OPR-R320-KR-22 Cape Newenham, AK Vicinity of Cape Newenham, AK eTrac H13570 8 400m Set Line Spacing Expansion Sheet - Available if previous sheets are completed before LNM requirement is met. 8 NM South of Cape Pierce Alaska United States 40000 2022 David Neff, C.H. Basic Hydrographic Survey 2021-12-16 2022-06-05 2022-06-13 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. H13570 covers approximately 182 square nautical miles South of Cape Pierce, 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 Inc. conducted hydrographic survey operations South of Cape Pierce, Alaska. H13570 covers approximately 182 square nautical miles of survey area. 992.67 linear nautical miles were acquired during the survey. Survey was conducted within these limits between June 5, 2022 (DN156) and June 13, 2022 (DN164). 58.47847222222222 161.86075277777778 58.31626111111111 160.69313055555557 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). H13570 Survey Limits Overview (light blue area) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_SurveyLimits_Overview.PNG H13570 Survey Limits (black line) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_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 H13570 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 Sheets 5 through 8 Set Line Spacing MBES with concurrent backscatter at 400m. 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. Survey Coverage file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_SurveyCoverage.PNG Survey Coverage with 3.5m NALL displayed file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_SurveyCoverage_NALL.PNG R/V Norseman II 0.0 604.82 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.34 0.0 WAM-V 22 0.0 302.35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.16 0.0 0.0 907.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.5 0.0 9.42 1 0 0 0 0.0 2022-06-05 2022-06-06 2022-06-07 2022-06-08 2022-06-09 2022-06-13 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. MBES R2Sonic 2024 MBES R2Sonic 2022 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 2024 multibeam echosounder system (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 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. H13570 Crossline Comparison file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_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. 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 H13570 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. H13570 Finalized 4m Set Line Spacing MBES TVUTrac Results file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_TVUTrac.PNG H13570 TVU Layer Colormap Range file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_TVU_ColormapRange.PNG H13570 Finalized 4m Set Line Spacing MBES TVU Statistics file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_MB_4m_MLLW_Final_Uncertainty.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. H13569 40000 2022 eTrac N The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13569 and H13570. 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. H13569 - H13570 Junction Comparison file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_H13569_JunctionTrac.PNG H13569 - H13570 Difference Statistics file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_H13569_Junctions_DiffTrac.PNG H13244 40000 2019 NOAA Ship Fairweather NW The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13570 and H13244. 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. H13570 - H13244 Junction Comparison file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_H13244_JunctionTrac.PNG H13570 - H13244 Difference Statistics file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_H13244_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 H13570 the following percentages represent the results of the density query: Set Line Spacing MBES (Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface ) = 99.3522% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. H13570 Finalized 4m Set Line Spacing MBES Density Distribution file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_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 H13570 DN156 (R/V Norseman II). Raw Backscatter from R/V Norseman II (DN156) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_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. H13570_MB_4m_MLLW_Final BAG 4 8.26 42.81 NOAA_4m MBES Set Line Spacing A 4m surface is provided meeting Set Line Spacing MBES with backscatter specifications for H13570. H13570 Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface Coverage file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_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 H13570 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. US4AK86M, scale: 100000, edition: 6, update application date: 08/04/2021, issue date: 08/04/2021 US4AK87M, scale: 100000, edition: 4, update application date: 12/27/2017, issue date: 12/27/2017 US2AK5FM, scale: 1023188, edition: 24, update application date: 07/19/2022, issue date: 07/19/2022 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) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_ChartComparison_US4AK86M.PNG Generated Soundings used for Chart Comparison (US4AK87M) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_ChartComparison_US4AK87M.PNG Generated Soundings used for Chart Comparison (US2AK5FM) file:///M:/OPRR320KR22/Surveys/H13570/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13570_ChartComparison_US2AK5FM.PNG US4AK86M 100000 6 2021-08-04 2021-08-04 U4AK87M 100000 4 2017-12-27 2017-12-27 US2AK5FM 1023188 24 2022-07-19 2022-07-19 No shoals or potentially hazardous features exist for this survey. No charted features were assigned in H13570. 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 AtoNs were assigned for this survey. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. 1 bottom samples was 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 HX). 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. No abnormal seafloor or environmental conditions 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 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 2022-10-05