAR mainscheme = 1420 miles, LiDAR crosslines = 35 miles (% of LiDAR XL to LiDAR MS = 2.5%)Proposed LiDAR Line PlanSupport Files\Proposed LiDAR Line Plan (Original Limits).PNGActual LiDAR Line PlanSupport Files\Actual LiDAR Line Plan (Revised Limits).PNG00031.318H12885 Survey CoverageSupport Files\H12884_Area_Coverage.pngIn addition to LiDAR, MBES was also required in 4-8 meter water depth for feature disproval.Data holidays are present in the LiDAR data due to the removal of vessels and other surface structures. A gap between the LiDAR and MB data sets exists and is due to water clarity in the area. The water clarity had a negative impact on coverage within the four to eight-meter depth range, which varied significantly both spatially and temporally across the project area. A test flight was conducted during high tide in order to eliminate the low tide timing as the issue with water clarity, due to tidal flushing. Water conditions on this test flight were consistent with those seen on the flights timed around low tide, so it was concluded that the tide level was not the cause of the poor water clarity. Though not required, since the limit for the MB was greater than an 8-meter water depth, to bridge this gap, additional nearshore lines were conducted during field operations.5 by 5 meter LidarInshore limit to 8 meters water depthComplete coverage multibeam with backscatterGreater than 8 meters water depthAdditional discussions regarding survey quality or data quality can be found in the Quality Control and Additional Results sections of this XML DR.The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.69.9951943.8902469.2708944.03404H12885 (Sheet ID 1) is located in Penobscot Bay, ME and encompasses approximately 31.3 SNM of Spaulding Island to Mosquito Island. H12885 Sheet 1 LimitsSupport Files\H12885_Limits.pngThe survey limits were revised to encompass the additional LiDAR data that was collected during field acquisition and were submitted as the final outlines following field operations. It should be noted that the limits were extended only to capture the extra LiDAR data and that the multibeam (MB) collection concluded at the survey limits as outlined in the project instructions.2017-02-08Senior Hydrographer (ACSM Cert. No. 226)Dean MoylesThe survey data meets or exceeds requirements as set forth in the NOS Hydrographic Surveys and Specifications Deliverables Manual, Field Procedures Manual, Standing and 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.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.Data Acquisition and Processing Report2017-02-07Horizontal and Vertical Control Report2017-02-07Coast Pilot Report2016-12-20QCTools was used to scan each surface for potential fliers. The Detect fliers utility was initially run allowing the software to estimate heights, and it was also run where the Force flier heights value was set manually. This value varied depending on the resolution of the surface being scanned, which on occasion, yielded several false positives. Each finding from the utility was examined and checked for quality assurance. The Detect holidays, Grid QA, Scan features, and SBDARE checks were also used for the appropriate surface and feature files.Hydroffice (QCTools version 1.5.2)NOAA Extended Attribute Files V5_4HIPS/SIPSCARIS9.1.8HIPS/SIPSCARIS9.1.9NOAA_1mH12885_MB_1m_MLLWComplete MBESCUBE106.85-1.211NOAA_1mH12885_MB_1m_MLLW_FinalComplete MBESCUBE2001NOAA_2mH12885_MB_2m_MLLWComplete MBESCUBE106.82-1.182NOAA_2mH12885_MB_2m_MLLW_FinalComplete MBESCUBE40182NOAA_4mH12885_MB_4m_MLLWComplete MBESCUBE106.31-1.194NOAA_4mH12885_MB_4m_MLLW_FinalComplete MBESCUBE80364NOAA_8mH12885_MB_8m_MLLWComplete MBESCUBE106.31-1.038NOAA_8mH12885_MB_8m_MLLW_FinalComplete MBESCUBE106.31728N/AH12885_LI_5m_MLLWComplete MBESBASE Uncertainty10.47-3.015The surfaces have been reviewed for noisy data or 'fliers' that were incorporated into the gridded solution, causing the surface to be shoaler or deeper than the true seafloor. Spurious soundings that caused the gridded surface to be shoaler or deeper than the reliably measured seabed by greater than the maximum allowable TVU at that depth, have been rejected, and the surface recomputed. The NOAA CUBE parameters mandated in HSSD were used for the creation of all CUBE BASE surfaces in Survey H12885. Refer to the OPR-A366-KR-16 DAPR for a detailed description of the processing flow. The R/V Westerly performed an additional patch test after needing to replace the leased IMU. The change out of the IMU with a Fugro-owned unit occurred on 10 August 2016. The patch test to calibrate the new IMU was performed on 13 August 2016. 2016-08-13IMU SwapoutMultibeam Patch TestOne MB line (2P1B39-1550), acquired on Julian Day 2016-235 on sheet H12885, does not have delayed heave applied. The range of the POS file was not sufficient to cover the entire line.Towed SideScan Sonar (SSS) operations were not required by this contract, but the backscatter and beam imagery snippet data from all multibeam systems were logged and stored in the s7k files. All beam imagery snippet data was logged in the 7028 record of the s7k file for the project. To yield the best results when processing the backscatter from the dual head 7125 systems, we recommend using the CARIS SIPS Backscatter routine. Currently, CARIS only uses the Beam Average, but in an upcoming release in v10 CARIS will apply the Time Series backscatter data. LiDAR reflectance was not part of the project instructions, but was processed and will be included in the final deliverables.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.The R/V Westerly was equipped with dual head Reson 7125 sonars, which were operated in the full rate dual head (FRDH) mode in the Reson topside. The Allied Prosilica GX3300 down-look camera and VQ-820-G (RIEGL) LiDAR sensor were not part of the project instructions or a requirement, but were installed to aid with feature verification and detection. By-products of these extra systems include the othro-mosaic, SHOALS-1000T reflectance, and RIEGL topo data and will be included as part of the final data deliverable. Patrick Keown (COR) approved these to be included in the multimedia folder. POS M/V Version 5ApplanixPositioning and Attitude SystemPOS M/V Version 6ApplanixPositioning and Attitude SystemSV&PApplied Micro-SystemsSound Speed System7125ResonMBESSVP70ResonSound Speed SystemSHOALS-1000TOptechLidar SystemProsilica GX3300AlliedDown-Look Camera820GRIEGLTopo-Lidar SystemR/V Westerly (1231991) and the Beechcraft King Air A90 (N87Q) systems acquired all sounding data for H12885. Fugro Pelagos, Inc. (Fugro) mobilized a catamaran-style jet drive survey boat (Westerly), which was equipped with an over the stern pole that housed an underwater IMU and dual head Reson 7125 multibeam sonars (dual meaning two independent systems). The Reson systems and IMU were installed on a special mount, where each Reson 7125 was rotated approximately 15 degrees and the IMU was centered above the 7125s. The vessel was utilized to survey in water depths greater than eight meters. In addition to the vessel, a small aircraft was fitted with a SHOALS-1000T Airborne LiDAR Bathymetry (ALB) system to map data inshore of the 8-meter contour. It should be noted that an Allied Prosilica GX3300 down-look camera and VQ-820-G (RIEGL) LiDAR sensor were also installed. These extra systems were not part of the project instructions or a requirement, but were installed to aid with feature verification and detection. 441231991210.8N87Q0R/V Westerly (1231991)Support Files\RV Westerly (1231991).PNGBeechcraft King Air A90 (N87Q)Support Files\N87Q.PNGR/V Westerly was equipped with two AML 1000 dbar Sound Velocity & Pressure (AML SV&P) Smart Sensors. The AML SV&P directly measures sound velocity through a time of flight calculation, and measures pressure with a temperature compensated semiconductor strain gauge at a 10Hz sample rate. The instrument has a 0.015m/s resolution with a ±0.05m/s accuracy for sound velocity measurements and a 0.01 dbar resolution and a ±0.5m dbar accuracy for pressure. Sound Speed quality control checks were conducted as per the HSSD 2016, Section 5.2.3.3 and can be found in Separate II.AML SVPSupport Files\AML SVP.pngSound velocity casts were normally performed every two to three hours on the R/V Westerly. For each cast, the probes were held at the surface for one to two minutes to achieve temperature equilibrium. The probes were then lowered and raised at a rate of 1 m/s. Between casts, the sound velocity sensors were stored inside the lab or in fresh water to minimize salt-water corrosion and to hold them at ambient water temperature. Refer to the DAPR for additional information.All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.H12885 SVP CastSupport Files\H12885_SVP_Cast.pngH12885 SSP RefractionSupport Files\H12885_SSP_Refraction.pngA general downward and/or upward cupping is noticeable in the across-track sounding profiles for certain areas. Sound speed refraction errors were seen in the outer beams on the majority of survey lines conducted and were on the order of 0.10 to 0.20 meters. These errors are a result of the strong tidal mixing in the area, which not only carries sediment, but also causes a change in water surface temperature and salinity. The sound speed profiles conducted throughout the project had an increased inconsistency throughout the water column, much more evident at the surface or near the face of the sonars. In order to mitigate these sound speed errors, the frequency of sound speed casts was increased and the line spacing reduced. Data were examined (and filtered) in CARIS HIPS Subset Editor routine to ensure the data met IHO Order 1a specifications.Sound Speed Refraction (SSR)Fishing GearSupport Files\Fishing Gear.JPGThe survey was awarded and conducted during the peak of lobster season, resulting in an extremely high presence of fishing gear (and fishing vessels) in the survey area. This resulted in having to maneuver in and around the surface buoys and fishing vessels causing not only numerous in-fills and re-runs, but increased time spent on manually rejecting erroneous data (fishing gear in the water column) in CARIS HIPS. Because of the density of fishing gear in the area, vessel speed was at times reduced to near idle. Entanglements between the survey vessel’s deployed sonar equipment and fishing gear happened quite often, resulting in a loss of survey time. The risk of entanglement also increased before and after the high tide peaks due to submerged buoys in some areas. Fishing GearThere was a high presence of marine life in various locations within the survey area. This resulted in not only numerous in-fills and re-runs, but increased time spent on manually rejecting the erroneous data in CARIS HIPS and SIPS.Marine LifeAdditional tide busts of up to 0.55 meters were found during office processing in the vicinity of Graffam Island. All are within the 2016 HSSD allowable error budget for tide.H12885 Tidal Bust OverviewSupport Files\Tidal_Bust_TCARI_Model_Overview.pngH12885 Tidal Bust (Julian Day 2016-249 Shown in Dark Green)Support Files\Tidal_Bust_TCARI_Model (JD 2016-249 Dark Green).pngSmall tide busts, on the order of 0.15m to 0.20m were noticed between some mainscheme lines. Mainscheme lines that were conducted on Julian Day 2016-249 are 0.15 to 0.20 meters deeper than the adjacent data. This can be attributed to the overall uncertainly in the gauge data and TCARI Model. All data fell within IHO Order 1a accuracy specifications. Note: GPS Heights were applied to the data set and a GPS Tide Computed (referenced to the WGS84 ellipsoid), but this was for troubleshooting purposes only, mostly to verify tide bust. Final tide corrections for this survey were from the TCARI Model.Tidal BustWater ClaritySupport Files\Water Clarity Image.pngIn addition to being an issue in equipment effectiveness, water clarity was a factor affecting soundings. Refer to section B.2.5 for the explanation on water clarity. Water ClarityA finalized LiDAR surface was created during office processing since one was not submitted. The final uncertainty value for this grid was computed from the "Greater of the two" per the HSSD section 5.3.1.2 which states "The uncertainty value for the grid shall be the greater of the standard deviation and the a priori computed uncertainty estimate." It was found that 75% of nodes passed IHO Order 1 uncertainty standards which differs from the reported 100% since the reported value was derived from the "Uncertainty-weighted" parent surface.Finalized LiDAR surface resultsfile:///M:/OPRA366KR16/Surveys/H12885/Compilation/Report/Support%20Files/H12885_LI_5m_MLLW_Final.QAv5.tvu_qc.pngH12885 UncertaintySupport Files\H12885_Uncertainty.tifHydroffice Surface Report H12885 (Priority 1) 1m Final Support Files\H12885_MB_1m_MLLW_Final.QAv2.tvu_qc.pngHydroffice Surface Report H12885 (Priority 1) 2m Final Support Files\H12885_MB_2m_MLLW_Final.QAv2.tvu_qc.pngHydroffice Surface Report H12885 (Priority 1) 4m FinalSupport Files\H12885_MB_4m_MLLW_Final.QAv2.tvu_qc.pngHydroffice Surface Report H12885 (Priority 1) 8m FinalSupport Files\H12885_MB_8m_MLLW_Final.QAv2.tvu_qc.pngLTE tool results exampleSupport Files\LTE Tool Results Example.pngTotal Bottom Uncertainty for SHOALS data sampleSupport Files\Total Bottom Uncertainty for SHOALS Data Sample.pngTPU Survey AreaSupport Files\TPU Survey Area.jpgThe majority of the data fell within IHO Order 1a accuracy specifications. Nodes that exceeded the allowable specifications were located in areas where the outer beams of the coverage boundaries were the single contributor to the surface, with a small portion of the nodes exceeding specifications attributable to rapid topographical changes such as rock outcrops, etc. TPU was derived in CARIS from a combination of real-time and fixed values for equipment, vessel characteristics, sound speed, and tide and tide zoning. The percentage of nodes within IHO Order 1a, were computed by CARIS using the Surface QC Report utility and are as follows: Surface Depth Range (m) % of nodes within IHO Order1a H12885_MB_1m_MLLW 0-20 99.99% H12885_MB_2m_MLLW 18-40 99.99% H12885_MB_4m_MLLW 36-80 99.99% H12885_MB_8m_MLLW 72-160 100% H12885_LI_5m_MLLW -3.01-10.47 100% The uncertainty is generally lowest near the sonar nadir beams (in the sectors where the dual heads overlap) and increases toward the outside of each swath. This is expected and primarily a result of the sonar’s device model used within CARIS HIPS for TPU calculations. In general, TPU varies proportionally to water depth. Outer beams also have higher uncertainty values as a function of the bottom-detection algorithms within the sonar. In addition to using the surface QC report in CARIS to derive the TPU for H12885, HydroOffice QCTools were used to compute the total propagated vertical uncertainty (TVU). Both methods yielded similar results. Regarding LiDAR, in order to accurately determine TVU for all depth data collected as part of the project, a ‘TPU’ line was designed and flown on eight separate occasions. One area of low gradient seabed was identified across the TPU line. Once all of the depth data had been processed, cleaned, and reduced to datum by a VDatum model, Fugro’s LiDAR Total Error (LTE) tool (an extension in ArcGIS) was used to determine SHOALS uncertainty. LTE is a tool implemented in ArcGIS that uses spatial analysis of LiDAR point elevations to determine statistical variance of a significant data sample. The LTE tool application shows the common parameters for data sampling, as well as the water depth ranges being analyzed (or elevation on the ellipsoid). The inputs were the Hydrographic Output Files (HOF) files generated in the SHOALS-GCS processing software. The results of the analysis were tabulated and plotted to derive a depth-dependent model of Total Bottom Uncertainty (TBU). Refer to the Appendix II for the full report.0TCARI00.2512319912.580Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.H12885 Crossline OverviewSupport Files\01_H12885_MB_Crossline_Overview.tif2PB09-TIE02 Subset OverviewSupport Files\2P1B09-TIE02_Subset_Overview.png2PB09-TIE02 SubsetSupport Files\2P1B09-TIE02_Subset.pngH12885 LiDAR Crossline OverviewSupport Files\01_H12885_LiDAR_Crossline_Overview.tifFlight Line 20160713 1713 01191 QCSupport Files\02_04DS16000_004_160713_1713_A Histogram.pngFlight Line 20160713 1713 01191Support Files\03_20160713_1713_01191_DIFF.bmpMultibeam crosslines were planned and well distributed throughout the survey to ensure adequate quality control. Total crossline length surveyed was 45.5 nautical miles or 5.2 percent of the total mainscheme line length. Depending on depth, each crossline was compared to the entire mainscheme line plan through a 1m, 2m, or 4m CUBE surface using the CARIS HIPS QC report routine. The majority of the QC Reports fall well within the required accuracy specifications. However, crossline 2P1B09-TIE02 run by R/V Westerly in the northeastern half of H12885 contains several beams in the QC report that fall below the 95% confidence level. This is due to a very steep slope and to sound speed refraction, as illustrated in the graphic labelled “2P1B09-TIE02_Subset”. Despite the issues raised by the steep slope and the sound speed refraction, good conformity is still seen between the mainscheme lines and the crossline. Mainscheme lines are shown in purple, and the crossline (2P1B09-TIE02) is shown in light green. All data are well within the IHO Order 1a allowable error. LiDAR crosslines were planned and well distributed throughout the survey to ensure adequate quality control. A total of 17 specific crosslines were planned and flown perpendicular to the mainscheme survey lines. A difference analysis between the crosslines and the main survey lines was performed using the Crosscheck program within Fledermaus. A surface grid was created from the production lines at a bin size of approximately 3 meters. The crossline points were then compared to the surface, and point-to-surface statistics generated. The crossline comparison documents illustrate that elevated standard deviation of the differences occurs over rocky and high gradient seabed. In relatively featureless areas of seabed, the differences present a much lower variability. Quality Control Results are located in Separate II Digital Data.H12885 Junctions OverviewSupport Files\H12885 Junctions Overview.pngComparisons between H12885 were made with contemporary survey H10820, H12256, H12478 and the current surveys H12884 and H12887. The results are as follows: Junction between Survey H12885 and H10820Support Files\Junction between Survey H12885 and H10820.pngH12885 Minus H10820 Diff SurfaceSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H10820_1m_2m_4m_Diff_Surface.pngH12885 Minus H10820 Diff 1m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H10820_Diff_1m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H10820 Diff 2m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H10820_Diff_2m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H10820 Diff 4m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H10820_Diff_4m_Diff_Histogram.tifThe conformity between H12885 and the junction with survey H10820 was inspected during processing using the CARIS HIPS Subset Editor routine and finalized as BASE Surfaces. A Difference Surface was generated using the CARIS HIPS Difference Surface function; comparing the depths from the H12885 survey (1, 2, and 4-meter resolution) CUBE surfaces against the H10820 survey. Using the Compute Statistics function in CARIS, the difference surface yielded the following results: a standard deviation of 0.5 meters, and a mean difference of 0.2 meters for the one-meter surface, along with a standard deviation of 0.5 meters, and a mean difference of 0.1 meters for the two-meter surface, and a standard deviation of 0.6 meters, and a mean difference of 0.2 meters for the four-meter surface. The surveys are in agreement along their common borders and well within the total allowable IHO Order 1a vertical uncertainty. The majority of the difference between the two surveys can be attributed to the course resolution of H10820 data that was provided for the survey junction. Sound-speed refraction with tide error also accounts for a small portion of that difference.10000SENOAA Ship Rude1998H10820Junction between Survey H12885 and H12256Support Files\Junction between Survey H12885 and H12256.pngH12885 Minus H12256 Diff_SurfaceSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12256_1m_2m_4m_8m_Diff_Surface.pngH12885 Minus H12256 Diff 1m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12256_Diff_1m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H12256 Diff 2m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12256_Diff_2m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H12256 Diff 4m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12256_Diff_4m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H12256 Diff 8m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12256_Diff_8m_Diff_Histogram.tifThe conformity between H12885 and the junction with survey H12256 was inspected during processing using the CARIS HIPS Subset Editor routine and finalized as BASE Surfaces. A Difference Surface was generated using the CARIS HIPS Difference Surface function; comparing the depths from the H12885 survey (1, 2, 4, and 8-meter resolution) CUBE surfaces against the H12256 survey. Using the Compute Statistics function in CARIS, the difference surface yielded the following results: a standard deviation of 0.4 meters, and a mean difference of 0.4 meters for the one-meter surface, along with a standard deviation of 0.4 meters, and a mean difference of 0.3 meters for the two-meter surface, and a standard deviation of 0.7 meters, and a mean difference of 0.0 meters for the four-meter surface, and a standard deviation of 0.6 meters, and a mean difference of 0.0 meters for the eight-meter surface. The surveys are in agreement along their common borders and well within the total allowable IHO Order 1a vertical uncertainty. The majority of the difference between the two surveys can be attributed to motion artifacts in the H12256 data along with sound speed refraction and tide error accounting for a small portion of that difference.10000EWilliamson & Associates, Inc.2010H12256Junction between Survey H12885 and H12478Support Files\Junction between Survey H12885 and H12478.pngH12885 Minus H12478 Diff SurfaceSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12478_2m_4m_Diff_Surface.pngH12885 Minus H12478 Diff 2m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12478_Diff_2m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H12478 Diff 4m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12478_Diff_4m_Diff_Histogram.tifThe conformity between H12885 and the junction with survey H12478 was inspected during processing using the CARIS HIPS Subset Editor routine and finalized as BASE Surfaces. A Difference Surface was generated using the CARIS HIPS Difference Surface function; comparing the depths from the H12885 survey (2 and 4-meter resolution) CUBE surfaces against the H12478 survey. Using the Compute Statistics function in CARIS, the difference surface yielded the following results: a standard deviation of 0.2 meters, and a mean difference of 0.4 meters for the two-meter surface, along with a standard deviation of 0.1 meters, and a mean difference of 0.3 meters for the four-meter surface. The surveys are in agreement along their common borders and well within the total allowable IHO Order 1a vertical uncertainty. The majority of the difference between the two surveys can be attributed to motion artifacts in the H12478 data along with sound speed refraction and tide error accounting for a small portion of that difference.20000SEWilliamson & Associates, Inc.2012H12478Junction between Survey H12885 and H12884Support Files\Junction between Survey H12885 and H12884.pngH12885 Minus H12884 Diff SurfaceSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12884_1m_2m_4m_8m_Diff_Surface.pngH12885 Minus H12884 Diff 1m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12884_Diff_1m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H12884 Diff 2m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12884_Diff_2m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H12884 Diff 4m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12884_Diff_4m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H12884 Diff 8m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12884_Diff_8m_Diff_Histogram.tifThe conformity between H12885 and the junction with survey H12884 was inspected during processing using the CARIS HIPS Subset Editor routine and finalized as BASE Surfaces. A Difference Surface was generated using the CARIS HIPS Difference Surface function; comparing the depths from the H12885 survey (1, 2, 4, and 8-meter resolution) CUBE surfaces against the H12884 survey. Using the Compute Statistics function in CARIS, the difference surface yielded the following results: a standard deviation of 0.2 meters, and a mean difference of 0.0 meters for the one-meter surface, a standard deviation of 0.2 meters, and a mean difference of 0.0 meters for the two-meter surface, a standard deviation of 0.5 meters, and a mean difference of 0.2 meters for the four-meter surface, and a standard deviation of 0.9 meters, and a mean difference of 0.1 meters for the eight-meter surface. The surveys are in agreement along their common borders and well within the total allowable IHO Order 1a vertical uncertainty. The majority of the difference between the two surveys can be attributed to sound speed refraction with tide error also accounting for a small portion of that difference. The increased standard deviation between the higher resolution grids can also be attributed to the grid, or node placement in the CUBE surface during creation. When CARIS creates the nodes for the H12885 8-meter surface, these will differ from the position of the nodes for H12884 8-meter surface. This small horizontal shift in the grid nodes can result in a depth difference, especially in areas with an irregular seafloor.10000NFugro2016H12884Junction between Survey H12885 and H12887Support Files\Junction between Survey H12885 and H12887.pngH12885 Minus H12887 Diff SurfaceSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12887_2m_4m_8m_Diff_Surface.pngH12885 Minus H12887 Diff 2m Diff_HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12887_Diff_2m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H12887 Diff 4m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12887_Diff_4m_Diff_Histogram.tifH12885 Minus H12887 Diff 8m Diff HistogramSupport Files\H12885_Minus_H12887_Diff_8m_Diff_Histogram.tifThe conformity between H12885 and the junction with survey H12887 was inspected during processing using the CARIS HIPS Subset Editor routine and finalized as BASE Surfaces. A Difference Surface was generated using the CARIS HIPS Difference Surface function; comparing the depths from the H12885 survey (2, 4, and 8-meter resolution) CUBE surfaces against the H12887 survey. Using the Compute Statistics function in CARIS, the difference surface yielded the following results: a standard deviation of 0.4 meters, and a mean difference of -0.3 meters for the two-meter surface, a standard deviation of 0.5 meters, and a mean difference of -0.2 meters for the four-meter surface, and a standard deviation of 0.6 meters, and a mean difference of -0.3 meters for the eight-meter surface. The surveys are in agreement along their common borders and well within the total allowable IHO Order 1a vertical uncertainty. The majority of the difference between the two surveys can be attributed to sound speed refraction with tide error also accounting for a small portion of that difference. The increased standard deviation between the higher resolution grids can also be attributed to the grid, or node placement in the CUBE surface during creation. When CARIS creates the nodes for the H12885 8-meter surface, these will differ from the position of the nodes for H12887 8-meter surface. This small horizontal shift in the grid nodes can result in a depth difference, especially in areas with an irregular seafloor. 10000NEFugro2016H12887H12885 Final DensitySupport Files\01_H12885_Final_Density.tifThe NOS HSSD, March 2016, require 95% of all nodes to be populated with at least five soundings. Survey H12885 met these project specifications. Surface Depth Range (m) % of nodes with five soundings H12885_MB_1m_MLLW_Final 0-20 99.52% H12885_MB_2m_MLLW_Final 18-40 99.99% H12885_MB_4m_MLLW_Final 36-80 99.93% H12885_MB_8m_MLLW_Final 72-160 99.24% H12885_LI_5m_MLLW_Final -3.01-10.47 75.66% Detection requirements were met by minimizing vessel speed when necessary, using sonar range scales appropriate to the water depth to maximize ping rates, and maximizing swath overlap. These variables were adjusted in real-time by the online acquisition crew based on the WinFrog QC and coverage displays. The processing crew provided feedback after preliminary processing and coverage creation in CARIS HIPS. Infill lines were run as necessary. The LiDAR program was proposed and planned for 100% of the area to be flown with a five by five (or better) spot spacing. In other words, a reconnaissance coverage survey would be used from the inshore limit (4 meters) to the 8-meter water depth. This explains the percentage of nodes that fall below the five sounding per bin threshold. It should be noted that per the project instructions, the final LiDAR surface was binned at five meters. Data DensityPositioning system confidence checks for the R/V Westerly were conducted daily using the POS/MV controller software. The controller software had numerous real-time displays that were monitored throughout the survey to ensure the positional accuracies specified in the NOS HSSD were achieved. These include, but are not limited to the following: GPS Status, Position Accuracy, and Receiver Status, which includes Horizontal Dilution of Position (HDOP) and Precise Dilution of Position (PDOP), and Satellite Status. During periods of high HDOP and/or a low number of available satellites, survey operations were suspended. Sonar system confidence checks were performed weekly by comparing post processed depth information collected by multiple vessels surveying over a common area. In addition, bar checks were performed to maintain a high confidence level. Sound Velocity Probe confidence checks were conducted weekly by producing comparable sound velocity data between all vessels. This check was carried out by having all sound velocity profiling equipment perform a cast in close proximity to each other in a near simultaneous time period.MB Quality Control ChecksBefore each flight, a POS Hold is conducted to ensure Full Nav has been initialized. Once the Position and Orientation System for Airborne Vehicles (POS/AV) system powers up and the “Full Nav” indicator has been reached, the POS initialization hold is started for a minimum of 6 minutes in a static position. After holding the static position, the aircraft can taxi to the takeoff position. Full Nav status indicates that Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) position and velocities have been resolved and will aid to initialize the inertial navigation frame, which is the process of aligning the navigation frame with respect to the vertical (levelling) and orientation to North (heading).LiDAR POS Hold Position ChecksWater ClaritySupport Files\Water Clarity 1.pngThe greatest contributor to depth performance, seabed coverage, and data quality with a LiDAR system is water clarity. To address this concern, Fugro conducted water clarity assessments across the project area, from the planning phase through to the final flight, using several different techniques. Refer to the DAPR for more details. On 13 June 2016, Fugro staff undertook an aerial reconnaissance mission in the vicinity of Penobscot Bay. Conditions of the water clarity were documented in photos and overall, found to be relatively poor. Water was seen to be clear in the very shallow depths (likely, under four meters) and murky in deeper depths. In general, water clarity in the Penobscot Bay survey area was less than ideal for ALB acquisition. Clear water was more common in shallow areas, but water in the four to eight meter range of interest was typically murky. Conditions were similar in the survey area around Vinalhaven Island and North Haven Island as well, with shallow depths being clearer than the depth range of interest (four to eight meters). The bathymetry in the area tends toward a steep descent into depths outside the range of ALB. The water clarity had a negative impact on coverage within the four to eight meter depth range, a range of particular interest to this survey. A test flight was conducted during high tide in order to eliminate the low tide timing as the issue with water clarity, due to tidal flushing. Water conditions on this test flight were consistent with those seen on the flights timed around low tide so it was concluded that the tide level was not the cause of the poor water clarity.Water Clarity