DESCRIPTIVE REPORT Type of Survey Hydrographic H11655 · OPR-E349-KR-07 Central Chesapeake Bay, Virginia September 2007 Survey: H11655 Descriptive Report Field Unit: David Evans and

�

�

��

�NOAA FORM 76-35A

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY

DESCRIPTIVE REPORT

Type of Survey Hydrographic

Registry No. H11655

LOCALITY

State Virginia

General Locality Central Chesapeake Bay

Sub-locality 6 nm Offshore, Gwynn Island

2007

CHIEF OF PARTY Jonathan L. Dasler,

PE (OR), PLS (OR,CA)

LIBRARY & ARCHIVES DATE

�

H11

655

NOAA FORM 77-28 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REGISTRY No

(11-72) NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

FIELD No

Graphic record scaled by

NOAA FORM 77-28 SUPERSEDES FORM C&GS-537

HYDROGRAPHIC TITLE SHEET H11655

INSTRUCTIONS – The Hydrographic Sheet should be accompanied by this form, filled in as completely as possible, when the sheet is forwarded to the Office. David Evans and Associates, Inc.

May 24, 2007 to September 22, 20071:10,000

State Virginia

General Locality Central Chesapeake Bay

Sub-Locality 6nm Offshore, Gwynn Island

Scale Date of Survey

Project No.

Vessel R/V Sealth

Instructions dated February 22, 2007 OPR-E349-KR-07

Chief of party Jonathan L. Dasler, PE (OR) , PLS (OR,CA)

Surveyed by Jason Creech and John Staly

The purpose of this contract is to provide NOAA with modern, accurate hydrographic survey data with which

Verification by

Soundings by echo sounder, hand lead, pole RESON 7125-B, EdgeTech 4200-FS

Automated Plot N/A

N/A

Graphic record checked by N/A

John Oswald and Associates, 2000 E Dowling Road, Suite 10, Anchorage, AK 99507

Meters Feet at MLLW

SUBCONSULTANTS:

Soundings in

Global Seas, LLC, 2001 Sixth Ave Suite 3420, Seattle, WA 98121

to update the nautical charts of the assigned area. Projection is NAD-83, UTM Zone 18

REMARKS: All times are UTC.

deborah.a.bland

Typewritten Text

deborah.a.bland

Typewritten Text

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Typewritten Text

deborah.a.bland

Text Box

Atlantic Hydrographic Branch Personnel

deborah.a.bland

Text Box

Bold, Red, Italic notes in the DR were made during office processing.

OPR-E349-KR-07 Central Chesapeake Bay, Virginia September 2007 Survey: H11655 Descriptive Report Field Unit: David Evans and Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... iii

A. AREA SURVEYED .................................................................................................................1

B. DATA ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING........................................................................4

B1. Equipment..............................................................................................................................4B2. Quality Control ......................................................................................................................5

B2.a Crosslines .................................................................................................................................. 5B2.b Uncertainty ................................................................................................................................ 5B2.c Junctions.................................................................................................................................... 6B2.d Unusual Conditions or Data Degradation ......................................................................... 7B2.e Object Detection and Coverage Requirements.......................................................................... 7

B3. Corrections to Echo Soundings .............................................................................................8B4. Data Processing (Data Representation) .................................................................................8

B4.a Multibeam ................................................................................................................................. 8

C. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL ...................................................................8

C1. Vertical Control .....................................................................................................................8 C2. Discussion of Tide Zoning ....................................................................................................9 C3. Horizontal Control ...............................................................................................................10

D. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................10

D1. Chart Comparison................................................................................................................10D1.a Survey Agreement with Chart ................................................................................................. 10D1.b Comparison to Significant Shoals ........................................................................................... 11D1.c Comparison to Charted Features ............................................................................................. 11D1.d Comparison of Soundings in Designated Anchorages and Along Channels........................... 12D1.e New Submerged Features........................................................................................................ 12D1.f Dangers to Navigation............................................................................................................. 12

D.2 Additional Results ..............................................................................................................13D2.a Shoreline Investigations .......................................................................................................... 13D2.b Comparison with Prior Surveys .............................................................................................. 13D2.c Aids to Navigation (AtoN) ...................................................................................................... 13D2.d Overhead Clearance ................................................................................................................ 13D2.e Cables, Pipelines and Offshore Structures .............................................................................. 13

i


D2.f Environmental Conditions Impacting the Quality of the Survey ............................................ 13D2.g Construction Projects .............................................................................................................. 14D2.h Bottom Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 14

E. LETTER OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................14

F. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS .............................................................................................16

List of Figures Figure 1. H11655 Survey Area ....................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Histogram of junction differences between H11654 and H11655 .................................. 6

List of Tables Table 1. H11655 Days of Acquisition ........................................................................................... 3 Table 2. H11655 Survey Statistics................................................................................................. 3 Table 3. R/V SEALTH Equipment and vessel specifications ....................................................... 4 Table 4. Tide Zones ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 5. Charts compared to H11655 .......................................................................................... 11 Table 6. H11655 DtoN Charting Status....................................................................................... 13

List of Appendices Appendix I. Danger to Navigation ReportsAppendix II. Survey Feature Report Appendix III. Final Progress Sketch and Survey Outline Appendix IV. Tides and Water Levels Appendix V. Supplemental Survey Records and Correspondence

List of Separates Separate I. Acquisition and Processing Logs Separate II. Sound Speed Data Separate III. Hydrographic Survey Letter Instructions/Statement of Work Separate IV. Crossline Comparisons Separate V. Side Scan Contact Listing and Images of Significant Contacts

ii


iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AHB Atlantic Hydrographic BranchAtoN Aid to Navigation AWOIS Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System BAG Bathymetric Attributed GridCO-OPS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services CUBE Combined Uncertainty and Bathymetry Estimator DAPR Data Acquisition and Processing Report DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc. DtoN Danger to Navigation DGPS Differential Global Positioning System ENC Electronic Navigational ChartGPS Global Positioning System HIPS Hydrographic Information Processing System IHO International Hydrographic Organization LNM U.S. Coast Guard Local Notice to Mariners MBES Multibeam Echo Sounder MCD Marine Chart Division MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MVP Moving Vessel Profiler NAD83 North American Datum of 1983 NM U.S. Notice to Mariners NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOS National Ocean Service NWLON National Water Level Observation Network R/V Research VesselSVP Sound Velocity Profile TPE Total Propagated Error ZDF Zone Definition File


Descriptive Report to Accompany Hydrographic Survey H11655Project OPR-E349-KR-07

Central Chesapeake Bay, Virginia 6nm Offshore, Gwynn Island

Scale 1:10,000 May 2007 - September 2007

David Evans and Associates, Inc.Lead Hydrographers: Jonathan L. Dasler, Jason C. Creech

A. AREA SURVEYED

David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) conducted hydrographic survey operations in Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. The survey area (Figure 1) extends from just offshore of the Rappahannock Spit southeastward into the Chesapeake Bay.

Survey H11655 was conducted in accordance with the *Statement of Work for OPR-E349-KR-07; dated February 22, 2007. *Filed with original field records.

The project instructions required 200% side scan sonar coverage of the survey area with multibeam sonar data acquired in conjunction with side scan operations. The survey was conducted over a 65-meter set line spacing (75-meter side scan sonar range) in all areas. Eighteen (18) bottom samples were also acquired for this survey. Two (2) Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) item investigations were assigned to this project.

Data acquisition was conducted from May 24, 2007 (Day Number 144) to September 22, 2007 (Day Number 265). Table 1 lists specific dates of acquisition.

1


Figure 1. H11655 Survey Area

2


Table 1. H11655 Days of Acquisition

Dates of Acquisition

Month Dates

May 2007 24-30

June 2007 2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-18

September 2007 8, 22

Detailed survey statistics of H11655 are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. H11655 Survey Statistics

Survey Statistics Research Vessel (R/V) Sealth

VBES (mainscheme nm) -

MBES (mainscheme nm) -

LIDAR (mainscheme nm) -

SSS (mainscheme nm) -

Combination lines (SSS and MBES nm) 784.3

Crosslines (MBES nm) 58.2

Lidar Crosslines (nm) -

Developments (MBES nm) 12.4

Shoreline (nm) -

Number of Bottom Samples 18

Number of Item Investigations that required additional survey effort (DPs)

-

Total number of square nautical miles 26.94

3


B. DATA ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING See also the Evaluation Report

B1. Equipment Equipment and vessel used for data acquisition and survey operations during this survey are listed below in Table 3.

Table 3. R/V SEALTH Equipment and vessel specifications

R/V SEALTH

Hull Registration Number SFU399054D99Official Number (O/N) 1080270Builder All American Marine, Bellingham, Washington Design Teknicraft Catamaran Year Built 2000Length Overall 55’Beam 20’Draft, Maximum 2’9”Cruising Speed 20 knots Max Survey Speed 7 knots Primary Echosounder RESON 7125-B Side Scan Sonars Edgetech 4200-FS 100/400 kHz Sound Velocity Equipment Brooke Ocean MVP-30

Reson SVP-70 Sea-Bird SEACAT SB-19 CTD Profiler

Positioning & Attitude Applanix POS/MV 320 v4

There were no vessel or equipment configurations used during data acquisition that deviated from those described in the *OPR-E349-KR-07 Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR).

4

deborah.a.bland

Text Box

*Filed with original field records.

deborah.a.bland

Text Box


B2. Quality Control Quality control is discussed in detail in Section B of the DAPR. The results from the positioning system comparison and leadline-to-multibeam comparison is included in *Separate I Acquisition and Processing Logs and the sound velocity profile sensor weekly evaluation table can be found in *Separate II Sound Speed Data section of this report. Multibeam data were reviewed at multiple levels of data processing including CARIS Hydrographic Information Processing System (HIPS) conversion, subset editing, and analysis of anomalies revealed in combined uncertainty and bathymetry estimator (CUBE) surfaces. Side scan data were reviewed multiple times for contacts with reviews occurring real-time during data acquisition, during contact verification and bottom tracking, and again during mosaic generation. Side scan contacts were compared to multibeam data during HIPS subset editing and compared to anomalies in the multibeam data sun-illuminated imagery. *Filed with original field records.

B2.a Crosslines

A total of 58.2 nautical miles of crosslines, or 7.4% of mainscheme lines, were run for analysis of survey accuracy. Crosslines were run in an east-west direction perpendicular to mainscheme lines across the entire surveyed area providing a good representation for analysis of consistency.

Crossline analysis was performed using the CARIS HIPS QC Report tool, which compares crossline data to a gridded surface and reports results by beam number. All crosslines were compared to each of the five CUBE surfaces that were used to depict Multibeam Echo Sounder (MBES) coverage. The QC Report tabular output and plots are included in *Separate IVCrossline Comparisons. The results of the analysis meet the requirements as stated in the National Ocean Service (NOS) *Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (April 2007). Concur. *Filed with original field records. B2.b Uncertainty The calculated uncertainty values of all nodes within the unfinalized CUBE surfaces range from 0.406 meters to 0.412 meters.

During HIPS processing, the "greater of the two” option was selected, where the calculated uncertainty from total propagated error (TPE) is compared to the standard deviation of the soundings influencing the node, and the greater value is assigned as the final uncertainty of the node. As a result, the uncertainty of the finalized surface and associated Bathymetric Attributed Grids (BAGs) increased for nodes where the standard deviation of the node was greater than the calculated uncertainty. No area within the survey exceeds International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1 specifications for depth accuracy.

Uncertainty values for the survey are greatest in the near nadir beams of the swath and decrease in the outer swath which is contrary to normal convention. It appears that this irregularity is caused by an excessively high minimum pulse length value in the HIPS DeviceModels.xml file. The xml file uses 0.3 milliseconds (ms) which is the maximum pulse length value for the Reson 7125 and should use the published minimum value of 0.01 ms. This issue has been brought to the

5


attention of CARIS technical personnel. This anomaly is not significant and does not affect data quality.

B2.c Junctions The surveyed area, H11655, junctions with survey H11654 (Sheet D) to the west. Concur.

The junction with survey H11654 matches within allowable error tolerances. A difference analysis was performed with CARIS Bathy DataBASE using overlapping CUBE surfaces for surveys H11654 and H11655. The entire junction area was visually reviewed in subset mode. A subset of the junction area was selected and statistically analyzed. The selected subset area provides a good representation of the general geographic trends within the junction area. The difference analysis used 59,441 overlapping nodes between the two surveys. The differences are between -0.06 and 0.4 meters, with 51.8% of all differences in the selected area within 0.1-0.15 meters. This is within S-44 IHO Order 1 error tolerances for these water depths. Figure 2 is a histogram of the junction differences.

Figure 2. Histogram of junction differences between H11654 and H11655

6


In the four lines used for the junction analysis (two from each survey) there was a slight but consistent depth offset of approximately 10 cm between two of the overlapping lines. The slight difference in depths may be due to using zoned tides relative to Rappahannock Light (863-2837) for H11655 and zoned tides relative to Windmill Point (863-6580) for H11654. Concur. The comparison

t

B2.d Unusual Conditions or Data Degradation

The quality of the side scan sonar imagery was negatively impacted in some areas by large schools of fish and other material suspended in the water column. At times the suspended material masked the imagery of the bottom, but the primary impact was on bottom tracking for slant range corrections which was later corrected during data processing. The specific nature of the suspended material is not known; however, it is likely biological. Though imagery was degraded at times there was never an instance where the horizontal range of the side scan swath was reduced or where significant contacts were masked.

There is an error in the Reson 7125 bottom tracking algorithm that causes bottom detection (beams 86-115 and 140-168) to lock on to stronger sonar returns bleeding over from more nadir returns. This may be related to the amplitude bottom detection used near nadir and the bottom detection locking on to the strong nadir return signal, rather than the actual bottom return for that designated beam area. These artifacts occur in two areas near nadir and are more prevalent on a hard bottom, such as a dredged channel, when the amplitude of the nadir return is the strongest. The artifacts run along track and can exceed 20 cm in the raw soundings, but are reduced to 5 cm to 10 cm in the CUBE surface. Attempts to remove these artifacts during survey operations with changes in sonar settings were unsuccessful. Reson is aware of this issue and is working towards a resolution with a different bottom tracking algorithm.

B2.e Object Detection and Coverage Requirements Survey speeds were maintained at less than 9 knots so that object detection requirements were exceeded throughout the survey.

Demonstration of 200% side scan sonar coverage was achieved by producing 50-centimeter mosaics for each 100% coverage. All survey holidays were filled prior to survey operations ending.

Shallow water multibeam survey coverage was demonstrated by producing CUBE surfaces at 1 meter over the survey area. These surfaces were also used for seafloor depiction for the entire survey area. The disambiguation method configuration used to create all 1 meter CUBE surfaces was set to “Deep” which corresponds to the NOS *Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables’ (April 2007) Complete Multibeam Coverage requirements. * Data filed with field records.

Large along-track multibeam holidays were filled before survey operations ended, but complete 100% multibeam coverage was not achieved as it was not required for this survey.

7

deborah.a.bland

Text Box

Concur. The comparison between the two surveys is very good with depth differences of 0 to 1 foot throughout the junctional area.

deborah.a.bland

Text Box


B3. Corrections to Echo Soundings

Data reduction procedures for survey H11655 are detailed in the *DAPR. The only deviation from the acquisition or processing methodology as described in the *DAPR is a change in the version of Caris HIPS. Hotfixes 8 through 12 (Version 6.1/ Service Pack 1) were installed after submittal of the DAPR as part of the routine software maintenance process. The version reported in the DAPR is Version 6.1 / Service Pack 1/ Hotfix 7. *Data included in H-Cell deliverables.

No additional calibration tests were required for this survey.

B4. Data Processing (Data Representation)

B4.a Multibeam CUBE surface resolutions and depth ranges were set in accordance with the NOS *HydrographicSurveys Specifications and Deliverables (April 2007). Final CUBE surfaces were created at a resolution of one meter and used to meet both seafloor depiction and demonstration of coverage requirements. In order to keep CUBE surfaces at a manageable size, the main survey area was broken up into five Field Sheets (H11655_ 1of5, etc.). When combined the Fields Sheets encompass the entire area of acquired multibeam bathymetry. A BAG was created for each CUBE surface and both the CUBE and BAG surfaces have been included with the digital data.

C. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL See also the Evaluation Report A complete description of horizontal and vertical control for survey H11655 can be found in the OPR-E349-KR-07 *Horizontal and Vertical Control Report, submitted under separate cover. A summary of horizontal and vertical control for this survey follows. *Data included in H-Cell deliverables.

C1. Vertical Control The vertical datum for this project is Mean Lower-Low Water (MLLW). The operating National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) primary water level station at Windmill Point, Virginia (863-6580) served as control for datum determination. A subordinate water level station was installed at the Rappahannock Front Range Light, Virginia (863-2837) and served as the primary source for water level reducers for all zones for survey H11655.

Water level data was reduced to MLLW using water level files from the station at Windmill Point and the station at the Rappahannock Front Range Light. All raw pressure observations from the Rappahannock Front Range Light station were corrected for water density to determine “true” water levels. Outliers were then removed from the data set by smoothing with a two hour third degree polynomial. Daily high and low readings were then picked from the data set and compared to verified high and low readings from the station at Windmill Point. From these comparisons Monthly Means were then computed. The Rappahannock Front Range Light station datum (adjusted to MLLW) was then applied to the smoothed water level file.

8

deborah.a.bland

Text Box

*Filed with original field records.


C2. Discussion of Tide Zoning Evaluation of tides was accomplished through comparison of zoned water levels from the primary station to the subordinate water level station, crossline comparisons, visually comparing adjacent lines during Caris subset editing, and analysis of the sun-illuminated CUBE grids for artifacts at zone boundaries. Several zoning scenarios using data from the Windmill Point (863-6580) and the Rappahannock Front Range Light (863-2837) stations were evaluated to determine which station and zoning correctors most appropriately adjusted survey data within each of the six tide zones that cover the H11655 survey area. Tide zoning for Rappahannock Front Range Light (863-2837) was created by modifying the preliminary Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) zoning files tied to Windmill Point, Virginia (863-6580). Zone boundaries were not modified, but new time and range correctors were back calculated from zone SCB67. Time correctors were calculated by adjusting the average time corrector (ATC) for zone SCB67 which surrounds station 863-2837 from -36 minutes (zoned from 863-6580) to zero minutes. Similarly, the range corrector was adjusted from 1.47 minutes to 1.00 minutes. From this average time, correctors were calculated for each zone relative to 863-2837 by calculating the difference between the ATC relative to 863-6580 for the zone in question and -36 (the ATC for SCB65). Range correctors were calculated by dividing the range corrector for the zone in question by 1.47 (the range value for SCB67 relative to 863-6580). A HIPS zone definition file (ZDF) was then created that used station 863-2837 as the primary station for all zones except for SCB 94 and SCB 88 which used 863-6580 as the primary station. Table 4 includes the zoning information for each zone used for the survey.

Table 4. Tide Zones Zone Reference Station Corrector (min.) Ratio

SCB56 8632837 -30 0.88SCB57 8632837 -30 0.82SCB63 8632837 -18 0.79SCB64 8632837 -18 0.88SCB68 8632837 0 0.88SCB69 8632837 0 0.76SCB78 8632837 18 0.76

It is difficult to associate a precise vertical error due to tides. Errors observed are a composite from various sources such as measurement error, tides, heave, refraction, transducer draft, and settlement and squat. Though vertical errors are still visible in the data they are small and are generally 10 cm or less and in some extreme cases approach 25 cm; well within the 20 cm to 45 cm maximum allowable error for tides and water levels. The largest contributing factor to water level errors in the Chesapeake Bay is meteorological influences which cannot be accounted for by zoning. *Approved tides and zoning were applied during field processing.

9


C3. Horizontal Control The horizontal datum for this project is the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). Differential global positioning system (DGPS) was the sole method of positioning, with differential corrections received from the U.S. Coast Guard beacon at Driver, Virginia (289 kHz) and a secondary beacon at Annapolis, Maryland (301 kHz). Some DGPS outages from the primary beacon occurred during survey operations. The system was set up to automatically switch to the secondary beacon when the primary signal was lost so all data were collected in DGPS mode.

Navigation and attitude data were post-processed using Applanix POSPac software, which resulted in a kinematic navigation solution relative to NAD83 with real-time error estimates. The global positioning system (GPS) station DVL-Marina was used as the master station during post processing. Differential navigation and real-time attitude logged during acquisition was overwritten with post-processed data during HIPS processing. Post-processed navigation, attitude and error estimates were applied to all HIPS data.

D. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS See also the Evaluation Report

D1. Chart Comparison

D1.a Survey Agreement with Chart During the course of data acquisition and processing H11655 was compared to the largest scale raster and electronic navigation charts (ENC). The results of these comparisons are described below, as well as in Sections D1.b through D1.f of this report. Concur.

Contours and soundings used during the chart comparison were generated from combined HIPS product surfaces. Soundings were generated from a 5-meter HIPS product surface (1:10,000) of the entire survey area, which was compiled from the five finalized 1-meter CUBE surfaces. Two sets of contours were generated from 5-meter and 50-meter HIPS product surfaces (1:10,000). Contours from the 50-meter surface were used during the chart comparison while the large scale contours (5-meter surface) were used to examine the data for systematic artifacts that would not be apparent in the small scale contours. The product surfaces, contours, and soundings were created solely for the chart comparison and have not been submitted as a final deliverable. Concur, see also the Evaluation Report.

H11655 contours and soundings were compared in CARIS HIPS to the depths and contours on the charts listed in Table 5.

10


Table 5. Charts compared to H11655

Chart Scale EditionEdition

Date Issue Date Latest LNM

Cleared Through

Date 12225 1:80,000 57 05/01/2008 06/07/2008 23/08 06/03/2008

12226 1:40,000 17 12/01/2007 06/07//2008 23/08 06/03/2008

12235 1:40,000 32 05/01/2008 06/07/2008 23/08 06/03/2008

US5VA10M --- 7 03/28/2008 26/08 06/25/2008

US5VA24M --- 7 05/09/2007 30/08 07/23/2008

US5VA41M --- 11 03/28/2008 30/08 07/23/2008

Survey H11655 depths were compared to the charted soundings on Charts 12225, 12226, 12235, as well as the corresponding ENCs US5VA10M, US5VA24M and US5VA41M. Depths from survey H11655 are generally zero feet to three feet (1 meter) deeper than Charts 12225, 12226, 12235 and ENCs US5VA10M, US5VA24M and US5VA41M. Differences are located randomly throughout the survey area. Concur.

The hydrographer thoroughly examined the results of the weekly leadline-to-sonar comparisons in order to determine if the difference between the charted depth and the current survey may have been a result of an unaccounted offset. No systematic offset was observed between the lead line and sonar.

Based on the distribution of the differences, the hydrographer believes that the differences between the chart and survey data are the result of natural changes to the seafloor that have occurred since the source data surveys were performed over fifty years ago. Concur.

The latest electronic and raster versions of the relevant charts were reviewed to ensure that all U.S. Coast Guard Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) issued during survey acquisition and impacting the survey area were applied and addressed by this survey. Concur.

D1.b Comparison to Significant Shoals No significant shoals exist within the survey area. Concur.

D1.c Comparison to Charted Features See also the Evaluation Report

There are two AWOIS items located within the limits of survey H11655. Attachment 9 AWOIS Listing in the OPR-E349-KR-07 Statement of Work did not call for additional survey coverage beyond the 200% side scan sonar coverage requirement. All significant contacts, including those located within the AWOIS search radius, were investigated with multibeam sonar. Concur.

11


The obstruction (PA) (AWOIS 3434), charted at position 37-27-42.956N, 076-10-16.853W and reported as a sunken container was disproved with 200% side scan sonar. The hydrographer recommends removing the charted obstruction. Concur. Update area with present survey depths.

The obstruction (36ft rep 1987) (AWOIS 13330) charted at 37-34-08.447N, 076-09-50.746W was investigated with MBES. A large debris pile was detected at position 37-34-07.63N, 076-09-52.15W rising from the bottom 5.3 feet (1.6 meters) with a least depth of 35.3 feet (10.75 meters). In addition, a pile-like feature was detected 102 meters north of the debris pile within the 300-meter AWOIS radius at position 37-34-11.23N, 076-09-52.16W rising approximately 3.3 feet (1.0 meters) from the bottom. The hydrographer recommends charting the obstructions per the S57 feature file which has been submitted on the H11655 delivery drive (H11655_Features.000). Concur with conditions. Delete the charted dangerous submerged obstn (36 ft rep 1987) and chart a 35 foot dangerous submerged obstruction in the present survey location. The pile like feature is insignificant when compared to surrounding depths and should not be chartedas an obstruction. The wreck (35 ft Wk) charted at 37-30-39.700N, 076-07-16.000W which is a sunken barge was investigated with MBES and was detected at position 37-30-39.798N, 076-07-16.410W. This item was submitted as a Danger to Navigation (DtoN) during hydrographic survey H11505 (OPR-E349-KR-06). The surveyed least depth of 10.47 meters (34.4 feet) is approximately 10 meters from the charted position. The discrepancy between the positions and least depths is most likely due to deterioration in the structure of the barge since it was surveyed in 2006. The hydrographer recommends charting the obstruction per S57 feature file. Concur. Delete the charted 35 ft dangerous sunken wreck and chart a dangerous sunken wreck with a least depth of 34 feet in the presentsurvey location.

D1.d Comparison of Soundings in Designated Anchorages and Along Channels There are no anchorage grounds or designated channels in survey H11655. Concur.

D1.e New Submerged Features

There are no new submerged features to report within the survey limits of H11655 other than the pile-like item discovered within the AWOIS search radius for item 13330 as discussed in section D1.c. Concur.

D1.f Dangers to Navigation Five (5) DtoNs were located during survey H11655 and have been submitted to the Atlantic Hydrographic Branch (AHB). All DtoNs were reviewed by AHB then forwarded on to the Marine Chart Division (MCD) and have subsequently been applied to the charts. Copies of the AHB DtoN submissions are included in *Appendix I Danger to Navigation Reports. *Data appendedto this report.

The least depths of several of the DtoNs were preliminary and reduced to MLLW using unverified water levels. Since submission, the DtoNs have been reduced to MLLW with zoned verified water levels. All DtoNs are included in the S-57 feature file and should be charted as depicted in the file (Table 6). Concur; also see notes in Appendix I of this report.

12


Table 6. H11655 DtoN Charting Status

DtonSurveyedLatitude(DMS)

SurveyedLongitude (DMS)

FeatureApplied to

Raster Chart

Applied to ENC

AHBSubmittedto MCD

LocalNotice to MarinersEdition

Dton 1 37-29-58.240N 076-08-13.074W *OBSTRN 12226 US5VA10M Yes 26/07

Dton 2 33-27-03.179N 076-09-38.318W *OBSTRN 12226 US5VA10M Yes 26/07

Dton 3 37-31-22.037N 076-10-08.666W *OBSTRN 12226 12235

US5VA41M Yes 52/07

Dton 4 37-28-23.761N 076-10-21.504W *OBSTRN 12226 12235

US5VA24M Yes 52/07

Dton 5 37-28-34.986N 076-10-11.978W *OBSTRN 12226 12235

US5VA24M Yes 52/07

D.2 Additional Results

D2.a Shoreline Investigations Shoreline verification was not required for survey H11655. Concur.

D2.b Comparison with Prior Surveys

Comparison with prior surveys was not required under this task order. Concur.

D2.c Aids to Navigation (AtoN)

All U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) aids to navigation within the survey limits were found to be correctly charted and serve their intended purpose. Concur.

D2.d Overhead Clearance There are no charted or observed overhead bridges, cables or other structures, which would impact overhead clearance in the survey area. Concur.

D2.e Cables, Pipelines and Offshore Structures There were no charted or observed submarine cables or pipelines, drilling structures, production platforms, or well heads within the survey area. Concur.

D2.f Environmental Conditions Impacting the Quality of the Survey Although the survey exceeds IHO Order 1 accuracy requirements, environmental conditions degraded the quality of the survey data. The open waters of the Chesapeake Bay are notorious for localized wind-driven tides that can not always be recorded or modeled with stationary gauges. Even with the use of a tertiary tide gauge and associated zoning, tide artifacts are present in the survey data and associated BAGs. At times tide error approaches 20 cm, but is typically

13

deborah.a.bland

Text Box

*Concur. Chart an obstruction. See Appendix 1 of this report for full recommendations.


14

much less. The hydrographer recommends that any future surveys in areas frequently subjected to meteorological conditions that locally affect tidal ranges, and which require stringent survey accuracies, such as Object Detection surveys, use kinematic GPS methodology for water level correction. Concur.

D2.g Construction Projects No construction or dredging activities were observed during survey operations. Concur.

D2.h Bottom Characteristics

Eighteen (18) bottom samples were obtained on May 24, 2007 (Day Number 144) and May 25, 2007 (Day Number 145) and are included in the S-57 attributed feature file in the SupportingData folder. A table listing the position and description of each bottom sample is included in *Appendix 5 Supplemental Survey Records and Correspondence, along with photographs of each sample. Concur. *Data appended to this report.

E. LETTER OF APPROVAL

LETTER OF APPROVAL

OPR-E349-KR-07REGISTRY NO. H11655

This report and the accompanying data are respectfully submitted.

Field operations contributing to the accomplishment of survey H11655 were conducted under my direct supervision with frequent personal checks of progress and adequacy. This report and associated data have been closely reviewed and are considered complete and adequate as per the OPR-E349-KR-07 Statement of Work, dated February 22, 2007.

_____________________________________________Jonathan L. Dasler, PE (OR), PLS (OR, CA)

Lead Hydrographer

_____________________________________________Jason Creech

Lead Hydrographer

David Evans and Associates, Inc. September 2007

2801 SE Columbia Way, Ste. 130, Vancouver, WA 98661 Phone: 360.314.3200 Facsimile: 360.314.3250

Digitally signed by Jon Dasler DN: cn=Jon Dasler, [email protected], o=David Evans and Associates, Inc., c=US Date: 2008.08.12 13:22:22 -07'00'

Digitally signed by Jason Creech DN: cn=Jason Creech, [email protected], o=David Evans and Associates, Inc., c=US Date: 2008.08.12 13:23:38 -07'00'

OPR-E349-KR-07 Central Chesapeake Bay, Virginia September 2007Survey: H11655 Descriptive Report Field Unit: David Evans and Associates, Inc. �

16

2/�>,,�3�3.;:�03,&0;�

> �� .�� .�E�;�� #��*��* 1�C"/$7CD�C9,��:�#� � � ��1�� 4��!7��%990�* 1�C"/$7CD�C9, �� 8��5�� '�� :��%%��%990�*Both of the above Reports were filed with the original field records.

APPENDIX I DANGER TO NAVIGATION RECORDS

DANGER TO NAVIGATION 1 & 2

From: Stephen Gottschalk [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:42 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Doug Baird; Crescent Moegling; Tim Osborn; gene_parker Subject: H11655 DtoNs 1 and 2, AHB to MCD submission

Attachments: H11655_dton1-2.zip; Card for Stephen Gottschalk

Good Day,

Please find attached a zip file concerning survey H11655 Dangers to Navigation 1 and 2 for submission to Marine Chart Division (MCD). The information submitted by the contractor is preliminary and has not been verified; the survey is ongoing and has not been submitted to AHB. The contractor submitted the Danger during field data processing.

The contents of the attached WinZip file were generated at AtlanticHydrographic Branch by Contract Data Section. The attached zip file contains a DtoN Letter (PDF) and a Pydro XML file.

If you have any questions please direct them back to me at the email address below, or call 757-441-6413.

Thanks,Stephen Gottschalk

0�� .#�� !!+((

�� 5 ��

�� '��'��@��

�#�$�� +<4� ��B��

,��-��.#�� 1�C"/$7CD�C9,

�#�+�*�� 9(=%7=%99,�C�9+=9(=%99,

�� :''��<�� 5��

!%%%+ !+��"�� !!=!9=%99! !E$9999

!%%%( ((��"�� 90=9!=%99$ !E09999

!%%09 +��"�� 97=9!=%99( !E%99999

!/99/ $0��"�� !9=9!=%99$ !E!%99999

2��#�

<�� <��;��

��.��

��.�>��

��.�>��

:A ��

!�! �� B1 7�,,�� 9/,M�%7N�(0�%9,I�< ,+M�90N�!/�9(0I�A CCC

!�% ��1 � B1 ,�/9�� 9/,M�%,N�9/�!79I�< ,+M�97N�/0�%07I�A CCC

Generated by Pydro v7.3 (r2110) on Fri Jun 15 16:31:17 2007 [UTC]

�$*;�.

�/�9�#��&� ��#��

*:.�30;&.:�)�:;)&.

�#�+��#��

�#�+�,� �� 9/,M�%7N�(0�%9,��9�2I�<��,+M�90N�!/�9(0��!/:I�A

�� *�� 7�,,��8:�/��7!�98/��;

;�� %99,C!$7�99E99E99�999�29(=%7=%99,3

�,*�� !!+((L��<L ��?�

�,.�/� �!

�� :''�� !%%%+L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%��!/99/L!

0��! �

�� ? ��(�7��/%��4>>A�� .� � ��.��8��.��1�� )�'B��B1�� .��5:�� 8�� <:�0/�

2��#� ��:�� ;�� :8 ��

�!!+((L��<L ��?� ! 9�99 999�9 1� ��

C��0��

�'�� /%��4>>A�� .��

��$0�#��*��8:''�� 9�

�/%��2!%%%+L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%3��

�(�O��2!/99/L!3

�$<�*��

��-�� 2 ��<3

:��#� � � �*<:4�C��

�&):� )�C�+E��@��

��"'�:��C�%99,9+!$

�� :��C�%99,9(%7

�� <��C�)��)��.��!!+((

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��/

��"'� )�C�%�/E�� C��

�5:>� )�C�7�,+7�8:�/��

�5"��:��C�!%E4��

�A:�>"5�C�/E��=��

&''��.��

�

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��$

Concur. Revise the charted 32 foot dangerous submerged obstruction to the present survey location.

2��#�)��

Figure 1.1.1

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��(

Figure 1.1.2

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��+

�/�9�#��,��

*:.�30;&.:�)�:;)&.

�#�+��#��

�#�+�,� �� 9/,M�%,N�9/�!79��/!�9I�<��,+M�97N�/0�%07��!9!�I�A

�� *�� ,�/9��:2�:��2��

;�� %99,C!(+�99E99E99�999�29+=9(=%99,3

�,*�� !!+((L��<L ��?�

�,.�/� �%

�� :''�� !%%%+L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%��!/99/L!

0��! �

�� ? ��!%�/��%$��4>>A��4>>A�� .� � ��.��8��.��1�� )�'B�B1�� .��5:�� 8�� <:�0/�

2��#� ��:�� ;�� :8 ��

�!!+((L��<L ��?� % 9�99 999�9 1� ��

C��0��

�'�� %$��4>>A�� .��

��$0�#��*��8:''�� 9�

�%$��2!%%%+L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%3

�$��2!/99/L!3

�$<�*��

��-�� 2 ��<3

:��#� � �':� ��C�!E��=��

�<; �4�C��1 �

� �*<:4�C��1 �

�&):� )�C�+E��@��

��"'�:��C�%99,9+!(

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��,

�� :��C�%99,9+9(

�� <��C�)��)��.��!!+((

��"'� )�C�%�/E�� C��

�5:>� )�C�,�/9%��:2�:��

�5"��:��C�!%E4��

�A:�>"5�C�/E��=��

�

�

&''��.��

1��0

Concur with conditions. Revise the charted 24 foot dangerous submerged obstruction to the presentsurvey location.

2��#�)��

Figure 1.2.1

Figure 1.2.2

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��7

DANGER TO NAVIGATION 4$<

From: Stephen Gottschalk [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 8:28 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Doug Baird; gene_parker; Jason Creech; [email protected]; [email protected]: H11655 DtoNs 3-5, AHB to MCD submission

Attachments: H11655_dtons3-5.zip; Card for Stephen Gottschalk

Good Day,

Please find attached a zip file concerning survey H11655 Dangers to Navigation 3 through 5 for submission to Marine Chart Division (MCD). The information submitted by the contractor is preliminary and has not been verified; the survey is ongoing and has not been submitted to AHB.

The contents of the attached WinZip file were generated at Atlantic Hydrographic Branch by the Contract Data Section. The attached zip file contains a DtoN Letter (PDF) and a Pydro XML file.

If you have any questions, please direct them back to me.

Thank you, Stephen Gottschalk

0�� .#�� !!+((

�� 5 ��

�� '��'��@��

�#�$�� +�<4� ��B��

,��-��.#�� 1�C"/$7CD�C9,

�#�+�*�� 97=90=%99,

�� :''��<�� 5��

!%%%+ !+��"�� !!=!9=%99! !E$9999

!%%/( /!��"�� 90=9!=%99+ !E$9999

!%%/0 /7��"�� 9!=9!=%99+ !E$9999

!%%%( ((��"�� 90=9!=%99$ !E09999

!%%09 +��"�� 97=9!=%99( !E%99999

!/99/ $0��"�� !9=9!=%99$ !E!%99999

2��#�

<�� <��;��

��.��

��.�>��

��.�>��

:A ��

!�! �� C��<�P/ B1 7�//�� /,M�/!N�%%�9/9I�< 9,+M�!9N�90�+,9I�A CCC

!�% �� C��<�P$ B1 7�/9�� /,M�%0N�%/�,!9I�< 9,+M�!9N�%!�(!9I�A CCC

!�/ �� C��<�P( B1 7�9%�� /,M�%0N�/(�999I�< 9,+M�!9N�!%�9%9I�A CCC

Generated by Pydro v7.3 (r2239) on Wed Dec 12 16:16:11 2007 [UTC]

�$*;�.

�/�9&� ��#��$*��.Q4

*:.�30;&.:�)�:;)&.

�#�+��#��

�#�+�,� �� /,M�/!N�%%�9/9��/2I�<��9,+M�!9N�90�+,9I�A

�� *�� 7�//�8!2��!/�2!��

;�� %99,C%(!�99E99E99�999�297=90=%99,3

�,*�� !!+((L��/C(�?��

�,.�/� �!

�� :''�� !%%%+L!��!%%/(L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%��!/99/L!

0��! �

��#� �� 4��>��>��A�� 8��.��@�> ��20+/C%0/,3��1�� )�'B��B1�� .��5:�

�� 8�� <��:�� !70/�2<:�0/3�

�� ? ��(�$��2!�+$��3��

2��#� ��:�� ;�� :8 ��

�!!+((L��/C(�?�� ! 9�99 999�9 1� ��

C��0��

�'��/9�� .��

��$0�#��*��8:''�� 9�

�/9��2!%%%+L!��!%%/(L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%3

�(��2!/99/L!3

�$<�*��

��-�� 2 ��<3

:��#� � �&):� )�C�+E��@��

��"'�:��C�%99,!%!%

�� :��C�%99,9790

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��/

�� <��C�)��)��.��!!+((

��"'� )�C�%�/E�� C��

�5:>� )�C�7�/%+00��8!2�

�5"��:��C�!%E4��

�A:�>"5�C�/E��=��

&''��.��

��

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��$

Concur. Revise the charted 30 foot dangerous submerged obstruction to present survey location.

2��#�)��

Figure 1.1.1

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��(

Figure 1.1.2

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��+

Figure 1.1.3

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��,

�/�9&� ��#��$*��.Q�

*:.�30;&.:�)�:;)&.

�#�+��#��

�#�+�,� �� /,M�%0N�%/�,!9��!:�I�<��9,+M�!9N�%!�(!9��/I�A

�� *�� 7�/9��89/��!��

;�� %99,C%(!�99E99E99�999�297=90=%99,3

�,*�� !!+((L��/C(�?��

�,.�/� �%

�� :''�� !%%%+L!��!%%/(L!��!%%/0L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%��!/99/L!

0��! �

��#� �� 4��>��>��A�� 8��.��@�> ��20+/C%0/,3��1�� )�'B��B1�� .��5:�

�� 8�� <��:�� !70/�2<:�0/3�

�� ? ��+(�+��2%9��3��$7�%��2!(��3�� (�0��2!�,+��3��.��

2��#� ��:�� ;�� :8 ��

�!!+((L��/C(�?�� % 9�99 999�9 1� ��

C��0��

�'��/9�� .��

��$0�#��*��8:''�� 9�

�/9�!��2!%%%+L!��!%%/(L!��!%%/0L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%3

�(��2!/99/L!3

�$<�*��

��-�� 2 ��<3

:��#� � �&):� )�C�+E��@��

��"'�:��C�%99,!%!%

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��0

�� :��C�%99,9790

�� <��C�)��)��.��!!+((

��"'� )�C�%�/E�� C��

�5:>� )�C�7�%7+$��89/��

�5"��:��C�!%E4��

�A:�>"5�C�/E��=��

&''��.��

,��)��&�� &�!/��&��*��%��*�&��&��&��*��%��*�&��)��&� ��!��

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��7

2��#�)��

Figure 1.2.1

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��!9

Figure 1.2.2

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��!!

Figure 1.2.3

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��!%

�/49&� ��#��$*��.Q<

*:.�30;&.:�)�:;)&.

�#�+��#��

�#�+�,� �� /,M�%0N�/(�999��!288I�<��9,+M�!9N�!%�9%9��89I�A

�� *�� 7�9%��8�:/��!//9��

;�� %99,C%(!�99E99E99�999�297=90=%99,3

�,*�� !!+((L��/C(�?��

�,.�/� �/

�� :''�� !%%%+L!��!%%/(L!��!%%/0L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%��!/99/L!

0��! �

��#� �� 4��>��>��A�� 8��.��@�> ��20+/C%0/,3��1�� )�'B��B1�� .��5:�

�� 8�� <��:�� !70/�2<:�0/3�

�� ? ��!+�$��2(��3��!+�$��2(��3�� +�%��2!�7��3��.��

2��#� ��:�� ;�� :8 ��

�!!+((L��/C(�?�� / 9�99 999�9 1� ��

C��0��

�'��/9�� .��

��$0�#��*��8:''�� 9�

�%7��!/��2!%%%+L!��!%%/(L!��!%%/0L!��!%%%(L!��!%%09L%3

�$�Q��2!/99/L!3

�$<�*��

��-�� 2 ��<3

:��#� � �&):� )�C�+E��@��

��"'�:��C�%99,!%!%

�� :��C�%99,9790

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��!/

�� <��C�)��)��.��!!+((

��"'� )�C�%�/E�� C��

�5:>� )�C�7�9%%90��8�:��

�5"��:��C�!%E4��

�A:�>"5�C�/E��=��

&''��.��

�

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��!$

Concur with conditions. Delete the charted 29 foot dangerous submerged obstruction and chart adangerous submerged obstruction with a least depth of 30 feet in the present survey location.

2��#�)��

Figure 1.3.1

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��!(

Figure 1.3.2

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��!+

Figure 1.3.3

1��;�� !�C��<�

1��!,

APPENDIX II SURVEY FEATURE REPORT

&,0$34�5$60$��

C��%<<2��#�0��

1��!��/�

0�� .#�� !!+((�� 5 �� '�� '��@��#�$�� +�� B��,��-��.#�� 1�C"/$7CD�C9,��#�+�*�� (=%$=%99,� C�7=%%=%99,�� '2��#� :A ��P�!///9 �� %�:A ��P�/$/$ �� /�� ';�� !��'��:�� !�� '2��#� ; ��!E�:A ��P!///9�� %�; ��%E�:A ��P/$/$�� /��;��/ �� :''��

��.#�� 0. �� 3�� 0. 3��*��

3. ) #*��

!%%%+�2L!3� !E$9�999� !,� !%=9!=%99,� LL�

!%%/(�2L!3� !E$9�999� /%� 9(=9!=%990� LL�

!%%%(�2L!3� !E09�999� (,� 9(=9!=%990� �

)�5:$!4� LL� !!� LL� 9,=%/=90�

)�5:%$4� LL� ,� LL� 9,=%/=90�

&,0$34�5$60$��

C��%<<2��#�0��

1��%��/�

AWOIS # 1333003,&0;3*;":�)�"� �:�)�� >:��)�"�2<3� > <B�)�"�2A3�:A ��P!///9� /99�� /,C/$C9,�9/� 9,+C97C(!�(7�

�>0�3A3*;":�)�"� �"1�� >:��)�"�2<3� > <B�)�"�2A3� ��<� /(�(%��2!9�,(�3�/,C/$C9,�+%+� 9,+C97C(%�!$+� ��<� /,�+/��2!!�$,�3�/,C/$C!!�%%+� 9,+C97C(%�!+$�

0��! �:A �� !///9��2��!%%%+3�� 2 ��2/+��!70,33��.�� %99H�� :A �� '��!+%C%!9,97C1��!(+C!%9$(!C1��/(�(%��2!9�,(�3�� 4�"��:�� C� @��//9��2!99�3�� :A �� ? ��/��2!�3�� /,�+/��2!!�$,�3��'��!(+C!%9$%(C1��C��0�� (,��

2��#��:=&)��# ��%�� "3��+��8��9��/�

Concur. Delete charteddangerous obstn (36 ft rep 1987) and chart dang obstn with least depth of 35 ft in present survey location.

Not significant as obstruction. Update area with present survey depths.

&,0$34�5$60$��

C��%<<2��#�0��

1��/��/�

AWOIS # 3434 03,&0;3*;":�)�"� �:�)�� >:��)�"�2<3� > <B�)�"�2A3�:A ��P/$/$� (99�� /,C%,C$%�$0<� ,+C!9C!+�,,A�

�>0�3A3*;":�)�"� �"1�� >:��)�"�2<3� > <B�)�"�2A3��1� 5"��/%�$/�� 27�00$�3� /,C%,C$,�%79<�/,C!9C!$�((9<�

0��! �:A �� /$/$��2��!%%%+3�� ? �� 2 ��1:3��.�� %99H��<�� -�� :A �� :A �� //�+9��2!9�%$�3��C��0��. �� ? ��

2��#��:=&)��# ��%��8��9��"3�8��9��+��/

Concur.

34.6 ft.

Do not concur.

:,,3.*)U)))2).:�,0&�03��63; C:.*�>0�3A

I

H

E

A

D

PROGRESS SKETCH

OPR-E349-KR-07Central Chesapeake Bay, VA

October 2007David Evans and Associates, Inc.Jon Dasler, Lead Hydrographer

Chart 12280

Septemper 200 PercentSeptemper 100 PercentAugust 200 PercentAugust 100 PercentJuly 200 Percent

July 100 PercentJune 200 PercentMay 100 PercentJune 100 Percent

Sheet Reg No Started Percent Completed Submitted SQ NMA H11653 6/19/2007 100.0% 9/28/2007 0.00D H11654 5/24/2007 100.0% 9/27/2007 0.00E H11655 5/24/2007 100.0% 9/22/2007 0.00H H11656 5/25/2007 100.0% 9/28/2007 0.00I H11657 5/24/2007 100.0% 9/28/2007 0.00

Down time May June July August September OctoberWeather - Day 0.00 7.33 8.08 4.21 8.75 0.00Equipment - Day 1.00 2.67 2.08 1.79 2.00 0.00Other - Day 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Accomplished May June July August September OctoberLNM SSS/MB 239.41 812.33 857.61 808.11 280.63 0.00SQ NM 9.11 22.34 23.97 24.24 9.13 0.00Bottom Samples 49 0 30 0 0 0AWOIS Investigations 0 0 0 0 0 0Other Investigations 1 2 0 0 477 0Tide Gauges Installed/Removed 2 0 0 0 0 2LNM Multibeam 297.78 893.69 857.65 825.86 358.06 0.00Days at Sea 8 30 31 23 28 2

SURVEY OUTLINE

H11655OPR-E349-KR-07

Central Chesapeake Bay, VADavid Evans and Associates, Inc.Jon Dasler, Lead Hydrographer

Chart 12225

:,,3.*)U)�;)*3�:.*=:;30�3�3��

Jason Creech

From: Crescent Moegling [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:42 AM

To: Jon Dasler; Jason Creech

Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Rappahannock Light and Gaskin Point Zoning files]]]

Page 1 of 2

5/13/2008

FYI...

-------- Original Message --------

Hi Crescent:

CO-OPS has reviewed the tidal zoning files submitted to CO-OPS and the tidal zoning files have been validated for QA/QC criteria for water level data application to bathymetric data sounding collection. Please inform Jason Creech of DEA.

Thanks.

Manoj

-------- Original Message --------

Manoj

I’ve attached the Rappahannock Light and Gaskin Point zoning files in shapefile format. Each polygon has fields for an average time and range correction. I’ve also attached a graphic of our survey areas color coded by our primary gauge. As you can see in the graphic we have not proposed to use Gaskin for actual zoning so no zoning file is attached. We feel that the Rappahannock Light station will work better for both H11656 and H11657.

We made no modifications to the preliminary Windmill Point Zone file that was submitted to us before the project started so we are essentially resubmitting the same file. The Rappahannock Light zone file uses the same boundaries as the Windmill Point file, but the time and range correctors have been back zoned from Windmill Point to transfer relative to Rappahannock Light.

As you can see in the graphic, zones SCB78, SCB69, SCB63, and SCB57 are used relative to Windmill Point for H11654 and relative to Rappahannock Light for H11655. We kept the original

Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Rappahannock Light and Gaskin Point Zoning files]]Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:33:28 -0400

From: Manoj Samant <[email protected]>To: Crescent Moegling <[email protected]>

Subject: Rappahannock Light and Gaskin Point Zoning filesDate: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:59:31 -0700

From: Jason Creech <[email protected]>To: [email protected]

CC: Jon Dasler <[email protected]>, Crescent Moegling <[email protected]>

zoning boundaries rather than subdivide these zones with breaks at the sheet limits.

Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Thanks,Jason

Jason CreechLead HydrographerDavid Evans and Associates, Inc.(804) 516-7829

-- Crescent Moegling NOAA Hydrographic Surveys Division Branch Chief - Data Acquisition Control 301.713.2700 x111

Page 2 of 2

5/13/2008

C��%<<;�� 'C��

Day Min.Time

Max.Time

5/26/2007 11:50:13 21:44:075/27/2007 12:27:43 22:17:575/28/2007 13:06:58 21:36:125/29/2007 12:01:45 21:01:505/30/2007 12:02:39 22:23:446/2/2007 12:16:39 18:16:346/4/2007 17:15:51 21:46:566/5/2007 12:02:21 14:55:136/7/2007 12:18:40 21:13:536/8/2007 17:10:37 21:45:31

6/10/2007 11:56:50 21:52:376/11/2007 12:14:03 21:09:326/12/2007 12:59:25 20:57:506/13/2007 13:34:43 19:51:336/15/2007 12:24:52 21:29:376/16/2007 12:20:49 21:02:566/17/2007 12:14:52 20:39:066/18/2007 13:42:23 18:17:459/8/2007 11:49:17 19:39:42

9/22/2007 17:53:15 19:35:02

ZONE Time Corrector (min) Ratio Reference StationSCB56 -30 0.88 8632837SCB57 -30 0.82 8632837SCB63 -18 0.79 8632837SCB64 -18 0.88 8632837SCB68 0 0.88 8632837SCB69 0 0.76 8632837SCB78 18 0.76 8632837

FINAL TIDE ZONINGH11655

OPR-E349-KR-07

SCB69

SCB63

SCB78

SCB56

SCB77

SCB64

SCB57

SCB68SCB70

SCB76

SCB79

SCB55FINAL TIDE ZONING

H11655

OPR-E349-KR-07

Centeral Chesapeak Bay

David Evans and Associates, Inc

Charts 12235 and 12226

.

APPENDIX V SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY AND CORRESPONDENCE

Sample Time(UTC) Day_Number Lat(DD) Lon(DD) Depth(ft) COLOR NATSUR NATQUA

E1 21:38 144 37 33 40 37.561111 76 11 3 -76.184167 35 7 1 1 6

E2 21:29 144 37 32 37 37.543611 76 11 2 -76.183889 33 7 1 1 6

E3 21:16 144 37 31 30 37.525000 76 11 1 -76.183611 32 7 1 1 6

E4 21:07 144 37 30 25 37.506944 76 11 0 -76.183333 32 7 1 1 6

E5 20:56 144 37 29 18 37.488333 76 10 59 -76.183056 31 7 1 5

E6 20:48 144 37 28 16 37.471111 76 10 58 -76.182778 32 2,8 4,7 2

E7 14:12 145 37 33 38 37.560556 76 9 40 -76.161111 37 7 1 1 6

E8 14:22 145 37 32 33 37.542500 76 9 39 -76.160833 35 7 1 1 6

E9 14:31 145 37 31 28 37.524444 76 9 38 -76.160556 35 7 1,7 6 1

E10 14:40 145 37 30 24 37.506667 76 9 38 -76.160556 33 7 1 1 6

E11 14:55 145 37 29 19 37.488611 76 9 36 -76.160000 32 7 1 1 6

E12 15:05 145 37 28 14 37.470556 76 9 36 -76.160000 32 7 1 1 6

E13 16:06 145 37 33 39 37.560833 76 8 20 -76.138889 38 7 1 1 6

E14 15:58 145 37 32 34 37.542778 76 8 19 -76.138611 37 7 1 1 6

E15 15:48 145 37 31 30 37.525000 76 8 18 -76.138333 35 7 1 1 6

E16 15:37 145 37 30 25 37.506944 76 8 17 -76.138056 35 7 1 1 6

E17 15:25 145 37 29 21 37.489167 76 8 15 -76.137500 34 7 1 1 6

E18 15:15 145 37 28 14 37.470556 76 8 14 -76.137222 34 7 1 1 6

Latitude(DMS) Longitude(DMS)

H11655 Bottom Samples

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

deborah.a.bland

Cross-Out

:;�:.;) CA*0&�0:,C) "0:. C�3�:�>:;)&.03,&0;��:��

�#�+�C��%<<8��9�� ".�� =�� .�� .��"/ *:;:: B>)�);)&.:.*,0& 3��).�

"/� 3E#��

�� :�� E��

':��1�=�1��.�� +�!��1!��;�!C+��':��:�"�4��.�� %�!��1�!�C,��':��(,�'��.�� %�9�':�� 4�.�� /�/��1�/�� D:��<�1"'� ��.�� (�9�� ,/%��1!��1�1R�� .�� 0�(��%(/,�

"/�/B>:�);A &.;0&�

C$ ��

��:�� .�S�� !�� +�� :��.�� ?��:��!E$9�999�� !�(�� .�� :�� '��.�� .�� ? ��!9�� .��

��:� �� 2�"1:�"3��2�"1'<�3��

�� 2� )<�B3��2 ��<��:�"��A�"'D�3��4��-��24L' 5��4L&):>3�� <��

�:�� ?��

�� 2 �� .�%990C03�� ?�� C(,�� C'�� .�� ?�� C(,��C(,�� ':�� 4��.�� C(,�� 4��-��2�!!+((L'��9993�� 2�!!+((L��9993�� %990��C'�� .�� . �� %997�� .��; ��#�� @�� 8 ��':��C(,�'��.�� %�9�.�� @��D:��<�1"'� ��.�� (�9��

� �� '�� :�� <��@��5 �� '�� 4�� '�� . � �� .�� 4�� !!+((�':��C'�� .�� E�

�!!+((L'��999� !E$9�999�� !!+((��C'�� '�� !!+((L��999� !E!9�999�� !!+((�� 2��.��3�

�� / C&0)D&.;:�:.*�30;) :� &.;0&�

; ��.�� #� ��:�� .� � ��.�� -�� 8�� .��<= 1��' C 1�� 8�� !!+((�� 4��>��>��A��24>>A3��5�� 4�� A��24�A3��

�� 8�� .�� #� � � �� <��:�� !70/�2<:�0/3��)�4��-�� 8��!0�� "<'�� .��#� �� C(,�"<'��#� �� 8�� >�� >�� 2>>�B3�A��B�� C0$�2AB�C0$3�� ':��4�� */ 03�>�;�:.*03 &��3.*:;)&.�

*/� C:0; &�,:0)�&.�� '��<4�9!=!,=%997��!%%%+�2!,��"� � ��"'=9,3��

'��><4�9!=9+=%997��!E$9�999��

'��<4�9!=!,=%997��!%%/(�2/%��"� � ��4:R=903��

'��><4�!%=97=%990��!E$9�999��

3. �� '��@��A��)�(5:!94��

1��'�@�"� � ��!!��)��:�� %997C9%C97��%997C9%C!!��E��'��!%%%+��

��@�� .��"��)�(5:$!4��

1 ��@��@��B��A �� .��"� � ��!%��)��:�� %997C9%C!,��%997C9%C!,��E��'��!%%/(��

�

'��@��4��-��@��)�(5:%$4��

:��R��@�� .��"��:�"� � ��7��)��:�� %997C9!C9+��%997C9!C!+��E��'��!%%/0��

*/

03�>�;�:.*03 &��3.*:;)&.�

�� .��#� �� @��#�� K�J��:�� ?�!�� .��1��.�� E�

�� !�� /%�

�� >�� /,M%,S/$�70J<��>�� ,+M97S!,�0$JA�� .�� .�� /%�� //�� >�� /,M%,S/(�%0J<��>�� ,+M97S!0�!7JA��

�*/4/�/��

*�� .�+��

��; .��<�. �� :�� ?�� .��

�*/�/

�)� 3��:.3&>�

'�� :�� <��@��5 �� '�� 4�� '�� . � �� .�� 4�� !�� '��"�� <�. �� '��2"<'3�� .��

*/4/ :*3B>: A&2�>0�3A

��.�� #�� :�� C'��; ��<�� .��

Version 1.0�� 1��

�� =�� .��".��

H:\Compilation\H11655_E349-DEA\AHB_H11655\Reports\ER\Precompile_Log_Template.doc January 16, 2008

:��1�"C' 41>:� <�1� '"��

�"B��R�<�� !!+((�1� *"'��<�� 1�C"/$7CD�C9,�;">��)<�� :5��"5:<��:<��:�� ':�"��<'��1�"C' 41>"�� <' >"��"<� >4�>:�B"��':>"�'�:�� !%%%+�� !,��%99,!%9!�

!%%%(�� (,��%9909(9!�!%%/(�� /%��%9909(9!�

'�:��':>"� !E�$9�999�!E�09�999�!E�$9�999�

�)�5"R��':>"� !E�!9�999��:�"� ;��)�5"R� 9(=%$=%99,��97=%%=%99,�' <�"<��"5"A��:�"� %=(=%997��

Components File NamesProduct Surface� �!!+((L ��Shifted Surface �!!+((L�� L ��Contour Layer �!!+((L�� L ��L��

Survey Scale Soundings �!!+((L��L�� Chart Scale Soundings �!!+((L��L�� ENC Retain Soundings �!!+((L"<'L�� L��

Feature Layer �!!+((L��Meta-Objects Layer �!!+((L��-��

Blue Notes �!!+((L��1"';':� <�E�

� ' 4�<"��)�;:'"E�� ; ��E��!!+((L�� L+�� E�+�� ; ��B� ��>�� E��ET'�� T�!!+((L"/$7C

�":T:��L�!!+((T' 41>"TA��@ ��T1�� 1� �)'��)�;:'"�2� )<�<B�3E��

�� E�!E$9�999�� E!9�� E�+��

� 4 � ��E�,�%(+��2%/�097��3� � 4�? ��E�!%�7,(��2$%�(+7��3�

1� �)'��)�;:'"�2' <� )��3E�� E�!E�$9�999�� E!�(�� E�+��

� ��;�"��)�;:'"E�


�� =�� .��".��


� �� 5��E� C�9%%7�� [-0.229m (feet), (U�10 fathoms)]�[-1.372m (fathoms), (> 10 fathoms)]�

5� ' <� )��>:R"�E�� )��> ��E�VVVVVVL< ::L��L��.�L� ��?��

��> ��E��!!+((L< ::L��L��.L� ��?��

�� E�� '�� E��

!� > �� -��E��"1'<��%� 5��:�� E�5:>�' �

5� � )<�<B��">"'� <E�� '� �� E��

� �� )�� C�� E�� .� ; ��E��WX!��

5� ;":�)�"�E�� .��

��<��0�� "<'�

"<'E� P)�(5:!94� � ��<��/� �

5� 4"�:C �*"'��E�� 4L' 5��

:�� 5�� :�� %99,97%%�':�' 5� !�� <�� )��)��.��!!+((�

�� 4L&):>�� :�� 5��

':�6 '� ��<; �4� �!!+((�� 1�C"/$7CD�C9,��=5��1 �:''� !�� :�� %99,97%%�� <�� )��)��.��!!+((��)�"<�� %99,97%%��)��:� %99,9(%$��"'� )� �

�� "1:�"�� :�� 5��

��5:>5�!� ,�%(+��2%/�097��3��5:>5%� !7�/,+��2+/�(,!��3�� :�� %99,97%%�� <�� )��)��.��!!+((�

�� 4L'�'>�� :�� 5��

'�':>"� �� :�� <��


�� =�� .��".��


5� < �"�E��

� �� . � � ��>�� /,M%,N/(�%,+I�<��>�� 9,+M97N!0�!79I�A��< ��!%%%+�� .�� .��. ��"<'�� :��

�� :A ��P�!///9�

:�� C� @�� ? � �� /,�+/��

� ��.�� .��:A ��P/$/$�� "<'� ��

�

�

� APPROVAL SHEET�� H11655��)��:��+��

��.�� .��.�� .�� 8�� .� � �� .��:��. � �� C'�� .�� .�� .��.�� <�� . �� '��.��#� ��?�� .��".��

�:�� .�� .��. ��

��.�� . � �� 1�� 4��.� � ��?�� LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL�� .��;�� :�� LLLLLLLLLLL�� *��:/"�� '�� :��

��.��. ��'�� .��

�� 4�� '�� . � �� .��<�� . ��#� �� ?��:��.�E��'��< ::��'� ��:��

Deborah A. Bland

Digitally signed by Deborah A. Bland DN: cn=Deborah A. Bland, o=Atlantic Hydrographic Branch, ou=NOAA/NOS, [email protected], c=US Date: 2009.03.20 11:28:52 -04'00'

Documents

DESCRIPTIVE REPORT Type of Survey Hydrographic H11655 · OPR-E349-KR-07 Central Chesapeake Bay, Virginia September 2007 Survey: H11655 Descriptive Report Field Unit: David Evans and