OPR-X388-KR-19 Straits of Mackinac, MI Lake Huron; Lake Michigan eTrac H13256 5 Vicinity of Ile Aux Galets Michigan United States 20000 2019 David Neff, C.H. Basic Hydrographic Survey 2019-05-15 2019-06-28 2019-08-23 Multibeam Echo Sounder Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter meters UTC Atlantic Hydrographic Branch All times are UTC. The purpose of this survey is to update existing NOS nautical charts. H13256 will cover approximately 37 square nautical miles in the vicinity of Ile Aux Galets, MI. SUB CONSULTANT: Geodynamics LLC, 310A Greenfield Dr., Newport, NC 98570 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 16N, LWD. All references to other horizontal or vertical datums in this report are applicable to the processed hydrographic data provided by the field unit. Contractor eTrac Inc. conducted hydrographic survey operations in the Straits of Mackinac which included the western Lake Michigan and the eastern Lake Huron regions. H13256 covers approximately 37 square nautical miles of survey area. 954 linear nautical miles were acquired during the survey. H13256 is located in the vicinity of Ile Aux Galets, MI. Survey was conducted within these limits between June 28, 2019 (DN179) and August 23, 2019 (DN235). 45.714405250000006 85.25589908333333 45.56823133333334 85.11387883333333 All data were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and specifications set forth in the Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables 2019 Edition (HSSD 2019). Survey Limits Overview (light blue area) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Survey_Limits_Overview.png Survey Limits (black line) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Survey_Limits.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 H13256 is accurate to International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1a as required per the HSSD 2019. All water in survey area. Complete Coverage Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements listed above and in the HSSD. Survey Coverage file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Survey_Coverage.png R/V Benthos 0.0 460.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R/V 505 0.0 437.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 897.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 0.0 6.34 20 0 0 0 37.0 2019-06-28 2019-06-29 2019-06-30 2019-07-01 2019-07-02 2019-07-03 2019-07-05 2019-07-06 2019-07-07 2019-07-08 2019-07-09 2019-08-23 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 as well as any deviations from the DAPR are discussed in the following sections. R/V Benthos 10.0 0.6 R/V 505 10.0 0.6 The R/V Benthos is a 10 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with a custom over-the-side (port) multibeam hydraulic pole mount. The R/V 505 is a 10 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with a Universal Sonar Mount (USM) starboard multibeam pole mount. R2Sonic 2022 MBES Kongsberg Maritime EM 2040C MBES Applanix POS MV 320 v5 Positioning and Attitude System AML Oceanographic BaseX Sound Speed System Note: R/V Benthos utilized a dualhead Kongsberg 2040C multibeam echosounder system, an AML Base.X2 for the sound speed system and a POSMV 320 V5 for the positioning system. R/V 505 utilized a dualhead R2Sonic 2022 multibeam echosounder system, an AML Base.X2 for the sound speed system and a POSMV 320 V5 for the positioning system. A beam-to-beam statistical analysis was performed using the Cross Check tool in Qimera. A 1 meter Combined Uncertainty and Bathymetric Estimator (CUBE) weighted dynamic surface was created incorporating only the mainscheme lines and excluded crosslines. The Cross Check tool was used to perform the beam-by-beam comparison of the crossline data to the mainscheme surface. Comparisons showed excellent agreement, well above 95% of the allowable TVU. Note: This surface was created for QC only and is not submitted as a surface deliverable. The beam-to-beam crossline comparison report generated through the Qimera Cross Check tool is included in Separates II. Below is a histogram of the crossline comparison statistics showing IHO Order 1a compliance per beam.` H13256 Crossline Comparison file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_XL_histogram.png ERS via VDATUM R/V 505 2 2 R/V Benthos 2 2 Standard deviation and uncertainty layers of the Dynamic Surface were utilized during data processing to search for features, water column noise, and systematic errors. IHO Order 1a uncertainty specification was met by 100% of the nodes. The final Bathymetric Attributed Grid (BAG) surface's uncertainty was generated through the NOAA QC Tools and an image of the results is located below. For H13256 the following percentages represent the results of the TVU calculation: Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 99.5+% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 2m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 99.5+% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 99.5+% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 8m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 100% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. H13256 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics (NOAA QC Tools) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_TVU_1m.png H13256 Finalized 2m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics (NOAA QC Tools) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_TVU_2m.png H13256 Finalized 4m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics (NOAA QC Tools) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_TVU_4m.png H13256 Finalized 8m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics (NOAA QC Tools) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_TVU_8m.png Depth differences between junctioning surveys were evaluated using the JunctionTrac program, developed in-house by eTrac Inc. 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. W00439 15000 2016 SW The junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13256 and W00439. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 82.2433% of nodes were within allowable TVU. Note: The junction is located in the region Ile Aux Galets in H13256. The discrepancy between junctioning surveys is due to the Ile Aux Galets showing trends of erosion and deposition in various locations between the two surveys. No field unit was listed for junction survey W00439 because the field unit was listed as unknown in the bag file metadata. In the W00439 DR it is noted that data were originally acquired by Leading Edge Geomatics and processed by Dewberry for NOAA's Office of Coastal Management (OCM). H13255 - W00439 Junction Comparison file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_W00439_JunctionTrac_Results.PNG H13255 - W00439 Difference Statistics file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_W00439_DiffTrac_Results.PNG H13255 5000 2019 e-Trac N Note: The junction comparison between H13256 and H13255 will be submitted within the H13255 DR. 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 Benthos casts were applied in both QPS QINSy and Kongsberg SIS acquisition software at the time of the cast. On R/V 505 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 realtime. 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 realtime 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 Inc. 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 H13256 the following percentages represent the results of the density query: Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface ) = 99.7439% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 2m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface ) = 99.9638% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 4m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface ) = 99.9413% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 8m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface ) = 99.8947% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. H13256 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Density_1m.PNG H13256 Finalized 2m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Density_2m.PNG H13256 Finalized 4m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Density_4m.PNG H13256 Finalized 8m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Density_8m.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 ALL and DB files. Every effort was made in the field to collect quality backscatter data while maintaining the primary mandate of high quality bathymetric data. While no processing or analysis of backscatter was required, eTrac Inc. verified coverage and general quality of the backscatter data collected. A beam intensity window was monitored in QINSy during acquisition to ensure backscatter data collection. Raw backscatter data were viewed in QPS FMGeocoder to further confirm collection criteria had been met. Shown below is an example of the unprocessed backscatter mosaic from H13256 DN184. Raw backscatter from R/V Benthos (DN184) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_DN184_BE_Backscatter.PNG QPS Qimera 1.7.6 NOAA Profile Version 2019 Feature Object Catalog, NOAA Profile Version 2019 was used only in CARIS. Qimera was used as the primary processing software, which included feature management. H13256_MB_1m_LWD_Final BAG 1 4.15 20.0 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H13256_MB_2m_LWD_Final BAG 2 18.0 40.0 NOAA_2m Complete MBES H13256_MB_4m_LWD_Final BAG 4 36.0 80.0 NOAA_4m Complete MBES H13256_MB_8m_LWD_Final BAG 8 72.0 82.86 NOAA_8m Complete MBES A 1m, 2m 4m and 8m surface are provided meeting complete coverage MBES with backscatter specifications for H13256. Parent surfaces of the 1m, 2m, 4m and 8m surfaces are also provided in the Surfaces_Mosaics Folder in this delivery drive package H13256 Delivered 1m CUBE Surface Coverage Graphic file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Surface_Coverage_1m.PNG H13256 Delivered 2m CUBE Surface Coverage Graphic file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Surface_Coverage_2m.PNG H13256 Delivered 4m CUBE Surface Coverage Graphic file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Surface_Coverage_4m.PNG H13256 Delivered 8m CUBE Surface Coverage Graphic file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Surface_Coverage_8m.PNG Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR and DAPR. Low Water Datum 577.5 ft IGLD-1985 L Michigan,Huron ERS via VDATUM Mackinaw_ITRF_to_LWD.bin In order to reference soundings to Low Water Datum, a VDatum separation model was applied to the QINSy DB files via a separation file in the acquisition software. North American Datum 1983 Projected UTM 16 RTX Applanix PosPac MMS was utilized to post process realtime 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 G2+ carrier signal from the Marinestar Global Correction System maintained by Fugro. A chart comparison was conducted for H13256 using Qimera and Caris HIPS and SIPS. Contours and soundings were compared against the largest scale ENC US4MI52M to accomplish the chart comparison. The methods and results of the comparison are detailed below. Contour Comparison Method: Using the 2 meter CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface, the 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30 foot contours were generated in Qimera and displayed against the charted contour. Additionally, the 2 meter CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface was viewed by a custom color band range based on the contour intervals (6ft, 12ft, 18ft, 24ft, 30ft). The results of the comparison are described below, followed by a few images of example areas. Sounding Comparison Method: Using the same 2 meter CUBE weighted Dynamic surface, soundings were generated in Caris HIPS and SIPS. Soundings were displayed against the charted soundings and a visual comparison was made. The results of the comparison are described below, followed by 1-2 images of example areas. US4MI52M 80000 15 2019-02-26 2019-02-26 false Contour Comparison Results: The 24 foot contour in the north east region no longer exists. The 30 foot contour receded inward and changed diameter from 1650ft to 715ft. The 12, 18, 24, and 30 foot contour on the northern edge of the Ile Aux Galet receded inward. The 30 foot contour receded approximately 800 feet inward. The 30 foot contour on the eastern edge of the Ile Aux Galet receded inward approximately 140 feet. The 30 foot contour on the southern edge of the Ile Aux Galet receded inward approximately 430 feet. The 30 foot contour to the south of the Ile Aux Galet receded inward approximately 650 feet. In the southwest region of H13256, there are 3 regions of contours. In the northern region, the 24 foot contour receded inward and changed diameter from 715ft to 30ft. The 30 foot contour receded inward approximately 650 feet and turned into 2 smaller regions distinguished by the 30 foot contour. In the central region, the 18 foot contour receded inward by approximately 275 feet and turned into multiple smaller regions distinguished by the 18 foot contour. The 24 foot contour receded inward approximately 560 feet inward and turned into numerous smaller regions distinguished by the 24 foot contour. There are two new small regions defined by the 24 foot contour to the northwest of the charted 24 foot contour. The 30 foot contour receded inward and changed diameter from 6075ft to 4075ft. On the southern region, the 30 foot contour receded inward and changed diameter from 1000ft to 50ft. Sounding Comparison Results: In general for H13256, the soundings are in moderate agreement with the chart. Soundings are generally within 1 to 9 feet from the chart, although there are some soundings that differ greater than 10 feet from the chart. Depth differences are not biased in any particular direction to support a systematic error. H13256 Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Overview file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Contour_Comparison.PNG H13256 Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Detailed View file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Contour_Comparison_1.PNG H13256 6ft, 18ft, 24ft and 30ft Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Detailed View file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Contour_Comparison_2.PNG H13256 Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Detailed View file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_Contour_Comparison_3.PNG H13256 Sounding Comparison (US4MI52M) (Soundings in US Survey feet) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13256_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13256_SoundingComparison.PNG No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. There were 6 charted features assigned to H13256. The assigned features are retained in the Final Feature File (FFF). Each feature in the FFF has been given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format 6XXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendations of each feature. Note: 4 assigned charted features were not included in the FFF following investigation requirements. There were no new features found in H13256. No shoals or potentially hazardous 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. 20 bottom samples were obtained in accordance with section 7.1 of the HSSD 2019 in areas designated by the feature object class springs (SPRING) in the Project Reference File (PRF). Detailed information and images of the bottom samples listed above 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 EX) Shoreline was not assigned in the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions or Statement of Work. There were 2 charted AtoNs assigned in H13256. Each feature was given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format 6XXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations of the feature. Note: All AtoNs were included in the number of charted features within section D.1.3. No overhead features exist for this survey. There were 4 charted submarine cables assigned in H13256. No exposed cables were found in the MBES data. The features were not included in the FFF following investigation requirements. No platforms exist for this survey. No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey. No abnormal seafloor and/or environmental conditions exist for this survey. No present or planned construction or dredging exist within the survey limits. No new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area. No new insets 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 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 Specifications and Deliverables, Field Procedures Manual, Letter Instructions, and all HSD Technical Directives. These data are adequate to supersede charted data in their common areas. This survey is complete and no additional work is required with the exception of deficiencies noted in the Descriptive Report. David Neff, C.H. Chief of Party 2019-10-31