OPR-H355-KR-18 Florida Keys Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Vicinity eTrac Inc. H13167 8 Complete Coverage MBES with Backscatter 6 Nautical Miles NE of The Quicksands Florida United States 40000 2018 David Neff, ACSM C.H. Support NMS 2018-07-20 2018-09-07 2019-02-16 Multibeam Echo Sounder Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter meters Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) UTC Atlantic Hydrographic Branch All times are UTC. The purpose of this survey is to update existing NOS nautical charts. H13167 will cover approximately 31 square nautical miles of survey area 6 nautical miles northeast of The Quicksands. SUBCONSULTANT: Geodynamics LLC, 310A Greenfield Dr., Newport, NC 98570 Contractor eTrac Inc. conducted hydrographic survey operations in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding vicinity. H13167 covers approximately 31 square nautical miles of survey area. 1309 linear nautical miles were acquired during the survey. H13167 is located approximately 6 nautical miles northeast of The Quicksands off the coast of Key West, Florida. Survey was conducted within these limits between September 7, 2018 (DN250) and February 16, 2019 (DN047). 24.68624 82.05319 24.62143 81.91674 Survey Limits (blue area) SUPPORTFILES/H13167_SURVEY_LIMITS_OVERVIEW.PNG Survey Limits (black line) SUPPORTFILES/H13167_SURVEY_LIMITS.PNG All data were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and specifications set forth in the Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables 2018 Edition (HSSD 2018). The purpose of this survey is to update existing National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charts. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data. Survey H13167 is accurate to International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1a as required per the HSSD 2018. Survey Coverage was partially completed within survey limits due to eTrac completing the total number of line miles for the contract. Where data collection occurred, coverage was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and HSSD 2018. H13167 was surveyed to Complete Coverage with backscatter standards set forth in the HSSD 2018. Note: There was 1 holiday found in H13167. This holiday was not found until final review, after the demobilization of OPR-H355-KR-18 occured. Survey Coverage SUPPORTFILES/H13167_SURVEY_COVERAGE.PNG Survey Coverage Holiday SUPPORTFILES/H13167_SURVEY_COVERAGE_HOLIDAY.PNG Benthos 0 364 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 Taku 0 893 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1309 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 4.18 5 0 0 0 0 31 2018-09-07 2018-09-08 2018-10-21 2018-11-03 2018-11-04 2018-11-05 2018-11-07 2018-11-11 2018-11-29 2018-11-30 2018-12-01 2018-12-05 2018-12-07 2018-12-08 2018-12-09 2018-12-12 2018-12-13 2018-12-14 2018-12-15 2018-12-16 2018-12-18 2018-12-19 2018-12-28 2018-12-30 2018-12-31 2019-01-01 2019-01-03 2019-01-04 2019-01-06 2019-01-08 2019-01-09 2019-01-12 2019-01-14 2019-01-17 2019-01-18 2019-01-19 2019-01-29 2019-02-01 2019-02-02 2019-02-03 2019-02-12 2019-02-15 2019-02-16 Note: The NOAA XML DR schema does not continue Table 3 Dates of Hydrography onto the next page in the PDF. The table cuts off surveys dates after 01/18/2019, Day of the Year number 323 in the PDF. The following is a list of the excluded survey dates: 01/18/2019 018 01/19/2019 019 01/29/2019 029 02/01/2019 032 02/03/2019 034 02/12/2019 043 02/15/2019 046 02/16/2019 047 Refer to the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) for a complete description of data acquisition and processing systems, survey vessels, quality control procedures and data processing methods. Additional information to supplement sounding and survey data are discussed in the following sections. R/V Benthos 10 0.6 R/V Taku 10 0.6 The R/V Benthos is a 10 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with a custom over-the-side (port) multibeam hydraulic pole mount. The R/V Taku is a 10 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with a custom stern multibeam pole mount. Kongsberg 2040C MBES R2Sonic 2024 MBES Applanix POSMV 320 V5 Positioning and Attitude System AML Base.X Sound Speed System AML Smart.X Sound Speed System Note: R/V Benthos utilized a dualhead Kongsberg 2040C multibeam echosounder system, an AML Base.X for the sound speed system and a POSMV 320 V5 for the positioning system. R/V Taku utilized a dualhead R2Sonic 2024 multibeam echosounder system, an AML Smart.X for the sound speed system and a POSMV 320 V5 for the positioning system. A comparison of crossline mileage to mainscheme mileage yields a crossline percentage of 4.18%, and is noted to be above the required 4%. A beam-to-beam statistical analysis was performed using the Cross Check tool in Qimera. A 1 meter Combined Uncertainty and Bathymetric Estimator (CUBE) weighted dynamic surface was created incorporating only the mainscheme lines and excluded crosslines. The Cross Check tool was used to perform the beam-by-beam comparison of the crossline data to the mainscheme surface. Comparisons showed excellent agreement, well above 95% of the allowable TVU. Note: This surface was created for QC only and is not submitted as a surface deliverable. The beam-to-beam crossline comparison report generated through the Qimera Cross Check tool is included in Separates II. Below is a histogram of the crossline comparison statistics showing IHO Order 1a compliance per beam. H13167 Crossline Comparison SUPPORTFILES/H13167_CROSSCHECK_HISTOGRAM.PNG R/V Benthos 0.05 0 0.025 R/V Taku 0.05 0 0.025 Standard deviation and uncertainty layers of the Dynamic Surface were utilized during data processing to search for features, water column noise, and systematic errors. The final BAG surface's uncertainty was generated through the NOAA QC Tools and an image of the results is located below. For H13167 the following percentages represent the results of the TPU testing: Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = + 99.5% of nodes are within the allowable TPU. H13167 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES TPU Statistics (NOAA QC Tools) SUPPORTFILES/H13167_MB_1M_MLLW_FINAL_TPU_STATISTICS.PNG Depth differences between junctioning surveys were evaluated using the JunctionTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac Inc. For each junction, each CUBE weighted dynamic surface's nodes were exported to an ASCII CSV file where the fields were (Easting, Northing, Depth) for each node. A 1 meter difference surface between the junctioning datasets was also created and exported to an ASCII CSV file where the fields were (Easting, Northing, Diff) for each node. The three ASCII CSV files were then loaded into the JunctionTrac program and junction statistics were computed. A file was also created in this process to locate any nodes from the difference surface that exceed the allowable TVU, which was imported into Qimera and any identified points from JunctionTrac were analyzed. Note: the difference surfaces were created for comparison efforts only and are not submitted as surface deliverables. H13168 40000 2018 eTrac Inc. E The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13167 and H13168. Depth differences were evaluated using the JunctionTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac Inc. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 99.0704% of nodes were within allowable TVU. Note: The spikes of high surface difference are due to overlapping data on features. H13167 - H13168 Junction Comparison SUPPORTFILES/H13167_H13168_JUNCTIONTRAC.PNG H13167 - H13168 Difference Statisitcs SUPPORTFILES/H13167_H13168_DIFFTRAC.PNG H13165 40000 2018 eTrac Inc. W The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13167 and H13165. Depth differences were evaluated using the JunctionTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac Inc. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 99.8428% of nodes were within allowable TVU. Note: The spikes of high surface difference are due to overlapping data on features. H13167 - H13165 Junction Comparison SUPPORTFILES/H13167_H13165_JUNCTIONTRAC.PNG H13167 - H13165 Difference Statisitcs SUPPORTFILES/H13167_H13165_DIFFTRAC.PNG H12383 10000 2011 Fugro LADS S The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13167 and H12383. Depth differences were evaluated using the JunctionTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac Inc. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 99.9078% of nodes were within allowable TVU. H13167 - H12383 Junction Comparison SUPPORTFILES/H13167_H12383_JUNCTIONTRAC.PNG H13167 - H12383 Difference Statisitcs SUPPORTFILES/H13167_H12383_DIFFTRAC.PNG Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR. None Exist There were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness. None Exist There were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings. SVP casts were generally taken every 2 hours. Ocassionally casts would exceed a 2 hour frequency, however would never exceed a 4 hour frequency. On R/V Benthos casts were applied in both QPS QINSy and Kongsberg SIS acquisition software at the time of the cast. On R/V Taku casts were applied in QPS QINSy acquisition software at the time of the cast. Surface SVP measured at 1Hz was compared to surface speed from the current profile in realtime. If the surface velocity comparison was in excess of 2m/s at any time during survey operations, a new cast was taken. Surface sound speeds were compared in realtime and profile to profile for each cast on the vessel. Additionally, the processor reviewed profiles in Qimera to remove spurious readings within a cast, compare day-to-day casts, and to check distribution over the surveyed area, in order to better understand trends for efficient acquisition planning. All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR. Data Density Evaluation In order to determine if the density of the data met the specified 5 soundings per node, data density was evaluated using DensityTrac in the AmiTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac Inc. Each finalized CUBE weighted dynamic surface's nodes were exported to a BBH file. The BBH file was then loaded into the DensityTrac program and density statistics were computed. For H13167 the following percentages represent the results of the density query: Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface ) = 99.973% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. H13167 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution SUPPORTFILES/H13167_DENSITY.PNG All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR. All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR. Backscatter data were collected throughout the survey and are retained in the raw ALL and DB files. Every effort was made in the field to collect quality backscatter data while maintaining the primary mandate of high quality bathymetric data. While no processing or analysis of backscatter was required, eTrac Inc. verified coverage and general quality of the backscatter data collected. A beam intensity window was monitored in Qinsy during aquisiton to ensure backscatter data collection. Raw backscatter data were viewed in QPS FMGeocoder to further confirm collection criteria had been met. Shown below is an example of the unprocessed backscatter mosaic from H13167 DN341 and DN342. Raw backscatter from R/V Benthos (DN341 and DN342) SUPPORTFILES/H13167_BACKSCATTER_DN341_DN342_BE.PNG No Feature Object Catalog was used. Qimera was used as the primary processing software, which included feature management. H13167_MB_1m_MLLW_Final BAG 1 2.49 17.51 NOAA_1m Complete MBES A 1m surface is provided meeting complete coverage MBES with backscatter specifications for H13167. H13167 Delivered 1m CUBE Surface Coverage Graphic SUPPORTFILES/H13167_SURFACE_COVERAGE.PNG Mean Lower Low Water VDatum ITRF_to_MLLW_FL_KEYS.bin In order to reference soundings to MLLW, a VDatum separation method was applied to the Qinsy DB files via a separation file in the aquisition softwares. Note: The vertical control methods are further addressed in the HVCR and DAPR. North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) UTM Zone 17N A chart comparison was conducted for H13167 using Qimera and Caris HIPS and SIPS. Contours and soundings were compared against the largest scale ENC US4FL92M to accomplish the chart comparison. The methods and results of the comparison are detailed below. Contour Comparison Method: Using the 1 meter CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface, the 12 foot, 18 foot and 30 foot contours were generated in Qimera and displayed against the charted contour. Additionally, the 1 meter CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface was viewed by a custom color band range based on the contour intervals (12ft,18ft, 30ft). The results of the comparison are described below, followed by 1-2 images of example areas. Sounding Comparison Method: Using the same 1 meter CUBE weighted Dynamic surface, soundings were generated in Caris HIPS and SIPS. Soundings were displayed against the charted soundings and a visual comparison was made. The results of the comparison are described below, followed by 1-4 images of example areas. US5FL92M 80000 13 2018-10-16 2019-02-14 false Contour Comparison Results: In H13167, the 18 foot contour has receded inward ranging approximately 250 to 700 feet from the charted contour. The 30 foot contour around the 18 foot contour has also receded inward. On the west side of this 30 foot charted contour, it has receded inward approximately 100 to 1200 feet. On the east side, it has receded inward to create multiple smaller areas distinguished by the 30 foot contour. The 30 foot contour in the northwest corner of H13167 has formed multiple small areas distinguished by the 30 foot contour, which differs from the charted continuous 30 foot contour. In general, the contours are in the same vicinity as the chart. The 30 foot contour in the southern region of H13167 is in excellent agreement on the west side with the charted contour. On the east side, the 30 foot contour has receded south approximately 0 to 2000 feet. In the northeast corner of H13167, the two circular areas defined by the 30 foot contours generally agree with the charted contour, and have receded inward approximately 150 to 700 feet. There are multiple small areas in the western region of H13167 defined by the 30 foot contour, which differs from the four small areas defined by the 30 foot charted contour. In general, these contours are in the same vicinity. Multiple small areas in the southeastern corner of H13167 defined by the 30 foot contour have formed, which are represented by the charted contour. Sounding Comparison Results: In areas where the contour has changed, as noted above, and where a feature was detected, soundings differ from the charted depths. In general for H13167, the soundings are in excellent agreement with the chart with no major discrepancies. Soundings are generally within 1 to 3 feet of each other. Occasionally soundings differ by 4 to 10 feet, however depth differences generally appear to be minimal. Depth differences are not biased in any particular direction to support a systematic error. H13167 18ft and 30ft Contour Comparison (US5FL92M) SUPPORTFILES/H13167_CONTOUR_COMPARISON_US4FL92M.PNG H13167 30ft Contour Comparison (US5FL92M) - Northwest Detailed View SUPPORTFILES/H13167_CONTOUR_COMPARISON_US4FL92M_DETAILEDVIEW.PNG H13167 30ft Contour Comparison (US5FL92M) - Northeast Detailed View SUPPORTFILES/H13167_CONTOUR_COMPARISON_US4FL92M_DETAILEDVIEW_2.PNG H13167 18ft and 30ft Contour Comparison (US5FL92M) - South Detailed View SUPPORTFILES/H13167_CONTOUR_COMPARISON_US4FL92M_DETAILEDVIEW_3.PNG H13167 Sounding Comparison (US5FL92M) SUPPORTFILES/H13167_SOUNDING_COMPARISON_US4FL92M.PNG No AWOIS Items were assigned for this survey. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. There were 3 charted features assigned to H13167. The assigned features are retained in the Final Feature File (FFF). Each feature in the FFF has been given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format 7XXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendations of each feature. There were 24 new features found in H13167, and added to the Final Feature File (FFF). Each feature was given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format 7XXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendations of each feature. 2 H13167_DtoN_1-18 2019-02-12 H13167_DtoN_19-22 2019-02-27 There were 2 DtoN reports submited for this survey which included 22 features in total, found in H13167, and added to the Final Feature File (FFF). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recomendations of each feature. Note: All DtoNs were included in the number of new, uncharted features within section D.1.5. No Shoal and Hazardous Features exist for this survey. No channels exist for this survey. 5 locations of drop camera imagery were obtained in accordance with Appendix I of the Project Instructions in areas designated by the feature object class springs (SPRING) in the Project Reference File (PRF). Drop camera imagery was obtained instead of physical bottom samples due to the vincity of the National Marine Sanctuary. Drop camera imagery was used to define the NATSUR but was insuffient for defining the NATQUA and COLOUR. A brief description of the results is listed below. H1: shells, sand H2: sand H3: shells, sand H4: coral H5: coral, sand Detailed information and images of the bottom samples listed above are located in the Final Feature File (FFF). Each bottom sample has been given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format HX). No shoreline exists for this survey. No prior surveys exist for with survey. There was 1 charted AtoN assigned in H13167. The AtoN consists of 3 features. The land area of this AtoN was not found and is listed as delete in the FFF. The tower and fog signal of this AtoN were found to be off-station from the charted location and are also listed as delete in the FFF. The new location of the fog signal and tower were added to the FFF. Each feature was given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format 7XXX). Note: The assigned AtoN was included in the number of charted features within section D.1.4. The new location of the AtoN was included in the number of new features within section D.1.5. Reference Appendix II for correspondence regarding the AtoN. No overhead features exist for with survey. No submarine features exist for this survey. 1 uncharted ferry route is located within the survey limits of H13167. The ferry route is called Key West-Fort Jefferson or Dry Tortugas Ferry. The ferry terminals for this route are located at the Key West Ferry Building in Key West, Florida and the Fort Jefferson Boat Dock in Dry Tortugas, Florida. Ferry Route (blue line) SUPPORTFILES/H13167_FERRYROUTE.PNG Ferry Terminal - Key West Ferry Building SUPPORTFILES/H13167_FERRYTERMINAL_KEYWEST.PNG Ferry Terminal - Fort Jefferson Boat Dock SUPPORTFILES/H13167_FERRYTERMINAL_FORTJEFFERSON.PNG No platforms exist for this survey. No significant features exist for this survey. No construction or dredging exist for this survey. No new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area. No new insets are recommended for this area. As Chief of Party, field operations for this hydrographic survey were conducted under my direct supervision, with frequent personal checks of progress and adequacy. I have reviewed the attached survey data and reports. All CUBE surfaces, this Descriptive Report, and all accompanying records and data are approved. All records are forwarded for final review and processing to the Processing Branch. The survey data meets or exceeds requirements as set forth in the NOS Hydrographic Surveys and Specifications Deliverables Manual, Field Procedures Manual, Letter Instructions, and all HSD Technical Directives. These data are adequate to supersede charted data in their common areas. This survey is complete and no additional work is required with the exception of deficiencies noted in the Descriptive Report. David R. Neff, C.H. VP of Survey, eTrac Inc. 2019-03-27