OPR-E350-KR-19Southern Chesapeake Bay, VirginiaSouthern Chesapeake BayLeidosH1330445 NM North of Cherrystone ReefVirginiaUnited States200002020Bridget W. BernierBasic Hydrographic Survey2019-08-272020-07-152020-10-22Multibeam Echo SounderSide Scan SonarMultibeam Echo Sounder BackscattermetersUTCAtlantic Hydrographic BranchContract: EA-133C-14-CQ-0033/TO-0006. Contractor: Leidos, 221 Third Street, Newport, RI 02840 USA. Subcontractors: Divemasters, Inc., 15 Pumpshire Road, Toms River, NJ 08753; OARS, 8705 Shoal Creek Blvd, Suite 109, Austin, TX 78757. Leidos Doc. 20-TR-025. All times were recorded in UTC. Final data are corrected to North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 2011 realization 2010 (NAD83(2011)2010.0), UTM Zone 18N.ContractorThe area surveyed was a section of the Southern Chesapeake Bay 5 NM North of Cherrystone Reef (Figure 1).37.456276.06565737.3485175.979551H13304 Survey Boundsfile:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_01.jpgSurvey limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD), March 2019.The purpose of this survey is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. This project is located in the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest of 130 estuaries in the United States. The Coast Guard is currently conducting a Waterways Assessment and Management Survey of the lower James River. This data will be used to assess if ATONs are correctly placed and help inform a comprehensive report regarding the location of shoals within the lower James River. Survey vintage in this area dates back to 1945. This project will provide critical data for the updating of National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products to increase maritime safety in the region. Survey data from this project is intended to supersede all prior survey data in the common area.The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.Leidos warrants only that the survey data acquired by Leidos and delivered to NOAA under Contract EA-133C-14-CQ-0033 reflects the state of the sea floor in existence on the day and at the time the survey was conducted. H13304 was surveyed in accordance with the following documents: 1. Project Instructions, OPR-E350-KR-19, dated 27 August 2019 2. Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD), March 2019 3. OPR-E350-KR-19 Statement of Work, dated 28 August 2019 4. OPR-E350-KR-19_PRF_10282019.000, received 28 October 2019 5. OPR-E350-KR-19_CSF_10282019.000, received 28 October 2019 6. OPR-E350-KR-19_Southern_Chesapeake_Bay_Questions.pdf, dated 05 November 2019 7. OPR_E350_KR_19_1305M219FNCNJ0356 Mod P20002 - No-cost Extension.pdf, dated 07 August 2020 8. OPR-E350-KR-19 Survey LNM and NALL.pdf, dated 15 October 2020H13304Complete Coverage (Refer to HSSD Section 5.2.2.3)8 meters water depth and shoalerSidescan may be acquired at an altitude of 6-20% of the range scaleAll waters in survey areaComplete 5,553 LNM. Transit mileage, system calibration mileage and data which do not meet HSSD specifications shall not count towards the completion of the LNM requirement. Notify the COR/Project Manager upon nearing completion of LNM requirement. The final survey area shall be squared off and ensure the full investigation of any features within the surveyed extent.Leidos chose to achieve the coverage requirement using Complete Coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam). Survey coverage achieved was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Final Bathymetry Coverage for H13304file:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_02.jpgFinal Side Scan Coverage for H13304 (100% coverage)file:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_03.jpgM/V Atlantic Surveyor00000236.62010.420R/V Oyster Bay II00000159.28011.2700000395.900021.6905.48400012.702020-07-152020-07-162020-07-172020-07-182020-08-052020-08-062020-08-072020-08-082020-08-092020-08-192020-08-202020-10-052020-10-22Leidos used their ISS-2000 software on a Windows 7 platform to acquire these survey data. Survey planning and data analysis were conducted using the Leidos SABER software on Red Hat Enterprise 7 Linux platforms. Klein 3000 side scan sonar (SSS) data were collected on a Windows 7 platform using Klein’s SonarPro software. Subsequent processing and review of the SSS data, including the generation of coverage mosaics, were accomplished using SABER. A detailed description of the systems and vessel used to acquire and process these data is included in the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) rev 1 for OPR-E350-KR-19, delivered concurrently with this Descriptive Report (DR). There were no variations from the equipment configuration described in the DAPR rev 1.M/V Atlantic Surveyor1109R/V Oyster Bay II303M/V Atlantic Surveyorfile:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_04.jpgR/V Oyster Bay IIfile:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_05.jpgThe M/V Atlantic Surveyor (Figure 4) was used to collect multibeam echo sounder (MBES) (RESON SeaBat T50), side scan sonar (SSS) (Klein 3000), and sound speed data during twenty-four hours per day survey operations. The R/V Oyster Bay II (Figure 5) was used to collected MBES (RESON SeaBat 7125 SV1), SSS (Klein 4900), and sound speed data during twelve hours per day survey operations. A detailed description of the vessel used is included in the DAPR rev 1.Teledyne RESONSeaBat T50-PMBESTeledyne RESONSeaBat 7125 SVMBESKlein Marine SystemsSystem 3000SSSKlein Marine SystemsSystem 4900SSSApplanixMVP30Positioning and Attitude SystemAML OceanographicMVP30Sound Speed SystemAML OceanographicBaseX2Sound Speed SystemA detailed description of the equipment installed is included in the DAPR rev 1.Refer to Separates II for details about how the crossing analyses were performed and a complete discussion of each analysis and tabular results. Figure 6 summarizes the crossline comparison results.Summary of Repeatability Analysisfile:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_06.jpgERS via VDATUM0.50.896047R/VM/V Atlantic Surveyor1.01.0N/A1.0R/V Oyster Bay II1.01.0N/A1.0For specific details on the use and application of the SABER Total Propagated Uncertainty (TPU) model, refer to the DAPR rev 1. Once the TPU model was applied to the GSF bathymetry data, each beam was attributed with the horizontal uncertainty and the vertical uncertainty at the 95% confidence level. The vertical and horizontal uncertainty values, estimated by the TPU model for individual multibeam soundings, varied little across the dataset, tending to be most affected by beam angle. Individual soundings that had vertical and horizontal uncertainty values above IHO S-44 5th Edition, Order 1a were flagged as invalid during the uncertainty attribution. As discussed in the DAPR rev 1, SABER generates two vertical uncertainty surfaces; the Hypothesis Standard Deviation (Hyp. StdDev) and the Hypothesis Average Total Propagated Uncertainty (Hyp. AvgTPU). A third vertical uncertainty surface is generated from the larger value of these two uncertainties at each node and is referred to as the Hypothesis Final Uncertainty (Hyp. Final Uncertainty). The final H13304 1-meter PFM CUBE surface contained final vertical uncertainties that ranged from 0.210 meters to 0.772 meters. The IHO Order 1a maximum allowable vertical uncertainty was calculated to range between 0.500 to 0.556 meters, based on the minimum CUBE depth (1.410 meters) and maximum CUBE depth (18.749 meters). Results from the SABER Check PFM Uncertainty function identified that there were two nodes in the final H13304 1-meter PFM CUBE surface with final vertical uncertainties that exceeded IHO Order 1a allowable vertical uncertainty. These nodes were associated with objects within the charted fish haven. The SABER Frequency Distribution Tool was also used to review the Hyp. Final Uncertainty surface within the final H13304 1-meter PFM grid. Results showed that 99.99% of all nodes had final uncertainties less than or equal to 0.556 meters.Per the Project Instructions, analyses of the H13304 junctions with adjacent surveys were performed between H13304 and the survey listed in Table 7. Figure 7 shows the general locality of H13304 as it relates to the sheet to which junctions were performed. Refer to Separates II for details about how junction analyses were performed and a complete discussion of the analysis and tabular results.General Locality of H13304 with Junctioning Surveysfile:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_07.jpgH12421200002012NOAA Ship Thomas JeffersonSH13304 junctions with H12421 to the south; 100% of the comparisons agreed within ±1.618 meters while 99.88% of the comparison results fell within the calculated maximum allowable TVU of 0.53 meters.Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the DAPR rev 1; quality control checks conducted during H13304 are reported in Separates I.Factors Affecting SoundingsThe R/V Oyster Bay II MBES data occasionally exhibited an artifact due to minor vibrations in the pole mount setup; attributed to sea state, currents, and vessel speed. The artifact was observed in the outer beams and when present it was generally within 2 to 3 centimeters and occasionally was observed in the range of 10 centimeters. The outer beam artifact had no significant impact on the final CUBE surface. When observed, these artifacts were within the IHO Order 1a allowable uncertainty standards as described in Section B.2.2. Additionally, in discrete areas along the eastern boundary in shallow water depths, approximately 2 meters and less, the MBES, RESON 7125 SV1, had a reduced swath attributed to bottom characteristics. Additional holiday lines were run producing the same results. Figure 8 illustrates the multibeam ping data on the left (colored by depth) with resulting CUBE depth on the right. In areas where this occurred Leidos ensured that the final valid survey data met HSSD requirements. Reduced Multibeam Swathfile:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_08.jpgNone ExistThere were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings.On the M/V Atlantic Surveyor, the MVP30 was the primary system used to collect sound speed profile (SSP) data, refer to the DAPR rev 1 for additional details. On the R/V Oyster Bay II, the BASE-X2 was the primary system used to collect SSP data, refer to the DAPR rev 1 for additional details. SSP data were obtained at intervals frequent enough to meet depth accuracy requirements as specified in Section 5.2.3.3 of the HSSD. All sound speed profiles applied for online bathymetry data collection were acquired within 500 meters of the bounds of the survey area as specified in Section 5.2.3.3 of the HSSD. Confidence checks of the sound speed profile casts were conducted by comparing at least two consecutive casts taken with different SSP sensors. Nine sound speed confidence checks were conducted during H13304, three from the M/V Atlantic Surveyor and six from the R/V Oyster Bay II, the results can be found in Separates II within the “Comparison Cast Log” section. All individual SSP files are delivered with the H13304 data and are broken out into sub-folders, which correspond to the purpose of each cast. Also, all individual SSP files for H13304 have been concatenated into four separate files based on the purpose of the cast, provided in CARIS format files (.svp), and delivered under (H13304/Processed/SVP/CARIS_SSP) on the delivery drive. In accordance with HSSD Section 8.3.6, H13304 NCEI data will be submitted prior to the delivery of the last sheet for OPR-E350-KR-19. Refer to Separates II for additional details.All equipment and survey methods are detailed in the DAPR rev 1.Multibeam Coverage Analysis Leidos chose to achieve the coverage requirement using 100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam bathymetry. To achieve this coverage, the SSS was set to 25-meter or 50-meter range scale, main scheme survey lines were collected at 40-meter or 80-meter, respectfully, to ensure 100% SSS coverage. The SABER Gapchecker program was used to flag MBES data gaps within the CUBE surface. Additionally, the entire surface was visually scanned for holidays at various points during the data processing effort. Additional survey lines were run to fill any holidays that were detected. A final review of the CUBE Depth surface of the H13304 1-meter PFM showed that there were no holidays as defined for complete coverage surveys in Section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. The final H13304 CUBE PFM grid was examined for the number of soundings contributing to the chosen CUBE hypotheses for each node by running SABER’s Frequency Distribution Tool on the Hypothesis Number of Soundings (Hyp. # Soundings) surface. The Hyp. # Soundings surface reports the number of soundings that were used to compute the chosen hypothesis. Analysis was conducted on the Hyp. # Soundings surface of the PFM grid to ensure that the requirements for complete coverage surveys, as specified in HSSD Section 5.2.2.3 were met. Within the final 1-meter PFM grid 99.53% of all nodes contained five or more soundings. All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR rev 1.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR rev1. Multibeam files associated with calibration are provided within the H13304/Processed/Sonar_Data/H13304_MB/Calibration_Files/ directory.Side Scan Sonar (SSS) Coverage Analysis: For all details regarding SSS data processing, see the DAPR rev 1. Leidos chose to adhere to the coverage requirements in the Project Instructions using Complete Coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam). The HSSD Section 7.3.4 stated that 100% SSS coverage was insufficient to disprove a charted feature. Therefore, 100% SSS coverage was collected and verified for the entire survey area, and an additional 100% SSS coverage would have been collected over CSF assigned objects that were not found, to verify disproval. An additional 100% SSS coverage was not required as no feature disprovals were necessary during H13304, refer to the H13304 S-57 FFF. As referenced in Section A.4, the Project Instructions provided a waiver to HSSD Section 6.1.2.3 for side scan towfish height. In waters less than 8 meters the towfish height above the bottom could be 6% of the range scale. Mosaics were analyzed for coverage at both 8% and 6% of range based on water depths greater or less than 8 meters. Leidos generated a single coverage mosaics at 1-meter cell size resolution as specified in Section 8.2.1 of the HSSD. The 100% coverage mosaic was independently reviewed using tools in SABER to verify data quality and swath coverage. The SABER Gapchecker routine was used to flag data gaps within the 100% SSS coverage mosaic. Additionally, the entirety of the SSS surface was visually scanned for holidays at various points during the data processing effort. Additional survey lines were run to fill any holidays that were detected. The coverage mosaics is determined to be complete and sufficient to meet the requirements contained within the Project Instructions and HSSD. The 100% coverage mosaic is delivered as a single georeferenced raster file (datum of NAD83) in floating point GeoTIFF format, as specified in Sections 8.2.1 and 8.3.3 in the HSSD. Multibeam Echo Sounder Seafloor Backscatter: Leidos collected MBES backscatter data with all GSF data acquired, in accordance with HSSD Section 6.2. The MBES settings used were checked to ensure acceptable quality standards were met and to mitigate acoustic saturation of the backscatter data. The MBES backscatter data acquired were written to the GSF in real-time by ISS-2000 and are delivered in the final GSF files for this sheet. Evaluation of backscatter data and processing were not required for OPR-E350-KR-19 and therefore no additional processing was performed by Leidos and no additional products were produced. LeidosSABER5.4.0.30.1LeidosSABER5.4.0.30.1NOAA Profile Version 2019The primary data processing software used for both bathymetry and imagery was SABER. H13304_MB_1m_MLLW_FinalBAG11.41018.749N/AComplete coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam)H13304_SSSAB_1m_500kHz_900kHz_1of1SSS Mosaic (.tif)100N/A100% SSSComplete Coverage Section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD requires one-meter node resolution for depths ranging from zero meters to 20 meters. Leidos generated CUBE PFM grids for H13304 at one-meter resolution. The CUBE Depth surface of the final H13304 1-meter PFM (containing all valid depth data) was used to assess and document multibeam survey coverage. SABER populates the CUBE depth with either the node’s chosen hypothesis or the depth of a feature or designated sounding set by the hydrographer, which overrides the chosen hypothesis. The range of CUBE depths of the H13304 1-meter PFM was from 1.410 meters (4.626 feet; 0.210 meters Total Vertical Uncertainty [TVU]) to 18.749 meters (61.512 feet; 0.210 meters TVU). The final gridded bathymetry data are delivered as a Bathymetric Attributed Grid (BAG). The BAG files were exported from the CUBE PFM grid as detailed in the DAPR rev 1.Additional information discussing the vertical and horizontal control for this survey can be found in the DAPR rev 1.Mean Lower Low WaterERS via VDATUMOPR-E350-KR-19_NAD83_VDatum_MLLW.covRefer to the DAPR rev 1 for details regarding the application of VDatum to the MBES data files. No final tide note was provided from NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). While a final tide note was not required, a final tide note has been provided by Leidos in Appendix I.North American Datum 1983Projected UTM 18The vessel kinematic data (POS/MV files) were post-processed in Applanix POSPac software using the Applanix PP-RTX solution to generate the Smoothed Best Estimate of Trajectory (SBET) solutions which were applied through SABER to the multibeam data. Refer to the DAPR rev 1 for additional information and for details regarding all antenna and transducer offsets. Any soundings with total horizontal uncertainties exceeding the maximum allowable IHO S-44 5th Edition Order 1a specifications were flagged as invalid and therefore were not used in the CUBE depth calculations.The chart comparisons were conducted using a combination of SABER and CARIS’ HIPS and SIPS. United States Coast Guard (USCG) District 5 Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) publications were reviewed for changes subsequent to the date of the Project Instructions and before the end of survey (as specified in Section 8.1.4 of the HSSD). The LNM reviewed were from week 42/19 (15 October 2019) until week 46/20 (17 November 2020). H13304 data met data accuracy standards and bottom coverage requirements. Leidos recommends updating the common areas of all charts using data from this survey. Charting recommendations for new features, and updates to charted features, are documented in the H13304 S-57 FFF. Additional charted objects are discussed in later sections.US5VA10M40000262020-05-222020-11-17US5VA14M40000332019-06-122020-09-29US5VA10M ENC US5VA10M covers the H13304 survey limit from 37°23'30.49"N northward. CUBE depths within H13340 agreed well with the charted depths across the contemporaneous survey area; observed depths were primarily within 0.5 meters of charted depths (Figure 9). There was greater variability along the eastern extent of H13304 with observed depths shoaler than charted depths (Figure 10). The depth contours on ENC US5VA10M generally agreed with depths that fell within the H13304 survey area (Figure 11). US5VA14M ENC US5VA14M covers the H13304 survey limits from 37°23'30.15"N southward. CUBE depths within H13340 agreed well with the charted depths across the contemporaneous survey area; observed depths were primarily within 0.5 meters of charted depths (Figure 12). There was greater variability along the eastern extent of H13304 with observed depths shoaler than charted depths (Figure 13). The depth contours on ENC US5VA10M generally agreed with depths that fell within the H13304 survey area (Figure 14).Figure 9: ENC US5VA10M Charted Soundings (black) with H13304 CUBE Depth Selected Soundings (blue)file:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_09.jpgFigure 10: ENC US5VA10M Charted Soundings (black) with H13304 CUBE Depth Selected Soundings (blue)file:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_10.jpgFigure 11: ENC US5VA10M Charted Contour (black) with H13304 CUBE Depth Selected Soundings (blue)file:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_11.jpgFigure 12: ENC US5VA14M Charted Soundings (black) with H13304 CUBE Depth Selected Soundings (blue)file:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_12.jpgFigure 13: ENC US5VA14M Charted Soundings (black) with H13304 CUBE Depth Selected Soundings (blue)file:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_13.jpgFigure 14: ENC US5VA14M Charted Contour (red) with H13304 CUBE Depth Selected Soundings (blue)file:///H:/Survey/H13304_E350_KR_19/AHB_H13304/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/Office/SupportFiles/H13304_Figure_14.jpgThere were no significant shoals or hazardous features within the area covered by this survey other than those referenced in Section D.1.4.There were two assigned charted features in the final CSF (OPR-E350-KR-19_CSF_10282019.000) within the SOW of H13304; however none of these features contained the label PA, ED, PD, or Rep. Per HSSD Section 8.1.4, these charted features are not addressed in this section, refer to the H13304 S-57 FFF (H13304_FFF.000) for all the details and recommendations regarding these features.See the H13304 S-57 FFF for all the details and recommendations regarding new uncharted features investigated.There were no channels within this survey area.There was one assigned aid to navigation (ATON) within the SOW of H13304 from the final CSF. The ATON was observed on station and serving its intended purpose. Per the investigation requirements from the CSF, as it was on station and serving intended purpose, it is included in the H13304 FFF with description of retain (H13304 Feature 3).No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.In accordance with both the Project Instructions and Section 7.2.3 of the HSSD, bottom characteristics were obtained for H13304. Bottom characteristics were acquired at the four locations assigned in the final PRF (OPR-E350-KR-19_PRF_10282019.000). Leidos did not modify the bottom sample locations from the location proposed by NOAA in the PRF. Bottom characteristics are included in the S-57 FFF. In addition, images of the sediment obtained for each bottom sample are referenced in the S-57 FFF and are included on the delivery drive under the folder H13304/Processed/Multimedia.There were no overhead features within this survey area.There were no submarine features charted or identified within this survey area.No platforms exist within this survey area.No ferry routes or terminals exist within this survey area.No abnormal seafloor or environmental conditions, as defined in Section 8.1.3 of the HSSD, exist within this survey area other than those discussed in Section B.2.6.No construction or dredging exists for this survey area.No new survey recommendations are made for the area surrounding this survey area.No inset recommendations are made for the area covered by this survey. 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.This Descriptive Report, all BAG files, 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 Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables, Project Instructions, and Statement of Work. These data are adequate to supersede charted data in their common areas. This survey is complete and no additional work is required. Previously, or concurrently, submitted deliverables for OPR-E350-KR-19 are provided in the table below.Bridget W. BernierData Processing Manager2020-12-04OPR-E350-KR-19_Marine_Species_Awareness_Training_Record.pdf2020-07-20OPR-E350-KR-19_20200724.zip (NCEI Sound Speed Data 2019 data only)2020-07-24OPR-E350-KR-19_Coast Pilot Review Report.pdf 2020-07-26OPR-E350-KR-19_DAPR.pdf2020-07-29H13295_DR.pdf2020-07-29H13302_DR.pdf2020-07-30OPR-E350-KR-19_Coast Pilot Review Report_rev1.pdf2020-12-01OPR-E350-KR-19_Marine_Species_Awareness_Training_Record_rev1.pdf2020-12-02OPR-E350-KR-19_DAPR_rev1.pdf2020-12-04