OPR-A366-KR-17Penobscot Bay, MainePenobscot BayFugro Pelagos, Inc.H130133Vicinity of Swans IslandMaineUnited States100002017Dean MoylesBasic Hydrographic Survey2017-05-232017-06-272017-10-07Multibeam Echo SounderLiDAR SHOALS-1000TMultibeam Echo Sounder BackscatterProsilica GX3300metersUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)UTCAtlantic Hydrographic BranchPer the Project Instructions, Project # OPR-A366-KR-17 is a navigable area survey, and not a basic hydrographic survey as noted above. Any revisions to the Descriptive Report (DR) applied during office processing are shown in red italic text. The DR is maintained as a field unit product, therefore all information and recommendations within this report are considered preliminary unless otherwise noted. The final disposition of survey data is represented in the NOAA nautical chart products. All pertinent records for this survey are archived at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and can be retrieved via https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/. Products created during office processing were generated in WGS84 UTM 19N, MLLW/MHW. All references to other horizontal or vertical datums in this report are applicable to the processed hydrographic data provided by the field unit.ContractorH13013 (Sheet ID 3) is located in Penobscot Bay, ME and encompasses approximately 25 SNM of Swans Island and vicinity.44.204868.5805244.1000468.41892H13013 Sheet 3 Limitsfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Priority_3_Limits.jpgSurvey limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD.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 the highly trafficked areas of Penobscot and Jericho Bays and will cover approximately 89 SNM of Navigationally Significant area as identified in the 2012 NOAA Hydrographic Survey Priorities. Priority Area 3 encompasses approximately 25 SNM in the Swans Island area.The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.Additional discussions regarding survey quality or data quality can be found in the Quality Control and Additional Results sections of this XML DR.Inshore limit to 8 meters water depth5 by 5 meter LiDAR augmented by MBESGreater than 8 meters water depthComplete coverage Multibeam with backscatterSurvey coverage was in accordance with the requirements listed above and in the HSSD.H13013 Survey Coveragefile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Area_Coverage.jpg12175490538.730000017.98012319910446.410000027.290N94AR001737.160000040.350985.141737.2000045.2740.354.601400024.992017-06-262017-06-272017-06-282017-06-292017-06-302017-08-212017-08-222017-08-232017-08-242017-08-252017-08-262017-08-272017-08-282017-08-292017-08-302017-08-312017-09-012017-09-022017-09-032017-09-042017-09-052017-09-062017-09-082017-09-092017-09-102017-09-112017-09-122017-09-132017-09-142017-09-162017-09-172017-09-192017-09-242017-09-252017-09-272017-09-282017-09-292017-10-07The area was not divided into separate surveys for LiDAR acquisition, but five smaller blocks for data management purposes. For this reason, the LiDAR survey statistics are for the entire project and not just for H13013. 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 to the 8-meter water depth. The percentage of LiDAR mainscheme lines to LiDAR crosslines are not within the HSSD 2017 specification, this was due to the LiDAR portion being a reconnaissance-type survey. Proposed LiDAR Line Planfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Proposed_LiDAR_Line_Plan.jpgActual LiDAR Line Planfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Actual_LiDAR_Line_Plan.jpgReview of the submitted data show the first date of field work submitted as part of the required grid deliverables to be associated with the SHOALS topo-bathy lidar acquired on 6/27/2017 (DN 178). Not 6/26/2017 (DN 177) as noted in Table 3: Hydrographic Survey Statistics.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.1217549372.51231991442N94AR15.80RV Theoryfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/RV_Theory.JPGRV Westerlyfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/RV_Westerly.JPGN94AR Twin Otterfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/N94AR_Twin_Otter.jpgFugro Pelagos, Inc. (Fugro) mobilized two catamaran-style jet drive survey boats (Theory and Westerly), which were 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. These vessels were used to survey in water depths greater than 8 meters, and to augment the LiDAR collection effort in the 3-meter to 8-meter water depth range. In addition to the two vessels, a small aircraft was fitted with a SHOALS-1000T Airborne LiDAR Bathymetry (ALB) system to map data inshore of the 8-meter contour. 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.ApplanixPOS MV 320 v4Positioning and Attitude SystemApplanixPOS MV 320 v5Positioning and Attitude SystemApplanixPOS A/V Version 6Positioning and Attitude SystemApplied Micro-Systems SV&PSound Speed SystemTeledyne RESONSeaBat 7125 SV2MBESTeledyne RESONSVP 70Sound Speed SystemOptechSHOALS-1000TLidar SystemAlliedProsilica GX3300Down-Look CameraRIEGLVQ-820-GTopo-Lidar SystemBoth the R/V Theory and the R/V Westerly were 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 orthomosaic, SHOALS-1000T reflectance, and RIEGL topo data and will be included as part of the final data deliverable. Kathryn Pridgen approved these to be included in the sonar folder, under a seperate folder named RIEGL. Multibeam crosslines were planned and well distributed throughout the survey to ensure adequate quality control. Total crossline length surveyed was 45.27 nautical miles or 4.60 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. All of the QC Reports fall well within the required accuracy specifications. LiDAR crosslines were planned and well distributed throughout the survey to ensure adequate quality control. A total of 10 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. H13013 MB Crossline OverviewSupport Files\H13013_MB_Crossline_Overview.JPGH13013 MB Mainscheme and CrosslinesSupport Files\H13013_MB_Mainsheme_Crosslines.JPG2P3B10-TIE05 Subset OverviewSupport Files\2P3B10-TIE05_Subset_Overview.JPG2P3B10-TIE05 Subset View Support Files\2P3B10-TIE05_Subset_View.JPGLiDAR Crossline OverviewSupport Files\LiDAR_Crossline_Overview.jpgFlight Line 170628_1509_A_02041 QCSupport Files\Flight Line 170628_1509_A_02041 QC.jpgFlight Line 170628_1509_A_020 QCSupport Files\Flight Line 170628_1509_A_02041 Sample.jpg00TCARI12175492.5600.2512319913.2000.25The 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 H13013_MB_1m_FINAL_MLLW 0-20 100% H13013_MB_2m_FINAL_MLLW 18-40 100% H13013_MB_4m_FINAL_MLLW 36-80 100% H13013_MB_8m_FINAL_MLLW 72-160 100% H13013_LI_5m_FINAL_MLLW -3.29-10.56 100% 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 H13013, 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 seven 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. H13013 Uncertaintyfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Uncertainty_Coverage.jpgHydroffice Surface Report H13013 (Priority 3) 1m file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_MB_1m_MLLW_Final.QAv5.tvu_qc.pngHydroffice Surface Report H13013 (Priority 3) 2m Final file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_MB_2m_MLLW_Final.QAv5.tvu_qc.pngHydroffice Surface Report H13013 (Priority 3) 4m file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_MB_4m_MLLW_Final.QAv5.tvu_qc.pngLTE Tool Resultsfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/SHOALS%20LiDAR%20Spacial%20Vertical%20Variance.JPGTotal Bottom Uncertainty for SHOALS data samplefile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Total_Bottom_Uncertainty_for_SHOALS.jpgTPU Survey Areafile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/TPU_Survey_Area.jpgComparisons between H13013 were made with contemporary survey H13012 and the current survey H13014. The results are as follows: H13013 Junctions Overviewfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Junctions_Overview.jpgH13012100002017Fugro Pelagos, Inc.WThe conformity between H13013 and the junction with survey H13012 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 H13013 survey (1 and 2-meter resolution) CUBE surfaces against the H13012 survey. Using the Compute Statistics function in CARIS, the difference surface yielded the following results: a standard deviation of 0.09 meters, and a mean difference of 0.04 meters for the one-meter surface, a standard deviation of 0.12 meters, and a mean difference of 0.04 meters for the two-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 and tide error.Junction between Survey H13013 and H13012 file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Junction_Between_Survey_H13013_and_H13012.jpgH13012 Minus H13013 1m Difference Surface file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13012_Minus_H13013_1m_Difference_Surface.JPGH13012 Minus H13013 1m FINAL Diff Histogramfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13012_Minus_H13013_1m_FINAL_Diff_Histogram.JPGH13012 Minus H13013 2m FINAL Diff Histogramfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13012_Minus_H13013_2m_FINAL_Diff_Histogram.JPGH13014100002017Fugro Pelagos, Inc.NThe conformity between H13013 and the junction with survey H13014 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 H13013 survey (1 and 2-meter resolution) CUBE surfaces against the H13014 survey. Using the Compute Statistics function in CARIS, the difference surface yielded the following results: a standard deviation of 0.08 meters, and a mean difference of 0.0 meters for the one-meter surface, a standard deviation of 0.07 meters, and a mean difference of 0.03 meters for the two-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. Junction between Survey H13013 and H13014file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Junction_Between_Survey_H13013_and_H13014.jpgH13013 Minus H13014 1m Difference Surfacefile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Minus_H13014_1m_Difference_Surface.JPGH13013 Minus H13014 1m FINAL Diff Histogramfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Minus_H13014_1m_FINAL_Diff_Histogram.JPGH13013 Minus H13014 2m FINAL Diff Histogramfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Minus_H13014_2m_FINAL_Diff_Histogram.JPGSonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.Water ClarityThe 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. From the start of the mission flights on 26 June 2017, Fugro staff undertook water quality assessments along the survey sub-areas. Conditions were documented in many photos and water clarity was, on the whole, found to be relatively poor. Water was seen to be clear in the very shallow depths (likely under four meters) and murky in deeper waters; plumes of sediment swirling around shallow areas near the shoreline and islands were also identified and determined to be in detriment for LiDAR performance. In general, water clarity in the East Penobscot Bay survey area was less than ideal for ALB acquisition. Clear water was more common in shallow areas, but water in the full eight-meter range of interest was typically murky. Conditions were similar in the survey area around Eggemoggin Reach, with shallow depths being clearer than the full depth range of interest. Water Clarityfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Water%20Clarity%20Poor.jpgSound Speed Refraction (SSR)A 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 0.25 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. H13013 SVP Cast 1-2017-213-2013file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/1-2017-213-2013.pngH13013 SSP Refraction Subset Overviewfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_SSP_Refraction_Subset_Overview.JPGH13013 SSP Refraction Subset Viewfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_SSP_Refraction_Subset.JPGFishing GearThe 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 Gearfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Fishing_Gear.JPGWater ClarityIn 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 Clarityfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Water_Clarity_1.jpgTidal Bust Numerous tide busts Tide, on the order of 0.20m to 0.30m were noticed between adjacent mainscheme lines conducted on different days, as well as between mainscheme lines and infills. Survey lines from Julian Day 254 are 0.20 to 0.25 meters deeper than the adjacent data from Julian Day 255. 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. H13013 Tidal Bust TCARI Model Subset Overviewfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Tidal_Bust_TCARI_Model%20JD%202017-254_JD255_Subset_Overview.pngH13013 Tidal Bust TCARI Model JD 2017-254 JD255 Subset Viewfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Tidal_Bust_TCARI_Model%20JD%202017-254_JD255_Subset.pngMarine LifeThere 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.Sound velocity casts were normally performed every two to three hours on the R/V Theory and 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.R/V Theory and R/V Westerly were equipped with 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 0.015 m/s resolution with a ± 0.05 m/s accuracy for sound velocity measurements, and a 0.01 dbar resolution and a ±0.5 m dbar accuracy for pressure. Each vessel was equipped with two AML SV&Ps. The instruments were mounted within a weighted cage and deployed using a hydraulic winch that contained 350 meters of shielded Kevlar reinforced cable via a stern mounted A-Frame. Sound Speed quality control checks were conducted as per the HSSD 2017, Section 5.2.3.3 and can be found in Separate II.AML SVPfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/AML%20SVP.pngAll equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.Data DensityThe NOS HSSD, April 2017, require 95% of all nodes to be populated with at least five soundings. Survey H13013 met these project specifications. Surface Depth Range (m) % of nodes with five soundings H13013_MB_1m_MLLW_Final 0-20 99.91% H13013_MB_2m_MLLW_Final 18-40 99.96% H13013_MB_4m_MLLW_Final 36-80 99.84% H13013_LI_5m_MLLW_Final 0-8 87.09% 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 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. H13013 Final Sounding Densityfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Sounding_Density_DTM.jpgMB Quality Control ChecksPositioning system confidence checks for the R/V Theory and 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 Precision (HDOP) and Position Dilution of Precision (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. LiDAR POS Hold Position 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 (leveling) and orientation to North (heading).Two lines in H13013 do not have delayed heave applied. This was due to an interruption in POS logging or a software crash during data acquisition. See affected lines below. 2P3B05-1100 2P3B12-249-SH028On July 05, 2017, R/V Westerly struck a submerged object with the sonars. Due to impact a weld on the pole snapped and broke the pole in half. No damage was done to the cables, sonars or the MRU. After the repair of the pole was completed an additional POS MV GAMS calibration and Multibeam Patch Test was performed on July 06, 2017. Multibeam Patch Test2017-07-06MBES / IMU polemount repairApplanix POS MV GAMS Calibration2017-07-06MBES / IMU polemount repairTowed 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 are 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 utilizing 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. Teledyne CARISHIPS/SIPS9.1.9Teledyne CARISHIPS/SIPS10.2.2NOAA Extended Attribute Files V5_5H13013_MB _1m_MLLWCARIS Raster Surface (CUBE)1-1.2240.42NOAA_1mComplete MBESH13013_MB_1m_MLLW_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE)1020NOAA_1mComplete MBESH13013_MB_2m_MLLWCARIS Raster Surface (CUBE)2-1.2240.42NOAA_2mComplete MBESH13013_MB_2m_MLLW_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE)21840NOAA_2mComplete MBESH13013_MB_4m_MLLWCARIS Raster Surface (CUBE)4-1.2240.37NOAA_4mComplete MBESH13013_MB_4m_MLLW_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE)43680NOAA_4mComplete MBESH13013_LI_5m_MLLW CARIS VR Surface (CUBE)5-66.0410.56N/AComplete MBESH13013_LI_5m_MLLW_Final CARIS Raster Surface (Uncertainty)5-3.296.32N/AComplete MBESThe 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 H13013. Refer to the OPR-A366-KR-17 DAPR for a detailed description of the processing flow.MBES grids were originally submitted by the field unit as 1m, 2m, and 4m finalized depth dependent single resolution grids and were accepted by AHB as meeting specifications during the H13013 RSA. After additional review during the SAR, it was found some grids required additional re-computation and re-finalization due to minor revisions of the sounding data and FFF. The reviewer chose to include data originally covered in the 4m depth range (36 to 80 m) in the 2 m resolution grid to reduce the total number of deliverables. The resulting finalized 2m grid passed density and TVU checks with no issues. The surface type listed for the H13014_LI_5m_MLLW grid is incorrectly documented as CARIS VR (CUBE). In reality, a CARIS single resolution grid using uncertainty weighting was submitted to the Branch and is the deliverable moving forward. Additionally, the depth range for lidar grid was incorrectly depth thresheld to -3.29 m and has been revised to the local MHW value of -3.336 m. All grids were submitted by the field unit with a horizontal datum of ITRF2000 (WGS84: G1150) and that projection is maintained for submission to NCEI and MCD.Hydroffice (QCTools version 2.1.0)QCTools 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.Multibeam: Multibeam vertical control for OPR-A366-KR-17 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 October 26, 2017, 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: LiDAR vertical control for OPR-A366-KR-17 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. A smoothed best estimate of trajectory (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. Mean Lower Low WaterPortland, ME8418150Bar Harbor8413320TCARIA366KR2017.tcFinal2017-10-26The field supplied separation model included in the Water_Levels folder (EastPenobscotBay_ITRF00_to_MLLW_50m_mod.txt) was found to not provide coverage over small areas of the H13013 sheet extents due to shortcomings in the Vdatum model. Follow up communication with field unit determined they field unit performed additional interpolation of the model to achieve the desired coverage. This deviation was not documented in the DR or DAPR as required. A copy of the report outlining the deviation has now been included in DR Appendix II.ERS via VDATUMInterp_ITRF00_to_MLLWInterp_ITRF00_to_MHWAdditional information discussing the vertical control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.ITRF2000 (WGS84: G1150)UTM (Zone 19N)Smart BaseAugusta, MEMEOWWaldo, MEMEWAPenobscot, MEPNB6Bar Harbor, MEBARHTruro, MAMATUU New Hampshire, NHNHUNReal-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 R/V Theory and R/V 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 system were derived relative to the ITRF00 datum using a Post Processed Kinematic (PPK) solution where primary control coordinates observed the said datum. LiDAR POS files and IMU inertial data, along with concurrently logged onshore dual-frequency base station (CORS stations) data, were post-processed to create a KGPS SBET file. Refer to the OPR-A366-KR-17 DAPR for additional details.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 H13013 *.csar files. The general agreement between the charted soundings and H13013 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.US5ME32M2000062016-09-012016-09-01falseChart information displayed is based on OPR-A366-KR-17 Project Instructions, however the charts used for final comparison were downloaded on 30 January 2018. Given that the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies were discovered between the charted and surveyed depths. Sounding agreement between the H13013 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. Multibeam: The item is a charted, 1.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-16) (68-32-53). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 6.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.4 meters, 75 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 5.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-38) (68-33-49). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 8.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.5 meters, 85 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 7.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-55) (68-33-30). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 8.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.6 meters, 80 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 4.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-40) (68-33-39). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 8.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.7 meters, 72 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 11.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-52) (68-32-28). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 12.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.9 meters, 85 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 6.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-23) (68-33-39). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 10.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 5.8 meters, 72 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 2.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-05) (68-33-55). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 7.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 6.3 meters, 42 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 10.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-46) (68-32-43). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 8.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 6.3 meters, 25 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-57) (68-33-33). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 10.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 6.6 meters, 90 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 6.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-30) (68-34-06). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 13.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 6.6 meters, 101 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 7.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-32) (68-31-53). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 14.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 8 meters, 82 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 8.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-36) (68-31-48). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 13.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 8 meters, 31 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 10.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-32) (68-34-13). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 13.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 8.3 meters, 112 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 8.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-17) (68-32-12). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 14.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 8.8 meters, 71 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 9.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-33) (68-31-32). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 16.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 10.8 meters, 112 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 8.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-13) (68-31-58). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 13.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 11.3 meters, 32 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 14-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-48) (68-32-53). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 19 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 11.6 meters, 67 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 16.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-46) (68-31-43). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 19.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 12.8 meters, 107 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 20.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-30) (68-31-44). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 17.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 13.5 meters, 66 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 9.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-45) (68-34-25). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 17.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 13.9 meters, 60 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 19.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-12-10) (68-30-12). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 24.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.6 meters, 130 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 25.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-06) (68-31-59). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 22.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 19.6 meters, 46 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 21.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (40-09-17) (68-32-08). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 27.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 25.3 meters, 53 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 28.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-35) (68-31-50). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 31.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 25.7 meters, 200 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 35-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-01) (68-31-53). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 29 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 26.5 meters, 49 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 23.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-29) (68-31-59). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 30.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 27.2 meters, 115 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 28-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-14) (68-31-48). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 32.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 28.2 meters, 123 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 1.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-14) (68-32-55). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5 meters in that general location. There is, however an islet located 78 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 9.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-44) (68-32-13). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 17.4 meters in that general location. The hydrographer recommends replacement. Lidar: The item is a charted, 1.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-30) (68-28-28). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 4.3 meters in that general location. The Hydrographer recommends that soundings within the survey limits of H13013 supersede all prior survey and charted depths.US5ME31M40000102017-01-242017-01-24falseChart information displayed is based on OPR-A366-KR-17 Project Instructions, however the charts used for final comparison were downloaded on 30 January 2018. Given that the survey area was ensonified with 100% multibeam coverage, discrepancies were discovered between the charted and surveyed depths. Sounding agreement between the H13013 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. Multibeam: The item is a charted, 4.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-01) (68-26-28). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 7.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.5 meters, 28 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 4.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-39) (68-30-36). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 9.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 5.8 meters, 85 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 5.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-08) (68-28-04). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 12.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 7.5 meters, 112 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 5.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-08) (68-28-04). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 12.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 7.4 meters, 67 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 5.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-27) (68-25-51). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 6.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 3.8 meters, 53 meters to the north west. The item is a charted, 5.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-25) (68-30-47). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 9.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 5.4 meters, 41 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 5.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-46) (68-26-17). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 6.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.3 meters, 169 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 5.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-25) (68-28-13). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 11.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 5.9 meters, 22 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-27) (68-29-02). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 8.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 5.2 meters, 63 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 6.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-37) (68-27-34). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 6.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.7 meters, 32 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 6.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-07) (6825-31). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 7.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 3.7 meters, 80 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 6.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-59) (68-26-42). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 11 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 6 meters, 42 meters to the north west. The item is a charted, 6.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-28) (68-26-43). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 9.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 6.8 meters, 45 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-13) (68-26-31). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 4.7 meters, 110 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 7.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-06-54) (68-26-25). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 11.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 6.8 meters, 28 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 7.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-51) (68-28-03). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 7.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 5.5 meters, 21 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 8.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-06-41) (68-28-18). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 13.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 8.8 meters, 44 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 8.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-25) (68-31-15). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 14.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 8.5 meters, 75 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 9.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-04) (68-28-27). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 8.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 5.8 meters, 80 meters to the north west. The item is a charted, 9.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-26) (68-27-08). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 14.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 10.7 meters, 38 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 10.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-12-10) (68-30-55). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 18.8 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.4 meters, 205 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 10.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-12-10) (68-30-54). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 18.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.4 meters, 204 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 10.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-41) (68-31-14). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 15.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 10.9 meters, 90 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 11.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-52) (68-27-17). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 11.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 7.8 meters, 100 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 11.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-01) (68-27-46). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 15.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 11.7 meters, 60 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 12.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-32) (68-30-52). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 15 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 10.4 meters, 11.2 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 12.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-10) (68-30-01). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 15 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 12.5 meters, 161 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 13.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-54) (68-30-37). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 18.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 11.7 meters, 143 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 13.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-06-48) (68-26-32). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 16.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 11.2 meters, 144 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 13.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-01) (68-30-56). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 26 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 18.5 meters, 110 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 14-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-21) (68-26-57). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 16.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 13.1 meters, 45 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 14.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-27) (68-30-11). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 19 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.1 meters, 70 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 14.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-27) (68-30-10). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 19 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 15.8 meters, 65 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 15-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-45) (68-31-27). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 18.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.5 meters, 122 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 15.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-45) (68-31-27). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 18.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.4 meters, 125 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 15.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-06) (68-30-49). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 17.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 15.6 meters, 55.6 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 16.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-51) (68-31-11). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 20.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 15.5 meters, 87 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 16.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-55) (68-31-12). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 19.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 13.8 meters, 177 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 16.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-55) (68-31-12). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 19.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 14.1 meters, 202 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 17.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-22) (68-30-46). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 19.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 15.5 meters, 85 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 17.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-19) (68-31-08). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 20.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 19.6 meters, 25 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 17.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-22) (68-30-46). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 19.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 16.4 meters, 105 meters to the west. The item is a charted, 17.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-00) (68-31-29). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 21.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 17.7 meters, 185 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 18.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-07) (68-30-45). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 20.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 17.7 meters, 80 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 23.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-04) (68-31-14). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 26.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 21.4 meters, 139 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 25.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-36) (68-31-10). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 28.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 23.4 meters, 115 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 25.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-06-15) (68-26-54). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 30.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 23.1 meters, 80 meters to the north west. The Hydrographer recommends that soundings within the survey limits of H13013 supersede all prior survey and charted depths.No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. All charted features were included in the assigned features of the Composite Source File and are addressed in the final feature file (FFF).No uncharted features exist for this survey.The following DTON reports were submitted: DTON Report Name Date Submitted H13013_DTON_Report_1 09-20-2017 H13013_DTON_Report_2 09-27-2017 Dangers to Navigation (DTON’s) are included in the FFF and have images associated with them. The DTON files listed above were submitted to MCD via AHB are included in Appendix II. 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 H13013 *.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 +/- 2 meters, the difference surface was colored green. Areas greater than +/- 2 meters were colored orange and 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 13 dangers were accepted by AHB. Chart: ENC No.: US5ME32M Multibeam: The item is a charted, 7.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-15) (68-32-50). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 8.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 0.8 meters, 100 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 3.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-05) (68-33-49). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 0.9 meters, 62 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 1.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-09) (68-32-46). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 8.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.1 meters, 130 meters to the north west. The item is a charted, 4.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-04) (68-32-32). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.4 meters, 114 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 3.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-09) (68-34-31). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 3.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.5 meters, 45 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 3.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-09) (68-34-31). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 3.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.5 meters, 51 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 0.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-08) (68-44-37). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 3.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.6 meters, 85 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 2.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-11) (68-26-47). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 2.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.7 meters, 130 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 1.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-10) (68-34-21). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 4.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.8 meters, 38 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 7.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-31) (68-33-33). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 6.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.9 meters, 61 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 4.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-04) (68-34-37). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 4.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2 meters, 31 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 12.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-56) (68-34-34). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 12.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2 meters, 95 meters to the north. The item is in the general vicinity of (44-10-58.87) (68-34-33.66). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 2.1 meters in that general location. The item is a charted, 4.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-04) (68-34-37). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 4.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.2 meters, 28 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 4.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-10) (68-26-57). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.7 meters, 45 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 3.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-59) (68-33-02). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 7.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 3.2 meters, 186 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 5.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-07) (68-34-05). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 3.4 meters, 85 meters to the south west. Lidar: The item is a charted, 2.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-05) (68-33-38). Survey H13012 had a survey depth of 6.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.6 meters, 20 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 0.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-21) (68-28-23). Survey H13012 had a survey depth of 3.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.1 meters, 63 meters to the north east. ENC No.: US5ME31M Multibeam: The item is a charted, 0.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-33) (68-26-07). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 0.4 meters, 28 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 0.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-33) (68-26-07). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1 meters, 31 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 1.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-41) (68-26-18). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 6.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.1 meters, 23 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 1.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-40) (68-25-53). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.4 meters, 33 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 1.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-32) (68-25-35). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 4.7 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.4 meters, 41 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 1.8-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-58) (68-25-33). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.1 meters, 24 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 2.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-47) (68-26-06). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.2 meters, 26 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 2.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-09) (68-29-34). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 9.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 0.8 meters, 91 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 2.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-48) (68-26-06). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.6 meters, 24 meters to the east. The item is a charted, 2.4-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-10) (68-29-29). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.3 meters, 32 meters to the south. The item is a charted, 2.7-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-28) (68-25-45). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 5.3 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 3.3 meters, 39 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 3.3-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-21) (68-29-15). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 10 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.9 meters, 81 meters to the south east. The item is a charted, 4.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-33) (68-28-46). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 6.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.9 meters, 88 meters to the south east. Lidar: The item is a charted, 4.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-00) (68-28-56). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 1.5 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 0.3 meters, 94 meters to the south west. The item is a charted, 0.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-10-05) (68-28-51). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 3.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 2.1 meters, 74 meters to the north east. The item is a charted, 2.1-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-09-31) (68-27-37). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 4.2 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.7 meters, 68 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 0.6-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-08-46) (68-26-45). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 2.6 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 0.9 meters, 71 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 1.5-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-11-11) (68-26-18). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 3.9 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.9 meters, 37 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 0.9-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-33) (68-26-07). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 3.4 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1 meters, 42 meters to the north. The item is a charted, 1.2-meter sounding in the general vicinity of (44-07-40) (68-25-53). Survey H13013 had a survey depth of 6.1 meters in that general location, but revealed a depth of 1.5 meters, 35 meters to the north.Sample of difference surface of H13013 and ENCfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/Sample%20of%20difference%20surface%20of%20H13013%20and%20ENC_US5ME32.jpgNo 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.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 H13013 are found in the “H13013_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 2017. All 14 samples were discarded after the sample information was recorded. 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 prior survey comparisons exist for this survey.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, and are noted in the final feature file (FFF). No overhead features exist for this survey.The only submarine feature within the limits of H13013 was an existing cable, which was located within the charted Cable Area. Portions of the charted Cable Area within the limits of H13013 were surveyed with 100% MB coverage. The cable trench is not apparent in the final surfaces. Refer to the following graphics. Existing Cable Area 1 in H13013file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Cable_Area_1.jpgCoverage of Cable Area 1 in H13013file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Cable_Area_2.jpgExisting Cable Area in 2 H13013file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Cable_Area_4.jpgCoverage of Cable Area 2 in H13013file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013_Cable_Area_5.jpgNo platforms exist for this survey.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.AIS Traffic in H13013file:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/AIS_Traffic_Ferry_Routes.jpgAbnormal seafloor and/or environmental conditions were not observed for this survey.No present or planned construction or dredging exist within the survey limits.Final Features FileFugro conducted limited shoreline verification using the CSF. All features with the assigned attribute were addressed in accordance with the HSSD 2017. There were a total of 702 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 H13013 FFF to best represent the features at chart scale. 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 H13013, 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. 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 2017, Appendix F. WATLEV Attribution encoding guidelines were used for determining points above and below MHW. Riegl data was acquired simultaneously with the SHOALS dataset during the LiDAR reconnaissance survey for the 2017 survey. This data was used to help verify the assigned features along with the SHOALS data and Ortho-Imagery. The Riegl dataset is broken into two classes or layers: a class zero; which is data above the water surface at the time of collection, and class twenty-six; which is data below the water surface at the time of collection. Both classes were reduced to MLLW using a VDatum grid in the same manner as the SHOALS data set. The Riegl data were only cleaned in areas the Riegl was used as the source for the new VALSOU attribute in UWTROC and Obstruction features. Due to the multiple classes the VALSOU could have been taken from either the class zero or class twenty-six. These features (features derived from the Riegl) are specifically labeled in the office notes and contain, but were not limited to the following phrases: “DS – Riegl” or “DS - Riegl - Rock not seen in SHOALS data”, etc. Riegl data provided a more detailed reference for feature attribution, particularly in extremely shallow areas. Where possible, SHOALS data was given priority, except in situations where it was determined that the SHOALS system was not the best source for the feature development, either due to a positional or water level difference with the original feature, or because it was determined that the SHOALS data was not the best source of the least depth. These situations are clearly marked in the office notes. Assigned seabed areas were updated to follow the Zero contour as created from the SHOALS LiDAR surface. Riegl data was used to assist this function, particularly in the very shallow near shore tidal areas. All images if not shown with a color scale bar use the following scale bar to attribute features visually for water level. Tan is always uncovered based on a -3.53 limit against MLLW, Grey covers and uncovers with values -0.305 to -3.353, awash is pink with values -0.305 to 0.305; everything deeper than this value is rainbow, tiered down to blue at five meters, then changing to purple for the remainder of the data. The final S-57 file for this project is called “H13013_FFF.000”. This file contains the object and metadata S-57 objects as required in the HSSD 2017. H13013 Scale bar representing water levelsfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013%20Scale%20bar%20representing%20water%20levels.pngH13013 Scale bar representing water levelsfile:///Q:/Survey/H13013_A366_KR_17/AHB_H13013/Reports/DR/Report/Field%20Submitted/Support%20Files/H13013%20Scale%20bar%20representing%20water%20levels%202.pngNo new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area.No new insets are recommended for this area.As Chief of Party, field operations for this hydrographic survey were conducted under my direct supervision, with frequent personal checks of progress and adequacy. I have reviewed the attached survey data and reports.All field sheets, this Descriptive Report, and all accompanying records and data are approved. All records are forwarded for final review and processing to the Processing Branch.The survey data meets or exceeds requirements as set forth in the NOS Hydrographic Surveys and Specifications Deliverables, Field Procedures Manual, Letter Instructions, and all HSD Technical Directives. These data are adequate to supersede charted data in their common areas. This survey is complete and no additional work is required with the exception of deficiencies noted in the Descriptive Report.Dean MoylesSenior Hydrographer (ACSM Cert. No. 226)2018-05-01Data Acquisition and Processing Report2018-05-01Horizontal and Vertical Control Report2018-02-22Coast Pilot Report2018-02-21