UTCmeters2020-10-21CDR John LomnickyMultibeam Echo SounderMultibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter20202020-11-222020-12-06Navigable AreaAny 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 NAD83 UTM 10N, MLLW. All references to other horizontal or vertical datums in this report are applicable to the processed hydrographic data provided by the field unit.Pacific Hydrographic BranchOPR-N305-FA-20Approaches to Puget SoundStrait of Juan de Fuca, WANOAA Ship Fairweather (S220)5000H13412WashingtonUnited StatesKydaka Point to Neah Bay1NOAA0029.4606568.494.42000000024.0790.38000000010.37FA 280571.5700000000FA 2807130.38000000013.69FA 2808252.1000000000S2202020-11-222020-11-232020-11-282020-11-292020-11-302020-12-012020-12-022020-12-032020-12-042020-12-06This 30 square nautical mile project is located within the Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA, a major coastal waterway within the Salish Sea. This area is a navigationally significant waterway within the Salish Sea, which supports transits of deep-draft container ships, cargo and chemical carriers, oil tankers, fuel and coal barges arriving and departing from Puget Sound and Vancouver, Canada along with fishing, recreational, tug and barge vessels, and Washington State Ferries. Furthermore, the region is home to 8 million people including fifty First Nation communities with centuries old cultural ties to traditional fishing. This project will occur within the Makah Tribe Usual and Accustomed Fishing Area that includes the Neah Bay emergency tugboat marina and 5 SNM of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. The majority of the area was last surveyed in the 1940s and 1960s, with Neah Bay surveyed in 2000. This project will provide modern bathymetry for updating National Ocean Service Nautical charting products improving maritime safety in this navigationally busy region as well as support the Seabed 2030 global mapping initiative.H13412 survey coverage overlaid onto Chart 18460SupportFiles\DR Coverage and Sheet Limits.PNGThe entirety of H13412 was acquired with complete coverage, meeting the requirements listed above and in the HSSD. See Figure 3 for an overview of coverage.Complete Coverage All waters in survey areaNALL Defined by Rocks and KelpSupportFiles\Nall Def.pngData were acquired to the survey limits in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the 2020 NOS Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD). Coverage acquired in H13412 is shown in Figure 1. In all areas where the 3.5 meter depth contour or the sheet limits were not met, the Navigable Area Limit Line (NALL) was defined as the inshore limit of bathymetry due to the risks of maneuvering the survey vessel in close proximity to the dense kelp beds or intermittent volcanic rocky shoreline and at Hydrographers discretion due to dangerous swell. An example of such an area is shown in Figure 2. H13412 sheet limits (in blue) overlaid onto Chart 18460SupportFiles\H13412 Sheet Limits.PNGThe survey area is located from Kydaka Point to Neah Bay, Washington.124.310248.2753138889124.689748.4174805556Data acquired in H13412 meet multibeam echo sounder (MBES) coverage requirements for complete coverage as required by the HSSD. This includes crosslines (see Section B.2.1), NOAA allowable uncertainty (see Section B.2.10), and density requirements (see Section B.2.11).The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.RTXVessel kinematic data were post-processed using Applanix POSPac processing software and RTX positioning methods described in the DAPR. Smoothed Best Estimate of Trajectory (SBET) and associated error (RMS) data were applied to all MBES data in CARIS HIPS and SIPS.North American Datum 1983During real-time acquisition, all platforms received correctors from the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for increased accuracies similar to USCG DGPS stations. WAAS and SBETs were the sole methods of positioning for H13412 as no DGPS stations were available for real-time horizontal control.Projected UTM 10OPR-N305-RA-20_sheetsuffforVdat__100m_NAD83-MLLW_geoid12b.csarERS methods were used as the final means of reducing H13412 to MLLW for submission.ERS via VDATUMMean Lower Low WaterPer Section 5.2.2.1.3 of the 2020 Field Procedures Manual no Horizontal and Vertical Control Report has been generated for H13412.70.4S2204.88.628051.18.628071.18.628081.1EM 2040Kongsberg MaritimeMBESEM 710Kongsberg MaritimeMBESSBE 19plus V2Sea-Bird ScientificConductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorPOS MV 320 v5ApplanixPositioning and Attitude SystemMVP200AML OceanographicConductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorSVP 70Teledyne RESONSound Speed SystemSVP 71Teledyne RESONSound Speed SystemThe equipment was installed on the survey platform as follows: S220 utilizes the Kongsberg EM 710 MBES, a POS M/V v5 system for position and attitude, SVP 70 surface sound speed sensors, and AML Oceanographic MVP 200 for conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) casts. All launches utilize the Kongsberg EM 2040 MBES, a POS M/V v5 system for positon and attitude, SVP 71 surface sound speed sensors, and Sea-Bird SBE 19plus v2 CTDs for conductivity, temperature, and depth casts. Refer to the OPR-N305-FA-20 Data Acquisition and Processing Report 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.H13412 Allowable uncertainty statisticsSupportFiles\H13412_MB_VR_MLLW_Final.QAv6.tvu_qc.pngThe surface was analyzed using the HydrOffice QC Tools Grid QA feature to determine compliance with specifications. Overall, 99.5% of nodes within the surface meet NOAA Allowable Uncertainty specifications for H13412 (Figure 11).NOAA Allowable UncertaintyH13412 Data density statisticsSupportFiles\H13412_MB_VR_MLLW_Final.QAv6.density.pngThe surface was analyzed using the HydrOffice QC Tools Grid QA feature to determine compliance with specifications. Density requirements for H13412 were achieved with at least 99.5% of surface nodes containing five or more soundings as required by HSSD Section 5.2.2.3 (Figure 12).DensityRock outcropping along shoreSupportFiles\20201206_122822 Rock Point Outcropping 2.jpgKelp beds along coast adjacent to Kydaka Point to Neah BaySupportFiles\20201206_084857 Kelp Bed area.jpgGaps in coverage are present at the inshore limits of H13412 and are a result of sparse outer beam data while launches developed the inshore limit of safe navigation (NALL). These gaps are most prevalent in the exposed, rocky areas of H13412 as kelp and nearshore topography made it too dangerous to acquire additional bathymetry, as shown in Figures 13 and Figure 14. Gaps at NALLThere were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness.None ExistCasts were conducted at a minimum of one every four hours during launch acquisition. Casts were conducted more frequently when there was a change in surface sound speed greater than two meters per second. MVP casts on S220 were conducted at an average interval of 179 minutes, guided by observation of the surface sound speed and targeted to deeper areas. All sound speed methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.Overview of H13412 junction surveysSupportFiles\Junction Overview.pngH13412 junctions with 1 adjacent survey from this project, H13414 and H11083 from a prior project, as shown in Figure 6. These areas of overlap between surveys were reviewed in CARIS HIPS and SIPS by surface differencing (at equal resolutions) to assess surface agreement. The junctions with H13412 are generally within the NOAA allowable uncertainty in their areas of overlap. For all junctions with H13412, a negative difference indicates H13412 was shoaler and a positive difference indicates H13412 was deeper.Difference surface between H13412 (blue) and junctioning survey H13414 (pink) SupportFiles\Junction Difference Statistics.pngDifference surface statistics between H13412 and H13414 (VR surface) SupportFiles\H13414_MB_VR_MLLW_Final_depth_delta.pngSurface differencing in CARIS HIPS and SIPS was used to assess junction agreement between the surface from H13412 and the surface from H13414 (Figure 7). The statistical analysis of the difference surface shows a mean of 0.02 meters with 95% of the nodes having a maximum deviation of +/- 0.16 meters, as seen in Figure 8. It was found that 99.5% of nodes are within NOAA allowable uncertainty.20000SENOAA Ship Fairweather2020H13414Difference surface between H13412 (blue) and junctioning survey H11083 (brown)SupportFiles\H13412_H11083_junction.pngDifference surface statistics between H13412 and H11083 (10 meter surface)SupportFiles\H13412_10m-H11083_10m_UTM10NAD83_depth_delta.pngSurface differencing in CARIS HIPS and SIPS was used to assess junction agreement between the surface from H13412 and the surface from H11083 (Figure 9 ). The statistical analysis of the difference surface shows a mean of 0.35 meters with 95% of the nodes having a maximum deviation of +/- 0.82 meters, as seen in Figure 10. It was found that 95.49% of nodes are within NOAA allowable uncertainty. 5000WNOAA Ship Rainier2000H11083Overview of H13412 CrosslinesSupportFiles\H13412_Crossline_Overview2.pngH13412 Crossline and mainscheme difference statisticsSupportFiles\H13412_Mainscheme-Crosslines_depth_delta.pngCrosslines were collected, processed and compared in accordance with Section 5.2.4.2 of the HSSD. To evaluate crosslines, a surface generated via data strictly from mainscheme lines and a surface generated via data strictly from crosslines were created. From these two surfaces, a difference surface (mainscheme - crosslines = difference surface) was generated (Figure 4), and is submitted in the Separates II Digital Data folder. Statistics show the mean difference between the depths derived from mainscheme data and crossline data was 0.00 meters and 95% of nodes falling within 0.13 meters (with mainscheme being shoaler, as shown in Figure 5). For the respective depths, the difference surface was compared to the allowable NOAA uncertainty standards (Figure 5). In total, 99.5% of the depth differences between H13412 mainscheme and crossline data were within allowable NOAA uncertainties. There were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings.None ExistSonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.In addition to the usual a priori estimates of uncertainty via device models for vessel motion and VDATUM, real-time and post-processed uncertainty sources were also incorporated into the depth estimates of survey H13412. Real-time uncertainties were provided via EM 710 and EM 2040 MBES data and Applanix Delayed Heave RMS. Following post-processing of the real-time vessel motion, recomputed uncertainties of vessel roll, pitch, gyro and navigation were applied in CARIS HIPS and SIPS via a Smoothed Best Estimate of Trajectory (SBET) RMS file generated in Applanix POSPac.13.2ERS via VDATUM0.5280X (All Launches)N/A2N/A0.5S220N/AN/A1All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPRBackscatter mosaic for H13412SupportFiles\Backscatter Mosaic.pngBackscatter calibration valuesSupportFiles\Backscatter calibration values.PNGRaw backscatter data were stored in the .all file for Kongsberg systems. All backscatter were processed to GSF files and a floating point mosaic was created by the field unit via Fledermaus FMGT 7.9.0 . See Figure 15 for a greyscale representation of the complete mosaic. A relative backscatter calibration was performed by the field unit via a patch test in order to bring the survey systems on each of the launches into alignment. See Figure 16 for a table of the calibration values entered into the Processing Settings within FMGT. Approximate inter-calibration corrections for offsets between sonar systems were applied to the mosaic. All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR.177.10.8NOAA_VRH13412_MB_VR_MLLWVariable ResolutionComplete MBESCARIS VR Surface (CUBE)177.10.8NOAA_VRH13412_MB_VR_MLLW_FinalVariable ResolutionComplete MBESCARIS VR Surface (CUBE)The NOAA CUBE parameters defined in the HSSD were used for the creation of all CUBE surfaces for H13412. The surfaces have been reviewed where noisy data, or "fliers" are incorporated into the gridded solutions causing the surface to be shoaler or deeper than the true sea floor. Where these spurious soundings cause the gridded surface to vary from the reliably measured seabed by greater than the maximum allowable Total Vertical Uncertainty at that depth, the noisy data have been rejected by the hydrographer and the surface recomputed. Flier Finder, part of the QC Tools package within HydrOffice, was used to assist the search for spurious soundings following gross cleaning. Flier Finder was run iteratively until all remaining flagged fliers were deemed to be valid aspects of the surface.NOAA Profile Version 2020QPSFledermaus7.9.0CARISHIPS and SIPS11.3Data acquisition and processing notes are included in the acquisition and processing logs, and additional processing such as final separation model reduction and sound speed application are noted in the H13412 Data Log spreadsheet. All data logs are submitted digitally in the Separates I folder.Data LogsSurface Comparison between Incorrect HVF and Correct HVF dataSupportFiles\H13398_MB_VR_MLLW_CST-H13398_HVF_Test_VR_depth_delta.pngThe DAPR includes the correct offsets in terms of what information is input into our systems. This information, unfortunately, did not make its way into the HVF. The offset inputs in the HVF are not applied directly to the data and are only used to determine uncertainty. These small differences do not seem to impact the uncertainty values. To assess this we created a test project and processed a small section of the data with the updated HVF and created a surface. We then compared the resulting uncertainty with the old HVF and new HVF which mirrors the DAPR and the POS offsets. We then utilized compare grids to assess the differences between "Correct HVF Surface" and the "Incorrect HVF Surface". The mean difference was 0.0m. Output graphs are attached.HVF ErrorNo Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.There where 7 assigned ATONs for H13412. They are fully attributed in the Final Feature File.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.No overhead features exist for this survey.No new ENC scales are recommended for this area.No platforms exist for this survey.H13412 Bottom sample locationsSupportFiles\H13412 Bottom sample locations 2.PNG6 bottom samples were acquired in accordance with the Project Instructions for survey H13412. All bottom samples were entered in the H13412 Final Feature File. See Figure 17 for a graphical overview of sample locations.No new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area.No abnormal seafloor or environmental conditions exist for this survey.The CBLSUB features were not observed in the multibeam bathymetry nor the backscatter mosaic.No present or planned construction or dredging exist within the survey limits.No channels exist for this survey. There are no designated anchorages, precautionary areas, safety fairways, traffic separation schemes, pilot boarding areas, or channel and range lines within the survey limits.1410000US5WA20M2018-05-282019-02-0430100000US4WA36M2020-07-092020-07-09No shoals or potentially hazardous features exist for this survey.Survey H13412 has 19 new features that are addressed in the H13412 Final Feature File. Of these features, there are 1 new wreck, 2 new obstructions, 6 new seabed areas, 1 new pontoon areas, 2 new piles, and 7 new kelp features. All assigned charted features are attributed in the Final Feature File.2021-05-30Chief of PartyCDR John Lomnicky2021-05-30Operations OfficerLT Marybeth Head2021-05-30Chief Survey TechnicianCHST Alissa Johnson2021-05-30Sheet ManagerHAST Brent HumphriesAs 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 Specifications and 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.