OPR-R320-KR-22 Cape Newenham, AK Vicinity of Cape Newenham, AK eTrac H13565 3 300m Set Line Spacing 18 NM West of Goodnews Bay Alaska United States 40000 2022 David Neff, C.H. Basic Hydrographic Survey 2021-12-16 2022-05-11 2022-06-12 Multibeam Echo Sounder Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter meters UTC Pacific Hydrographic Branch All times are UTC. The purpose of this survey is to update existing NOS nautical charts. H13565 covers approximately 165 square nautical miles West of Goodnews Bay, Alaska. 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 3N, 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 West of Goodnews Bay, Alaska. H13565 covers approximately 165 square nautical miles of survey area. 1220.96 linear nautical miles were acquired during the survey. Survey was conducted within these limits between May 11, 2022 (DN131) and June 12, 2022 (DN163). 59.313088888888885 162.55393333333333 58.72074722222222 162.32836111111112 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) \SupportFiles\H13565_SurveyLimits_Overview.PNG Survey Limits (black line) \SupportFiles\H13565_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 H13565 is accurate to International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1a as required per the HSSD 2022. All waters in Sheets 3 through 8 Complete 5573 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. All Waters in Sheet 3 Set Line Spacing MBES with concurrent backscatter at 300m. All significant shoals or features found in waters less than 20m deep shall be developed to complete coverage standards, or a set line spacing density suitable to delineate the 5m depth contour and determined in consultation with the COR. Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements listed above and in the HSSD. Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements listed above and in the HSSD 2022. DN Survey Coverage \SupportFiles\H13565_SurveyCoverage.PNG Survey Coverage with 3.5m NALL displayed \SupportFiles\H13565_SurveyCoverage_NALL.PNG R/V Norseman II 0.0 976.67 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.71 0.0 WAM-V 22 0.0 135.58 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1112.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.71 0.0 9.77 10 0 0 0 165.0 2022-05-11 2022-05-12 2022-05-13 2022-05-15 2022-05-16 2022-05-17 2022-05-18 2022-05-19 2022-05-20 2022-05-28 2022-05-29 2022-06-02 2022-06-03 2022-06-04 2022-06-09 2022-06-10 2022-06-11 2022-06-12 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 Norseman II 35.0 4.0 WAM-V 22 7.0 0.56 The R/V Norseman II is a 35 meter steel converted supply vessel with both a port and starboard custom over-the-side pole mount with secondary tie point. The WAM-V 22 is a 7 meter Wave Adaptive Modular Vessel (WAM-V) which is an innovative class of watercraft using unique suspension technology to radically improve seagoing capabilities. The WAM-V is equipped with a custom sonar mount. The WAM-V 22 vessel is also referred to as Quimby elsewhere in the survey data and documentation. MBES R2Sonic 2022 MBES R2Sonic 2024 Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic MicroX SV Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic MVP-X Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic BaseX2 Positioning and Attitude System R2Sonic I2NS Note: R/V Norseman II utilized a single head R2Sonic 2022 multibeam echosounder system (MBES) or a single head R2Sonic 2024 MBES for different durations of the project. R/V Norseman II utilized an AML Micro.X for the surface sound speed system, an AML/eTrac MVP-X for the sound speed system, and an AML Base.X2 as a spare for the sound speed system. R/V Norseman II utilized a R2Sonic Integrated Inertial Navigation System (I2NS) for the positioning and attitude system. The WAM-V 22 utilized a single head R2Sonic 2022 MBES, an AML Micro.X for the surface sound speed system, an AML/eTrac MVP-X for the sound speed system, an AML Base.X2 as a spare 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 4 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. H13565 Crossline Comparison \SupportFiles\H13565_4m_Crosscheck.png ERS via ERTDM 0.13 R/V Norseman II 0.05 0.2 WAM-V 22 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 99.5+% to 100% of the nodes. The percentage of nodes that fell within the TVU specification for each Dynamic Surface was calculated using the TVUTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac Inc. For each surface, an XYZ file was exported where the fields are (Easting, Northing, Depth). A TVU layer was created in Qimera and a corresponding XYZ file with the fields (Easting, Northing, TVU) was exported. These XYZ files were loaded into the TVUTrac program and allowable and actual TVU statistics were computed. 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. Set Line Spacing Coverage MBES (TVUTrac results) = 100% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Additionally, the standard deviation uncertainty of each finalized Bathymetric Attributed Grid (BAG) was generated through the NOAA QC Tools and an image of the results is located below. For H13565 the following percentages represent the results of the standard deviation uncertainty calculation: Set Line Spacing Coverage MBES (Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 99.5+% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. H13565 Finalized 4m Set Line Spacing MBES TVU Statistics \SupportFiles\H13565_TVUTrac.PNG H13565 TVU Surface Layer Colormap Range \SupportFiles\H13565_TVU_ColormapRange.PNG H13565 Finalized 4m Set Line Spacing MBES Uncertainty Statistics \SupportFiles\H13565_MB_4m_MLLW_Final_Uncertainty.png The Measured Tide Uncertainty value applied to the data was 0.1 meters. 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. H13567 40000 2022 eTrac E The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13565 and H13567. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 100% of nodes were within allowable TVU. H13565 - H13567 Junction Comparison \SupportFiles\H13565_H13567_JunctionTrac.PNG H13565 - H13567 Difference Statistics \SupportFiles\H13565_H13567_Junctions_DiffTrac.PNG H13568 40000 2022 eTrac E The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13565 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. 99.9930% of nodes were within allowable TVU. Note: Spikes above allowable TVU were caused by sandwave movement and overlapping data on natural features (i.e. rocks). H13565 - H13568 Junction Comparison \SupportFiles\H13565_H13568_JunctionTrac.PNG H13565 - H13568 Difference Statistics \SupportFiles\H13565_H13568_Junctions_DiffTrac.png H13246 40000 2019 TerraSond N The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13565 and H13246. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 96.5594% of nodes were within allowable TVU. Note: Spikes above allowable TVU were caused by migrating sandwaves and shoals. H13565 - H13246 Junction Comparison \SupportFiles\H13565_H13246_JunctionTrac.PNG H13565 - H13246 Difference Statistics \SupportFiles\H13565_H13246_Junctions_DiffTrac.PNG H13565 - H13246 Migrating Sandwaves \SupportFiles\H13565_H13246_migratingsandwaves.png H13242 40000 2019 NOAA Ship Fairweather S The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13565 and H13242. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 99.8715% of nodes were within allowable TVU. H13565 - H13242 Junction Comparison \SupportFiles\H13565_H13242_JunctionTrac.PNG H13565 - H13242 Difference Statistics \SupportFiles\H13565_H13242_Junctions_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. Occasionally casts would exceed a 2 hour frequency, however would never exceed a 4 hour frequency. On R/V Norseman II and the WAM-V 22 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 H13565 the following percentages represent the results of the density query: Set Line Spacing MBES (Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface ) = 99.3302% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. H13565 Finalized 4m Set Line Spacing MBES Density Distribution \SupportFiles\H13565_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 H13565 DN153 (R/V Norseman II). Raw Backscatter from R/V Norseman II (DN153) \SupportFiles\H13565_Backscatter.PNG NOAA Profile Version 2022 Feature Object Catalog, NOAA Profile Version 2022 was used only in CARIS. Qimera was used as the primary processing software. H13565_MB_4m_MLLW_Final BAG 4 7.11 48.59 NOAA_4m MBES Set Line Spacing A 4m surface is provided meeting Set Line Spacing MBES with backscatter specifications for H13565. H13565 Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface Coverage \SupportFiles\H13565_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 H13565 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 one other chart was used to complete the chart comparison. Details of the ENCs used are listed below. US4AK86M, scale: 100000, edition: 6, update application date: 08/04/2021, issue date: 08/04/2021 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 the 4 meter CUBE weighted Dynamic surface 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. A detailed example image of the generated soundings on the charts is included below. Results of the chart comparison are included in the following sections. Generated Soundings used for Chart Comparison (US4AK86M) \SupportFiles\H13565_ChartComparison_US4AK86M.png Generated Soundings used for Chart Comparison (US3AK84M) \SupportFiles\H13565_ChartComparison_US3AK84M.png US4AK86M 100000 6 2021-08-04 2021-08-04 US3AK84M 200000 15 2022-08-02 2022-08-02 Charted shoals within the survey area were found to have deviated from the charted contours. Per project instructions and in consultation with our COR, a plan was determined to adequately survey the shoals. Splits between planned 300m set line spacing, as well as crosslines, were run along and across these shoals to delineate the 5m depth contours. Although the shoals were found to have deviated from the charted contours, it was determined they were not hazardous to navigation, so a Danger to Navigation Report was not submitted. Splits and Crosslines Surveyed to Delineate 5m Depth Contours in H13565 \SupportFiles\H13565_Shoal_US3AK84M.png No charted features were assigned in H13565. No new features were found in H13565. 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 AtoNs were assigned for this survey. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. 10 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 CX). No overhead features exist for this survey. No submarine features exist for this survey. No platforms exist for this survey. No Ferry Routes exist for this survey. In certain areas of H13565 adverse weather conditions and currents caused heave artifacts to appear in the MBES surface. Using Flier Finder within NOAA QC Tools, artifacts were found and removed from the MBES surface. Areas were resurveyed if holidays occurred once artifacts were removed. Some smaller artifacts still exist but are within allowable TVU specifications. Below is an example image of what artifacts were removed from the data. Heave Artifacts Rejected from R/V Norseman II (DN131) \SupportFiles\H13565_Abnormal_Environmental_Conditions.PNG No Construction or Dredging exist for this survey. 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 Neff Chief of Party 2022-10-05