World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84)DGPS was used for real-time positioning during acquisition.Cheboygan, MI (292kHz)17N (EPSG: 32617)Because the field unit did not install additional vertical and horizontal control stations an HVCR was not required for this survey.Low Water DatumAlpena, MI 9075065Discrete Zoning2016-09-012016-09-169075065.tidFinal ApprovedX937NMS2016CORP.zdfFinalOne private aid to navigation exists in the survey area and was verified with visual inspection.No submarine features exist for this survey.No overhead features exist for this survey.No present or planned construction or dredging exist within the survey limits.No new insets are recommended for this area.A new position and depth on a charted wreck was found during survey operations and is included in the final feature file.No new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area.No Significant Features exist for this survey.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.No prior survey comparisons exist for this survey.No platforms exist for this survey.No bottom samples were required for this survey.No Danger to Navigation Reports were submitted for this survey.A comparison was performed with Chart 14869 (1:60,000) using soundings derived from the 1-meter surface. Charted depths agree within 3 meters with H12964 surveyed soundings. Figure 18 depicts the surveyed depth curves in red in comparison to the chart. 2714869600002013-1113302016-08-202016-08-23Survey contours shown in red overlaid on chart 14869. file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964_Contour_Comparison.pngENC soundings were extracted from the S-57 file and used to create a 1-meter interpolated .csar surface. The interpolated surface was then differenced with the 1-meter finalized surface from survey H12964. The depth differences range from -2.52 to 5.46 meters. In this case, negative values indicate that the new surveyed soundings are shallower than charted. In general, the surveyed data is 0.45 meters deeper than charted.72015-10-14false2014-03-0560000US4MI66MDifference surface between H12964 and US4MI66M. Negative values represent areas where the survey is shallower than the chart.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/ENC_Difference.pngENC US4MI66M comparison. file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964-US4MI66M.pngNo 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 uncharted features exist for this survey.No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.The hydrographer has compared a sounding plot from the surveyed area to the charted soundings. There are no charted contours to compare.Two charted wrecks are found within the assigned survey boundary of H12964. One feature was surveyed and an updated position and depth have been obtained. Due to time constraints the other wreck to the northeast was not investigated. See the final feature file for more information.No shoals or potentially hazardous features exist for this survey.Atlantic Hydrographic Branch2016Tyanne FaulkesNavigable Area2016-08-092016-08-30Side Scan SonarMultibeam Echo Sounder2016-08-24metersUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)UTCNOAA R/V StormThunder Bay National Marine SanctuaryLake HuronS-X937-ONMS-1625 NM North of Thunder Bay IslandUnited StatesMichiganH1296460000NOAACoverage area of survey H12964.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/CoverageArea_1.PNGThe entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.0006.1002016-08-092016-08-102016-08-112016-08-122016-08-152016-08-162016-08-262016-08-292016-08-3000000135.4004.9116.4312.34R500200000135.400116.3211.65All waters in survey areaFor H12964, Complete Coverage accomplished using either: A) Complete covereage MBES depth and backscatter data, or B) 100% SSS coverage with concurrent set line spacing MBES depth and backscatter data. Refer to HSSD Section 5.2.2.3. Due to limited field resources, backscatter was not collected for this survey. To accomplish the coverage requirements for H12964 the hydrographer utilized both complete multibeam coverage and 100% SSS coverage. 100% SSS coverage was initially attempted but due to a thermocline in the area refraction greatly impacted the quality of the sidescan imagery (See Section B.2.6 for more discussion on this topic). Complete multibeam coverage commenced on DN231. 83.175516666745.081752777883.259427777845.1441472222Survey H12964 was conducted 5 nautical miles north of Thunder Bay Island as shown in Figure 2.Survey coverage shown with project area assigned in the Project Instructions.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/CoverageArea_2.PNGThis project was conducted to support the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) and Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (TBNMS) hydrographic survey project off the coast of Alpena, MI. This survey is located in NW Lake Huron within the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Survey data from H12964 of this project is intended to supersede all prior survey data in the common area.Deviations from the survey limit requirements did occur on survey H12964. Preliminary project instructions were not submitted to the field party until a week into the survey. The hydrographer created a preliminary survey boundary utilizing an image provided in email correspondence. The southwest portion of the assigned sheet differed from what was estimated by the hydrographer (See Figure 1). The hydrographer used their discretion to focus survey efforts on defining the charted shoal rather than surveying the deeper area. Due to weather and time constraints the entirety of the survey area was not completed.NOAA_1m1CUBEComplete MBES16.926.75H12964_MB_1m_LSWNOAA_1m1CUBEComplete MBES16.926.75H12964_MB_1m_LSW_FinalCarisHIPS/SIPS9.1.7NOAA Extended Attribute Files V5_4.Data DensityA density analysis performed on surface H12964_MB_1m_LWD_Final would result in 93% of nodes meeting the density specification. This would appear that the data does not meet specifications, but this is not the case. In the 2016 HSSD, the data density requirements differ between complete coverage multibeam (95% of nodes shall be populated with 5 or more soundings) and 100% side scan sonar coverage (80% of nodes shall be populated with 5 or more soundings). Because this survey uses both techniques, the hydrographer created two different surfaces to perform the density analysis. The first surface consisted of data collected from DN223 to 231 which was 100% side scan data. The second surface consisted of data collected from DN239 to 243 which was complete coverage multibeam. It was found that both surfaces meet the density requirements (Figures 14 and 16). Data density was an issue generally in the outerbeams even though there was appropriate overlap. For future surveys the field party should reduce survey speed to compensate for the sparse data in the outer edges of the swath at these depths.Data density statistics of finalized surface.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964_MB_1m_LWD_Final_Density.pngComplete multibeam coverage area. Nodes that fail are shown in red.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/MBES_Coverage_Density.pngData density statistics of complete multibeam coverage.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964_MBES_CompleteCoverage.density.png100% SSS coverage area. Nodes that fail are shown in red.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/SSS_Density.pngData density statistics of 100% SSS data.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964_SSS_Coverage.density.pngTotal Vertical Uncertainty AnalysisHydrOffice QA tool was used to calculate the percentage of nodes which meet total vertical uncertainty (TVU) specifications. The resulting statistical analysis yielded 99.5% nodes both surfaces meet TVU specifications (See Figure 17). In addition, a custom layer was created for the finalized surfaces submitted in correlation with H12964. The layer was derived from the difference between the calculated uncertainties of individual nodes and the allowable uncertainty at the coupled node.Total vertical uncertainty analysis for 1-meter finalized surface.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964_MB_1m_LWD_Final.tvu_qc.pngFiltersThe RESON 8101 on the STORM is installed at a slight angle to the port. As a result the port-side beams are projected further through the water column and as a result those outerbeams tend to be more variable and more unreliable. The hydrographer utilized a bathymetric filter to filter out some of said outerbeams. The hydrographer has reviewed the data to ensure no significant features were eliminated by this filtering tool.There are no junction surveys which are associated with this project.Issues with System Integration After data collection on DN222 it was made apparent that the integration between the Reson 8101, POSMV, and Hypack were not integrated properly. Motion and timing information was not being relayed to the Reson. This caused motion artifacts that greatly impacted the MBES data. Michael Annis with the Navigation Response Branch was called to assist with the integration issue which was subsequently fixed on DN223. The MBES lines were acquired again. The integration did not impact the SSS data, therefore it was not re-acquired. Unfortunately the settings in the POSMV did not save properly and the timing was once again not being relayed to the Reson from DN224-228 which resulted in a latency offset. By examining the HSX timestamps, the hydrographer discovered the timing offset was progressively getting worse. This issue was resolved on DN231. To account for this timing offset, the hydrographer calculated the timing offset for each line by subtracting the time stamp from the sonar from the GPS time stamp. In a spreadsheet located in Separates II the hydrographer recorded the GPS time and the sonar time from the HSX from every line. These times were differenced and then averaged per day to develop a latency offset that was then used in the time correction entry in Transducer 1 in the HVF. On the occasion where the average time offset did not improve the data quality, the hydrographer input the exact time offset for the line. This also appears in the HVF and the spreadsheet provided. This does not alleviate all instances of motion artifacts in the data but drastically reduces them (See Figure 7). The uncertainty of the product surfaces are within TVU specifications but when examining these artifacts in CARIS Subset Editor, one can see that the differences between the peaks and valleys are greater than the total allowable uncertainty (See Figure 8). To further improve the data roll timing bias values were derived by using the calibration editor in HIPS. The artifacts caused the data to look like bow ties within the line (See Figure 9). These values were then entered into the roll entry of the HVF. It is not known what caused these artifacts to appear in the data but one hypothesis is that there is a loose connection between the POSMV and the Reson which provides the sonar with motion data. With the steps taken above, all motion errors were reduced to be within specification.Example of area where no timing offset was applied and the resultant corrections to the data after timing offset was applied.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/ArtifactsBeforeAndAfter.pngExample of motion artifacts from line 128_1343.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/MotionArtifacts.pngBefore and after of application of roll timing error values.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/RollTimingErrorBeforeandAfter.pngHeave artifactsHeave artifacts are present in the crossline data but are within uncertainty specifications.Multibeam RefractionMultibeam data collected on DN223 and 224 exhibit "smiling" and "frowning" which is typically due to refraction in the water column. These errors are minor at approximately 0.30m. There is no DAPR associated with this survey. Further information about sonar calibrations can be found in Section B.3.1 in this report.A total of fourteen (14) sound speed casts were taken throughout survey H12964. In general two casts were taken, one prior to the start of survey, the second at the end of the day. Some casts were taken greater than 250 meters from the survey grounds. Sound speed refraction does not negatively impact the quality of the multibeam data. Majority of the data utilized the sound speed application method of nearest in distance within 4 hours. Three (3) lines utilized nearest within 6 hours (111_2115, 112_2140, and 113_2203). Due to limited resources, annual calibrations and weekly confidence checks were not performed on this survey.Spatial distribution of casts for survey H12964. file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/SVPLocations.PNG11R50020.0310Discrete ZoningTotal Propagated Uncertainty (TPU) parameters for sound speed and tide data for H12964 are shown in Table 6 and 7. Because of the very small tidal range on Lake Huron, tide zoning errors are not likely to be significant therefore CO-OPS did not provide an uncertainty value to their zoning files. The hydrographer requested further information from CO-OPS, namely the uncertainty of the tide gauge. The tidal measured value was derived from adding the sensor, leveling error (at the third order), and the data processing uncertainties provided in their response (See Supplemental Correspondence in Appendix II). Crosslines were run on DN243 with the expectation that there would be two more days of data acquisition on project. Due to inclement weather additional survey days were not performed. This left some swaths of crossline data that had no corresponding mainscheme overlap (Figure 4). The hydrographer rejected the navigation of these lines where overlap did not exist to not over-inflate total linear nautical mileage statistics associated with said crosslines. A geographic plot of crosslines is shown in Figure 5. To evaluate crossline agreement, two 1-meter surfaces were created: one from crossline depths, the other from mainscheme depths. These two surfaces were differenced using CARIS HIPS/SIPS. More than 856 thousand nodes have a difference value range from -23.84 meters and 0.85 meters. Large differences were examined by the reviewer. It was found that these differences were due to fliers in the crossline surface that does not impact the final bathymetry product. The statistical analysis of the differences between the mainscheme and crossline surfaces is shown in Figure 6. The average difference between the surfaces is -0.01 meters with a standard deviation of 0.32 meters; ninety five percent of nodes agree within +/- 0.15 meters of the mean. These values are well within the total vertical uncertainty for the depth of this survey. The ends of the crosslines to the east were trimmed during data processing.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964_CrosslinesBefore.PNGH12964 MBES crossline data overlaid on mainscheme data, shown in gray. Nodes failing total vertical uncertainty standards are shown in red.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964_CrosslineCoverage.pngH12964 crossline difference statistics: mainscheme minus crossline.file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964_MS-XL.pngRefraction in Sidescan CoverageRefraction does impact the quality of the SSS data (Figure 10). The hydrographer attempted to change the altitude of the fish but was unable to alleviate the refraction problem. To identify holidays in the SSS data caused by refraction, the hydrographer created two 50cm mosaics which consisted of every other line to identify the refraction. By using the mosaics as a guide, the hydrographer inspected impacted lines in side scan editor to confirm that the imagery was indeed of poor quality. When that was confirmed, the hydrographer created polygons of areas where holidays exist. These holiday polygons were then used as guides for the holiday line plan created by the hydrographer. Holiday fill lines were run on DN228-231. Due to refraction in the sidescan data, the field party decided that there was no efficiency gained by using this tool. On DN239 the field party commenced full multibeam coverage. Example of refraction found in sidescan imagery. file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/H12964_SidescanRefraction.PNGAll equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.Raw Backscatter was required by the Project Instructions but due to limited field resources, backscatter was not collected for this survey.As there is no DAPR associated with this Descriptive Report, the following describes the Corrections to Echo Sounding utilized for this survey. Vessel Offsets Vessel offset correctors are the values used to describe the location of all hydrographic sensors in relation to a defined reference point. These values are needed to compute sensor lever arms needed to correct for vessel orientation and ultimately produce the final geographic position for every sounding collected. Included in the Separates II is the “2016 HVF summary” report. This report is a compilation of vessel reports for the R/V STORM. This vessel report is created by the CARIS HIPS and SIPS Vessel Editor and include values used for depth sensor bias angles, sensor offset and time corrections, dynamic draft, TPU values, SVP sensor offset and mounting angle, and waterline values. For STORM the reference point (RP) is defined as the IMU. Offsets are entered account in the POSMV for offsets between the sonar to the IMU along with the sonar to the port antenna. For the STORM's HVF, all vessel offset values have been set to 0,0,0 in the Transducer 1 section of the HVF to avoid double-correction. The only exceptions to this are the SVP 1 offset values and waterline that are required for SV application. Static and Dynamic Draft Static draft correctors are the z-values used to describe the difference between the measured waterline on the hull and the reference point while the vessel is at rest. Since the distance between the reference point and transducers is known, it is elementary to derive the difference between the water line and the transducer. This value is required to correct for the draft of the transducer when computing the corrected water depths. Static draft corrector values are stored in the CARIS HVF as the waterline value. It is assumed that this value remains relatively unchanged since little difference in draft has been seen under various fuel loading conditions. The static draft was measured from a known benchmark on the hull of the STORM to the waterline utilizing a lead line and a steel tape. Due to limited time and resources, a dynamic draft model was not derived for the STORM therefore is not utilized in the vessel's HVF. System Alignments System alignments were determined by running a patch test. Timing, pitch and yaw bias was determined using a target on the seafloor. And finally, roll bias was determined using the standard flat bottom method. Biases were determined using the CARIS HIPS Calibration tool by the hydrographer. The multiple values determined for each bias by the hydrographer, and obvious outliers rejected before an average was determined. This average value was then applied to the bias in question and applied to the data before moving on to the next bias determination. Bias values were determined in the following order; timing, pitch, roll, and finally yaw. In addition to average values, standard deviation was also determined for each bias. These values were then used to adjust the Timing (s), MRU Roll/Pitch, and MRU Gyro uncertainties under TPU values in the HVF. Positioning and Attitude The STORM utilizes a heave filter integration method known as “TrueHeave” as described in Section 3 of the OCS Field Procedures Manual. It is standard procedure to begin logging the POS/MV Applanix .000 file at least 5 minutes before starting bathymetric data acquisition and letting it run for at least 5 minutes afterward. TrueHeave is loaded to lines in CARIS/HIPS and SIPS and is applied in post processing during SVP Correct and Merge in CARIS HIPS.Patch Test Patch test prior to survey.2016-08-10A patch test was run on DN223 by the field party though the time stamp in the HVF does not reflect this date. The sidescan (which is not used on this survey) receives its positioning information from the Trimble DSM-132 DGPS box. There is a known issue with some Trimble firmware which "will interpret the GPS time in error by 1024 weeks, receiver data outputs will have the wrong time reference" (See email from LT Charles Wisotzkey for further information). The Klein 3000 believes that the year is 1996 therefore without having that date in the HVF, data will not convert. The date issue does not impact multibeam data or the imagery data from the Klein 3000. Side Scan Sonar LaybackLayback correctors are the values used to describe the location of side scan sonar sensors in relation to a defined reference point. The values for the STORM are referenced to the towpoint on the ship’s sheave block. The coordinates of this tow-point in addition the length of cable out are used to find the position of the side-scan sonar fish. These values are needed to correctly geo-reference imagery collected by the side scan sonar unit.1.1R500215.4Research Vessel STORM. file:///T:/Surveys/Surveys/H12964_S_X937_ONMS_16/S-X937-ONMS-16/H12964/Data/Descriptive_Report/Report/images/H12964/STORM.JPGThe Research Vessel STORM (R5002), shown in Figure 3, acquired all surveyed sounding during operation for H12964.MBESReson8101Positioning and Attitude SystemApplanixPOSMV V4SSSKlein3000Positioning SystemTrimbleDSM-132Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorSontek Castaway CTDA spatial reference survey was performed by the National Geodetic Survey on April 9th, 2010 in Muskegon, Michigan. Offsets from this report were utilized in the data acquisition systems as well as the HIPS Vessel File (HVF). The Reson 8101 is a 240 kHz multibeam system with a swath coverage of 150°. The swath is made up of 101 discrete beams with an along-track and across-track beamwidth of 1.5°. It has a specified depth range of up to 500 meters. There is no Data Acquisition and Processing Report associated with this survey as it is an outside source survey. The hydrographer intends on providing relevant information in the Descriptive Report.2016-10-11Physical ScientistTyanne FaulkesAs Chief of Party, field operations for this hydrographic survey were conducted under my direct supervision, with frequent personal checks of progress and adequacy. I have reviewed the attached survey data and reports.All field sheets, this Descriptive Report, and all accompanying records and data are approved. All records are forwarded for final review and processing to the Processing Branch.The survey data meets or exceeds requirements as set forth in the NOS Hydrographic Surveys 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.