OPR-R320-KR-22 Cape Newenham, AK Vicinity of Cape Newenham, AK eTrac H13563 1 Note: Reference CTNARE feature for coverage requirements within feature. Goodnews Bay Inlet to Goodnews Bay Alaska United States 40000 2022 David Neff, C.H. Basic Hydrographic Survey 2021-12-16 2022-05-30 2022-09-24 Multibeam Echo Sounder Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter meters UTC Pacific Hydrographic Branch 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 NAD83 UTM 03N, MLLW. All references to other horizontal or vertical datums in this report are applicable to the processed hydrographic data provided by the field unit. CC0-1.0 (NOAA Contractors) CC0-1.0 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode These data were produced under contract with NOAA and any potential copyright was assigned to NOAA. NOAA waives any potential copyright and related rights in these data worldwide through the Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0). Contractor eTrac conducted hydrographic survey operations in Goodnews Bay, Alaska. H13563 covers approximately 10 square nautical miles of survey area. 873.76 linear nautical miles were acquired during the survey. Survey was conducted within these limits between May 30, 2022 (DN150) and September 24, 2022 (DN267). 59.11655277777778 161.93605277777777 58.964955555555555 161.58867500000002 All data were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the project Instructions and specifications set forth in the Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables 2022 Edition (HSSD 2022). Survey Limits Overview (light blue area) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurveyLimits_Overview.PNG Survey Limits (black line) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurveyLimits.PNG 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 H13563 is accurate to International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1a as required per the HSSD 2022. All waters in Sheet 1 outside the the PRF-designated CTNARE feature Complete Coverage All waters in Sheet 1 within the PRF-designated CTNARE feature Set Line Spacing MBES. Run 4 reconnaissance lines in a zig-zag pattern from opposing sides within the CTNARE area. Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements listed above and in the HSSD 2022. Note: Survey coverage did not extend to the entire assigned survey boundary as the Navigable Area Limit Line (NALL) was reached. Additionally, coverage gaps and holidays occurred due to an error in the Qimera transformation model that was found after the vessels had returned from the field. After correcting the transformation model it was found that the 3.5m NALL had not been met in some areas, the majority in H13563. In late September eTrac mobilized a Vessel of Opportunity (VOOP) out of Goodnews Bay, AK and an effort was made to collect the missing areas within the sea state and weather constraints. Further details of the transformation model error can be found in the DAPR and Project Correspondence. In the CTNARE designated area, R/V Thunder attempted to run a zig-zag pattern but stopped due to depth related safety concerns. The Vessel of Opportunity collected data within the CTNARE as it transited from Goodnews Bay to the complete coverage area of H13563 in a parallel to shoreline direction instead of in a zig-zag pattern from opposing sides due to safety. Survey Coverage file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurveyCoverage.png Survey Coverage with 3.5m NALL displayed file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurveyCoverage_NALL.png Area 1 - Coverage Gaps Due to Error in Transformation Model file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurveyCoverage_TransformationModel_1.PNG Area 2 - Coverage Gaps and Holidays Due to Error in Transformation Model file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurveyCoverage_TransformationModel_2.PNG Area 3 - Coverage Gaps Due to Error in Transformation Model file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurveyCoverage_TransformationModel_3.PNG Area 4 - Coverage Gaps from R/V Thunder Due to Error in Transformation Model. NALL Met and Holidays Created by VOOP Before 3.5m Due To Safety file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurveyCoverage_TransformationModel_4.PNG Limited Coverage in CTNARE Due to Safety Concerns file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurveyCoverage_TransformationModel_5.PNG R/V Thunder 0.0 816.73 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.32 0.0 Vessel of Opportunity (VOOP) - Sidetrac 0.0 19.71 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 836.44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.32 0.0 4.46 4 0 0 0 9.94 2022-05-30 2022-05-31 2022-06-02 2022-06-03 2022-06-04 2022-06-05 2022-06-09 2022-06-10 2022-06-11 2022-06-12 2022-06-14 2022-06-15 2022-06-17 2022-06-18 2022-06-19 2022-06-29 2022-09-23 2022-09-24 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 Thunder 21.3 0.8 VOOP - Sidetrac 7.0 0.56 The R/V Thunder is a 21.3 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with an over-the-side Pitman Arm with secondary tie point. The VOOP is a 7 meter Pacific Skiff and was mobilized with a VOOP installation kit. MBES R2Sonic 2024 MBES R2Sonic 2020 Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic MicroX SV Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic BaseX2 Positioning and Attitude System Applanix POS MV 320 v5 Positioning and Attitude System R2Sonic I2NS Note: R/V Thunder utilized a dual head R2Sonic 2024 multibeam echosounder system, an AML Micro.X for the surface sound speed system, an AML Base.X2 for the sound speed system, and a POS MV 320 V5 for the positioning and attitude system. The VOOP utilized a R2Sonic 2020 multibeam echosounder system, an AML Micro.X for the surface sound speed system, an AML Base.X2 for the sound speed system, and a R2Sonic I2NS for the positioning and attitude system. 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. Below is a histogram of the crossline comparison statistics showing IHO Order 1a compliance per beam. H13563 Crossline Comparison file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_1m_Crosscheck.png ERS via ERTDM 0.13 R/V Thunder 0.05 0.2 VOOP - Sidetrac 0.05 0.2 Standard deviation uncertainty and total vertical uncertainty (TVU) layers of the Dynamic Surface were utilized during data processing to search for features, water column noise, and systematic errors. IHO Order 1a uncertainty specification was met by 100% of the nodes. The newest release of Qimera (version 2.5.1) allows the user to export a Bathymetric Attributed Grid (BAG) with the TVU layer. Using this BAG, the percentage of nodes that fell within the TVU specification for each Dynamic Surface was calculated using the NOAA QC tools program.These results are shown in an image below. The TVU was also reviewed using the Colormap Range in the Qimera TVU surface layer. This image is also included below. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 100% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Set Line Spacing Coverage MBES (Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 100% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. H13563 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_MB_1m_MLLW_Final_Uncertainty.png H13563 1m TVU Surface Layer Colormap Range file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_1m_TVU_ColormapRange.PNG H13563 Finalized 4m Set Line Spacing MBES TVU Statistics file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_MB_4m_MLLW_Final_Uncertainty.png H13563 4m TVU Surface Layer Colormap Range file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_4m_TVU_ColormapRange.PNG Depth differences between junctioning surveys were evaluated using the JunctionTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac. 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 4 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. H13568 40000 2022 eTrac W The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13563 and H13568. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 99.999% of nodes were within allowable TVU. H13563 - H13568 Junction Comparison file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_H13568_JunctionTrac.PNG H13563 - H13568 Difference Statistics file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_H13568_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. Motion Artifacts Rejected from the VOOP (DN267) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_Abnormal_Environmental_Conditions.PNG See section D.2.8 for discussion of the data shown in the image. SVP casts were generally taken every 2 hours. Occasionally casts would exceed a 2 hour frequency, however would never exceed a 4 hour frequency. On R/V Thunder and the VOOP 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 real-time. 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 real-time 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. 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 H13563 the following percentages represent the results of the density query: Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface) = 99.918% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Set Line Spacing Coverage MBES (Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface) = 99.0832% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. H13563 Finalized 1m Set Line Spacing MBES Density Distribution file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_MB_1m_MLLW_Final_Density.PNG H13563 Finalized 4m Set Line Spacing MBES Density Distribution file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_MB_4m_MLLW_Final_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 DB files. Every effort was made in the field to collect quality backscatter data while maintaining the primary mandate of high quality bathymetric data. eTrac verified coverage and general quality of the backscatter data collected daily. A beam intensity window was monitored in Qinsy during acquisition to ensure backscatter data collection. Raw backscatter data were viewed in QPS FMGeocoder (FMGT) to further confirm collection criteria had been met. After MBES data was fully processed and cleaned in Qimera, GSF files were exported and brought into FMGT and processed into backscatter mosaics. Shown below is an example of the raw backscatter mosaic from H13563 DN162 (R/V Thunder). NOTE: There was an error in the acquisition settings during DN267 VOOP and backscatter data was not acquired. Missing backscatter was unable to be resurveyed due to safety. Raw Backscatter from R/V Thunder (DN162) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_Backscatter.png QPS Qimera 2.5.1 NOAA Profile Version 2022 Feature Object Catalog, NOAA Profile Version 2022 was used only in CARIS. Qimera was used as the primary processing software. H13563_MB_1m_MLLW_Final BAG 1 0.57 22.6 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H13563_MB_4m_MLLW_Final BAG 4 0.19 5.99 NOAA_4m MBES Set Line Spacing A 1m surface is provided meeting Complete Coverage MBES with backscatter specifications for H13563. A 4m surface is provided meeting Set Line Spacing MBES with backscatter specifications for the CTNARE feature for H13563. Note: The 1m surface's depth ranges were extended past 20m to include the remaining deeper values beyond 20m to avoid creating superfluous surfaces at a lower resolution. H13563 Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface Coverage file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurfaceCoverage_1m.PNG H13563 Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface Coverage file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_SurfaceCoverage_4m.PNG Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR and DAPR. Mean Lower Low Water ERS via VDATUM OPR-R320-KR-22_ERTDM2021_NAD83-MLLW.bin OPR-R320-KR-22_ERTDM2021_NAD83-MLLW_1000m.sd In order to reference soundings to Mean Lower Low Water Datum, a separation model was applied to the Qinsy DB files via a .bin separation file in the acquisition software and a .sd separation file in the processing software. North American Datum 1983 Projected UTM 3 RTX Applanix PosPac MMS was utilized to post process real time positioning data utilizing Trimble's PP-RTX implementation of Trimble CenterPoint RTX to create a Smoothed Best Estimate of Trajectory (SBET). GNSS satellite corrections were received on each vessel using the G4+ carrier signal from the Marinestar Global Correction System maintained by Fugro. A chart comparison was conducted for H13563 using Pydro CA tools, Qimera, and Caris HIPS and SIPS. Survey data were compared against the largest scale ENC to accomplish the chart comparison. The largest scale ENC does not cover the entire survey boundary so two other charts were used to complete the chart comparison. Details of the ENCs used are listed below. US4AK84M, scale: 80000, edition: 3, update application date: 02/13/2018, issue date: 02/13/2018 US3AK84M, scale: 200000, edition: 15, update application date: 08/02/2022, issue date: 08/02/2022 Throughout survey operations sounding comparisons between the charted depths and the surveyed depths were analyzed to identify depth discrepancies. Using 1 meter CUBE weighted Dynamic surfaces, soundings were generated in the "Sounding Selection" tab of Pydro CA tools. Soundings were displayed against the charted soundings and a visual comparison was made in Caris HIPS and SIPS. Additionally, potential DtoNs and discrepancies were generated using the "DTM vs Chart" tab of Pydro CA tools. The results were displayed through CA tools and investigated in CARIS HIPS and SIPS and Qimera. An overview image of the generated soundings on each chart is included below. Results of the chart comparison are included in the following sections. Generated Soundings used for Chart Comparison (US4AK84M) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_ChartComparison_US4AK84M.PNG Generated Soundings used for Chart Comparison (US3AK84M) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_ChartComparison_US3AK84M.PNG US4AK84M 80000 3 2018-02-13 2018-02-13 US3AK84M 200000 15 2022-08-02 2022-08-02 No shoals or potentially hazardous features exist for this survey. There was 1 charted feature assigned to H13563 that is included 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 63XXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendations of each feature. No uncharted features exist for this survey. 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. No aids to navigation (ATONs) exist for this survey. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. 4 bottom samples were obtained in accordance with section 7.1 of the HSSD 2022 in areas designated by the field through discussions with our COR. Detailed information and images of the bottom samples 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 AX). No overhead features exist for this survey. No submarine features exist for this survey. No platforms exist for this survey. No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey. Sea state conditions in Goodnews Bay, Alaska worsen as the summer months pass into fall. The VOOP was mobilized in late September after it was discovered that NALL was not met in some areas of H13563 due to an error in our Qimera transformation model. Wind speed and wind direction changed frequently throughout the day, causing the sea state conditions to be unpredictable within an hour or less. The moderate to rough sea state caused blow outs and motion artifacts in our data as the sonar was lifted to the surface of the water. These blowouts and motion artifacts were removed from the MBES surface and the soundings were rejected. Holidays occurred once artifacts were removed. eTrac was unable to resurvey the holidays and complete the survey in the areas where NALL was not met due to the transformation model error, because conditions worsened each day and it was unsafe to continue survey. Motion Artifacts Rejected from the VOOP (DN267) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13563/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13563_Abnormal_Environmental_Conditions.PNG No present or planned construction or dredging exist within the survey limits. No new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area. No new ENC scales 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 Chief of Party 2022-11-08